Jonathan Rose: The Incredible HOLC
Offers You Can't Refuse: Henry Paulson Edition

Crooked Timber Is Having a Contest!

Henry Farrell writes:

The Name of This Band is Exploding Heads: As Kieran notes in comments below, the comments thread to Tyler Cowen’s (perfectly reasonable) Krugman post is pretty hilarious. But given Krugman’s place of pride in the wingnut demonology, I’m sure that this is only a mere scraping of what’s out there on the Internets today. It furthermore occurs to me that someone (i.e. Me) should do a comments thread to collate and conserve the very bestest blogposts and comments on the Vast Nobel Prize Conspiracy.

Also Kathy G.

Here are my first nine:

  1. Powerline: Special John Hinderaker 8 August 2005: It must be depressing to be Paul Krugman. No matter how well the economy performs, Krugman’s bitter vendetta against the Bush administration requires him to hunt for the black lining in a sky full of silvery clouds. With the economy now booming, what can Krugman possibly have to complain about? In today’s column, titled That Hissing Sound, Krugman says there is a housing bubble, and it’s about to burst.... There are, of course, obvious differences between houses and stocks. Most people own only one house at a time, and transaction costs make it impractical to buy and sell houses the way you buy and sell stocks. Krugman thinks the fact that James Glassman doesn’t buy the bubble theory is evidence in its favor, but if you read Glassman’s article on the subject, you’ll see that he actually makes some of the same points that Krugman does. But he argues, persuasively in my view, that there is little reason to fear a catastrophic collapse in home prices. Krugman will have to come up with something much better, I think, to cause many others to share his pessimism.

  2. Volokh Conpiracy: derut: Excellent. He was a pseudo Nobel prize. That he deserves. As his politics is pseudoscientific. Great. Now I can applaude. I am sure many of you have watched him on cable networks. Has anyone else noticed he seems a little off. He speaks like a mouse and his beady eyes have a strange stare. He looks like if someone droped a glass he would scream.

  3. Volokh Conspiracy: EricPWJohnson: Milton Friedmans work completely and totally debunks all of Krugmans – the committee noted Friedmans achievements in advising world leaders and seeing the positive results his theories had when actually used – Krugman was awarded a prize for calling someone stupid since late 2000. Friedman may also win a real Nobel prize in the future in Mathematics – something that Krugman is lacking sorely in his 1911 model T 10 pager with static labor, demand and other – almost impossible to forecast in the real world -variables.

  4. Donald Luskin: The Nobel Prize is never posthumous—it is only awarded to living persons. So some great minds such as John Maynard Keynes and Fischer Black never received the prize in Economics. All that has changed. With today’s award to Paul Krugman, the Nobel as gone to an economist who died a decade ago. The person alive to receive the award is merely a public intellectual, a person operating in the same domain as Oprah Winfrey. And even as a public intellectual, the prize is inappropriate, because never before has a scientist operating in the capacity of a public intellectual so abused and debased the science he purports to represent. Krugman’s New York Times column drawing on economics is the equivalent of 2006’s Nobelists in Physics, astromers Mather and Smoot, doing a column on astrology—and then, in that column, telling lies about astronomy. But what’s done is done. The only question now is whether Krugman will pay taxes on the prize at the low rates enabled by the Bush tax cuts he has done so much to discredit, or if he will volunteer to pay taxes at higher rates he considers more fair.

  5. Daniel Klein: Much of his popular work is disgraceful. He totally omits all these major issues where the economics conclusion goes against the feel-good Democratic Party ethos, which I think he’s really tended to pander to especially since writing for The New York Times. {Note: Background on Daniel Klein: especially his claim that he is opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was and is bad for African-Americans.}

  6. Greg Mankiw: To learn more about the newest laureate, you can read... [Daniel Klein's] analysis of his op-ed pieces.

  7. Roger Kimball But today we have yet another illustration of Marx’s revision of Hegel’s version of the progress of history: things happen as it were twice: first as tragedy (Arafat) then as farce–witness this year’s Nobel Laureate for economics: Paul Krugman. Yes, that Paul Krugman, laughing stock (well, one of them) of The New York Times’s editorial: the anti-capitalist, anti-American town crier whose hysterical maunderings about the economy and American society were embarrassing before they went entirely off the reservation and became merely part of the ambient left-wing static emanating from The New York Times. Krugman is not just a left-wing academic economist. He is a hard-left activist whose only claim on our attention is as a bellwether of a certain species of anti-American demagoguery. Well, one must laugh to keep from crying. Meanwhile, Krugman will be $1.4 million richer–unless, of course, Barack Obama should be elected and start nosing around that “windfall” profit. That is not–not by a long shot–enough to make me wish for an Obama presidency, but it would be a pleasing consolation prize. [UPDATE: It occurs to me on reflection that it would have been much more appropriate had the Nobel Prize Committee, since they were determined to honor a fantasist like Krugman, awarded him the Nobel Prize for Literature. I mean, he work is not more unreadable than many recent Nobel Laureates in literature, and it is just as untruthful.]

  8. Rob Taylor: How shocking. An American hating Soros toady endorsed by The Communist Party U.S.A. wins the Nobel Prize. It’s almost as if the committee has a political agenda...

  9. Jonah Goldberg teamed with an Anonymous Coward: Krugman couldn’t be more different. He routinely fudges facts and, when called on it, refuses to admit error. He never presents both sides of an argument dispassionately and then uses reason and observed experience to discern the truth. He consistently demonizes anyone who doesn’t agree with him. His shrill, hysterical voice trivializes honest differences and invites counter-attack rather than reasoned rebuttal. Plus he’s not even well-informed on many issues that fall outside his academic specializations. I know the Nobel committee doesn’t judge entirely on the basis of someone’s career, but Krugman’s Nobel should make them rethink this. He continues to use his NYTimes column in a way that diminishes the intellectual standards of his field. This does significant, long-run harm to what the Nobel Committee calls “Economic Sciences,” perhaps entirely offsetting the value of Krugman’s academic contributions.

But I want 10!

Nominations for a tenth? I want it to be something really special--totally unhinged.