Links With Your Coffee - Monday
- American Paul Krugman wins Nobel - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com
- Jesus and Mo » Solve the problem of evil
- Anti-democratic nature of US capitalism is being exposed - Noam Chomsky
- YouTube - Sean Hannity Flips His Lid on Live TV (best part about 3 minutes in) tip to Jonathan
- FRAMESHOP:McCain Volunteers Taught to Accuse Obama of Terrorism by Jeffrey Feldman(tip to Joel)
- Doris Kearns Goodwin on learning from past presidents | Video on TED.com
- Sarah In Wonderland » Mad Kane's Political Madness
- Can you judge my book if it has no cover?
- Times Higher Education - By the blog: academics tread carefully
- The Science of Gossip: Why We Can't Stop Ourselves: Scientific American
- Maverick? No, branded. — Listics
- Misrepresenting Naturalism
- And then there's this making the rounds on the "Internets":
If you had purchased $1,000 of AIG stock one year ago, you would have $42 left.
With Lehman, you would have $6.60 left.
With Fannie or Freddie, you would have less than $5 left.
But... if you had purchased $1,000 worth of beer one year ago, drank all of the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminum recycling REFUND, you would have had $214.
Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.
It's called the 401-Keg.....
Comments
Looks like great links I don't have time to read right now but quickly - ohmigosh - the Republicans must be flipping over Krugman. They hated Jimmy Carter for getting the Nobel Prize and Al Gore and now Krugman who they just despise....
Nah, we think it's funny. It's kinda like Libya chairing the UN Commission on Human Rights...
If by "kinda" you mean "not really".
I've not seen substantive criticism by any economist of Krugman's academic merits for this award.
Instead, I read a few claims that while Krugman may be in the pool of potential Nobel laureates, his nomination was a) premature and b) odd, given that his work was done in collaboration with other economists who did not share the award. From here, the conclusion is drawn that the decision was politically motivated, influenced by his op-ed writings as a liberal columnist for the NY Times.
(Pundits, on the other hand, who are not economists, see an attempt by elitist Europeans to meddle in US affairs by legitimizing some liberal pinko commie socialist NY Times propogandist for his unpatriotic attacks on our troops in Iraq and American free-market ideals -- and just before an election! But hey, they get paid to say that.)
At best, this is a well-deserved award to one of the world's most widely read economists.
At worst, this is a premature and only somewhat-deserved award to one of the world's most widely read economists.
So your analogy is flawed.
Anyway, I was personally hoping for Nobel Laureate Jim Cramer. That would be kinda like Phil Gramm chairing the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs!
Yes - I'm sure it is the fault of the European elite meddling in an elite award...
How has the right taken to their man Brooks's recent column, BTW?
I'm not a fan of Brooks but I thought this was pretty amazing for him to say. (And the loss of the bankers was pretty funny....)
I don't know about other conservatives, but I think Brooks is watching 'elite' New York Times writers around him dropping like flies, and desperately wants to keep his job. You don't bite the hand that feeds you ;)
That doesn't quite make sense since his position there (and at PBS) is as a conservative and, if things are crashing and burning and the Sulzberger's want to sell and rake in the dough like the Bancroft's with the WSJ did with Murdoch (paying way over the value), why would they want to get rid of a credible conservative voice. And, are you saying you disagree with what he said or his facts? Just curious. (Are you from Lee's Summit, Syngas?)
I don't think anybody would want to buy that sinking ship. I wonder what PBS will be like when we have an overwhelming Democrat majority in congress, and Obama as president.
I think of political donations as bribes. Clearly Brooks thinks of them as support.
Why would anyone be surprised that the party of lawyers, by lawyers, and for lawyers gets tons of money from lawyers?
In light of what just happened with Fannie and Freddie, why would anyone be surprised bankers donate more money to the party that made them very, very rich?
College professors? Are you kidding me? When have they ever been conservative?
Yes, I live in Lee's Summit.
Ah - Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Oh - I have fond thoughts about Lee's Summit. I dealt with a great animal rescue there - Furry Kids.
Micro targeting at its worst. Republicans will soon have limited themselves to wealthy idiots that can't do enough math to see republicans are lying through their teeth about every economic policy and religious fanaticcs that are two stupid to see their "conservative" leaders don't share their views in the least.
I only wish Hagel or Warner were sticking around to help for a Conservative party that actually said what it believed and had a real point of view that could be debated in the public square.
Instead we are left with liars and idiots.
Reagan Quayle, Bush, Palin
Progressively stupid people running progressively more fraudulent party.
I think 99.9% of critics and cheerleaders for Krugman's Nobel prize will not have the faintest idea of what he has (or hasn't) accomplished in his field to merit (or not merit) the prize.
As for Krugman's public record as a critic of conservative economic policy - well, if I were a "conservative" these days, I'd days I'd think a long time before criticizing Krugman. But then, we've noticed that "conservatives" seem to have little shame about their choice of political representatives.
Krugman wins the Nobel, I guess O'Reilly's 'Pinheads and Patriots' segment will feature this. Is the Polk more prestigious than the Nobel?
Na, that would be more like giving the Nobel Prize to Phil Gramm.
Chomsky is on point as always.
"I'm not a fan of Brooks but I thought this was pretty amazing for him to say. (And the loss of the bankers was pretty funny....)"
I'd love to believe Brooks, but I'm not sure what he means and in one sense he's wrong. If you look at college graduates in the electorate in the past generation, Democrats have consistently underperformed with them by 2-4 points in every presidential election. Yes, it's almost impossible for the smartest, most visible conservatives who aren't shills to defend the Bush-Palin brand. But my guess is that Obama will get about the same percentage of college graduates as he does from the electorate as a whole, at best.
As Brooks should know better than anyone on this entire planet, a lot of the voters who buy into this folksy b.s. about simple working class folk are well-off college educated elites like Brooks himself. They don't seem to be driven away by vulgar, empty populism at all. He's written two whole books making fun of white people from his own class who happen to be liberal. The attacking of "Eastern elites" is done by Eastern elites themselves and appeals to Eastern elites who want to be absolved from their elitism through conservatism. There's nothing more bourgeois than the horror of the bourgeois.
The Krugman Nobel reminds me of his exchange with O'Reilly, where the latter called Krugman a "quasi-socialist". One of the funniest O'Reilly clips I can think of.
Post a comment