Occasionally (believe it or not), I am compelled by a recognition of my vastly inadequatee expertise on the vast majority of topics to refrain from commenting (in writing, that is. I am [almost] always willing to verbalize my opinions) on a current event. This is usually motivated by my own irritation at others’ eagerness to remark on a current event despite being grossly unqualified to do so. So, upon hearing that Paul Krugman had received the Nobel Prize in econ, I had decided to keep my keyboard out of the matter. (Un?)fortunately, a friend—someone who has an uncanny ability to seek out things he thinks I might find distasteful and rub them in my face, but in a joshing, elbow-jabbing way—, via email, provoked me otherwise.
So, here’s what I think about Paul Krugman, Laureate.
I have no doubt Krugman is deserving of his Nobel. I really don’t have the background to judge his academic credentials or contribution to serious economics. And so I defer to the greater Economics Community which, in general, has a near diety-like reverential fondness for Krugman The Economist. I take them at their word (I’m not smart enough not to) and I am becoming a growing fan of Krugman’s body of work. I made the early mistake of confusing Krugman The Pundit for Krugman’s entire CV. Once I started reading some of his econ writings, I became an instant fan. On economics, Krugman is clear, thoughtful and entertaining. I would put some of his econ prose on par with Hawking’s Brief History of Time in its effectiveness at communicating complex ideas...enjoyably. He really is a great writer, writing in way that only incredibly bright thinkers can.
But the thing about Krugman is he long ago hung up his Economist Hat. Sure he is still an academic. But his Pundit Hat is the one he wears most often and most publically. And he has become a lightning rod for partisan conflict. And he does not shy away from some good old fashioned demagoguery at the expense of the opposition. And he’s become a go-to-guy for social democrats who are looking for someone with intellectual credentials to buttress their policy de jour.
So, there will be three major consequences of Krugman receiving the Nobel: (1) he will earn deserved recognition, (2) more people will be attracted to his message, and (3) he will receive a larger platform to speak his message. Personally, I think (1) is good and (2) and (3) are bad. Admittedly, this is personal view is largely because Krugman and I aren’t exactly ideological kin folk. But there are objective reason’s to think (2) and (3) are bad too. First, it doesn’t do much for the public’s understanding and appreciation for economics as a science if our most visible figure now spends a good deal of his time doing economic malpractice. At the very least it blurs the line between good economics and partisan punditry. Second, it doesn’t do much for the reputation of the Nobel Committee when they pick a highly controversial figure in the midst of an major election and at a time when we are approaching an apex in political volatility. The pick amounts to an implicit endorsement of Krugman’s politics and the Committee has already received some criticism for being political.
Now, you could argue that the Nobel Committee is so completely apolitical that the decision was completely independent of the political scene. This could very well be true. But it is still the case that Krugman’s pick will be interpreted by the lay-folks as an endorsement of his ideas AND this was entirely foreseeable. So, by ignoring Krugman’s pop-media status and political views, Nobel is responsible for the consequences when others’ associate the eminence of the Nobel Prize with Krugman The Pundit. It is some serious PR negligence. Even a good pick becomes bad when the timing is wrong…and Krugman certainly could have been given the nod later down the road.
I would extend this perspective to economists whose politics I agree with. There is a good chance Mankiw (I have the t-shirt!) will eventually get a Nobel, but it would be silly to pick Mankiw when the Bush Administration is still warm. (That being said, as an aside, part of Mankiw’s appeal is that he is refreshingly objective and non-partisan despite his clear interest in policy. Is anything “a tad too hyperbolic” for Krugman’s tastes?)
Wimbledon Wisdom
-
I recently ran across a graduation speech by the tennis great Roger
Federer. I especially appreciated this passage:
In the 1,526 singles matches I played...
1 day ago
.JPG)
.jpg)
