RE: [OPE] Paul Krugman wins Nobel

""Much of his popular work is disgraceful," said Daniel Klein, a professor
of economics at George Mason University, who this year wrote a
<http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/KleinBarlettCharacterIssuesJanuary2008.
pdf> comprehensive review of Mr. Krugman's body of Times columns. "He
totally omits all these major issues where the economics conclusion goes
against the feel-good
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democra
tic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org> Democratic Party ethos, which I think
he's really tended to pander to especially since writing for The New York
Times.""

Poor young Paul - attacked from both sides

michael

--------------------------------------------

Dr Michael Williams, BA, MSc, PhD

Mob +447906172655

Home tel +4423 80768641

P Help save paper - Do you need to print this email?

From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu [mailto:ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu]
On Behalf Of Jurriaan Bendien
Sent: 14 October 2008 17:25
To: OPE@lists.csuchico.edu
Subject: [OPE] Paul Krugman wins Nobel

Jerry,

I am taking a break from writing - here's a NYT clip though about Krugman's
achievement:

Mr. Krugman won the prize for his research, beginning in 1979, that
explained patterns of trade among countries, as well as what goods are
produced where and why.

Traditional trade theory assumes that countries are different and will
exchange only the kinds of goods that they are comparatively better at
producing - wine from France, for example, and rice from China.

This model, however, dating from
<http://www.econlib.org/library/Ricardo/ricP.html> David Ricardo's writings
of the early 19th century, was not reflected in the flow of goods and
services that Mr. Krugman saw in the world around him. He set out to explain
why worldwide trade was dominated by a few countries that were similar to
one another, and why a country might import the same kinds of goods it
exported.

In his model, many companies sell similar goods with slight variations.
These companies become more efficient at producing their goods as they sell
more, and so they grow. Consumers like variety, and pick and choose goods
from among these producers in different countries, enabling countries to
continue exchanging similar products. So some Americans buy Volkswagens and
some Germans buy Fords.

He developed this work further to explain the effect of transportation costs
<http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pictures/g-k/krugman/krugman-increasing_returns
_1991.pdf> on why people live where they live. His model explained under
what conditions trade would lead people or companies to move to a particular
region or to move away.

Mr. Krugman's work has been praised for its simplicity and practicality -
features economists are often criticized for ignoring.

"Some people think that something deep only comes out of great complexity,"
said <http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~obstfeld/> Maurice Obstfeld, an economics
professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who wrote a
<http://wps.aw.com/aw_krgmnobstf_interecon_8/> textbook on international
economics with Mr. Krugman. "Paul's great strength is to take something very
simple and make something new and very profound."

Mr. Krugman applied his skill at translating complex ideas into clear,
entertaining prose to his Times columns, which he began writing in 2000. In
recent years, in his column and a related blog on <http://nytimes.com>
nytimes.com, nearly everything about the Bush administration - from health
care policy to Iraq to "general incompetence" - has been the object of his
scorn.

Along the way, Mr. Krugman has come in for criticism himself from both
economists and lay readers.

"Much of his popular work is disgraceful," said Daniel Klein, a professor of
economics at George Mason University, who this year wrote a
<http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/KleinBarlettCharacterIssuesJanuary2008.
pdf> comprehensive review of Mr. Krugman's body of Times columns. "He
totally omits all these major issues where the economics conclusion goes
against the feel-good
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democra
tic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org> Democratic Party ethos, which I think
he's really tended to pander to especially since writing for The New York
Times."

 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/business/economy/14econ.html?_r=1&em&oref
=slogin>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/business/economy/14econ.html?_r=1&em&oref=
slogin

Ironically there are still many Marxists who hold to Ricardo's theory of
"comparative advantage" which Marx almost certainly rejected, and Ricardian
this theory is still mainfare in economics classes because it seems to
explain the benefits of trade and the division of labour (specialization).
But that is just to say that the real problem concerns the costs and
benefits of particular kinds of trade, and particular kinds of division of
labour (different ways of organising work). Obviously so long as we talk
about markets in general, trade in general, and the division of labour in
general, this problem will never be solved. But more about this some other
time.

Jurriaan

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1724 - Release Date: 14/10/2008
02:02

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue Oct 14 13:15:09 2008