I know nothing about Paul Krugman’s economic research. I know that he’s a professor of economics at a good school, but there are many people like that and not all of them are Nobel candidates. Because I know nothing about his economic scholarship, I shall do like everybody else on the internet and judge his worthiness for the prize based on whether or not he agrees with me on politics.

This is how we resolve all scholarly disputes, you know.

The Nobel prizes for peace, economics, etc. are not for peace, economics, etc. That's just a smokescreen. The Nobel prizes are actually awarded for ideological political correctness with liberal socialist thought. All other considerations are secondary and at most are used only to split the difference between two leftists.

Which is why Milton Friedman, certainly no leftist, won the Nobel Prize in Economics, right? Hey, wait . . .

Don't be an idiot. Aside from the Peace Prize (which is definitely politically motivated, although considering it is about political achievements, it's hard to see how it wouldn't be), the actual prizes in the areas of the sciences and economics are generally given to those who represent the top in their respective fields and who make major contributions to the field. Friedman did exactly that, with Monetarism.

Of course, leftists can and sometimes do make major advances in science and the world order. It's a shame that the awards for their contributions are tainted by political perceptions.

Yes I know this is for economics not peace, but ever since that one was awarded I have seen pretty much all of them as politically motivated.

But the Nobel is not about political commentary. It is about his economic work. There are a number of people I disagree with politically, but who I think are outstanding in their respective areas. I enjoy Orson Scott Card's work. I think Mark Helprin (that's "Helprin", not Halperin) is one of the greatest writers in the modern era. William F. Buckley was also surely a great intellectual.

As to whether he actually deserves the Nobel, I have no idea. Likewise, I have no idea whether or not Friedman deserved his Nobel.

Also, I'm not claiming that there are not politics in the Nobels. I have no idea. I'm only claiming that it is perfectly possible for someone to deserve the Nobel, even if their political commentary sucks.

Like I said, I'm no economist - I think you got that part - and I never claimed to "seriously judge Krugman's economic work," but let's face it - he's in league with Maureen Dowd as a political commentator.

So with such an obvious track record in political and economic commentary driven by BDS, I repeat my original statement that I don't see how anyone can take the guy seriously.

Nor I'm afraid does anyone take the Nobels seriously anymore.

I'm no economist...

I suppose if you're no economist, then you're probably in no position to seriously judge Krugman's economic work in the first place. But, please, feel free to at least try to leave a more nuanced critique of his work with which you disagree instead of the usual conservative fallback of "liberal conspiracy."

It's been obvious for years that his positions on US economic policy have been driven by political ideology (and personal emotion) rather than serious analysis.

If there was any doubt that the Nobels were driven by ideology as well, this decision should maket that clear for all to see.

No, the only thing that's been obvious for years is the rightwing nuthouse's fondness for conspiracy theories to explain away everything that they disagree with.

If there was any doubt that the Nobels were driven by ideology as well, this decision should maket that clear for all to see.

If a google is 10 to the power of one hundred, and a googleplex is 10 to the power of a google, then we may find the word 'kroogle' to be an apt measure of the level of prissy insufferability that will soon be on display on the pages of the NYT. Unless we need 'kroogleplex', of course...