Comments on: Krugman wins Economics Nobel

By: MickP

MickP — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:34:34 +0000

The last eight years in the US has been like a return to Reaganomics and the notorious ‘Laffer Curve’. It seems there’s no group more rich and powerful than the rich and powerful over there.

By: TerjeP

TerjeP — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:17:33 +0000

Based on what I have read of his work (admittedly limited to banking) Murry Rothbard is a loony. He arrives at some good conclusions (ie pro gold standard) via some very flawed reasoning. I think he is on balance bad for libertarianism.

By: jquiggin

jquiggin — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:55:28 +0000

Damocles, Snap! I just wrote this then saw yours

Sukrit, I downloaded Rothbard’s bibliography from the Mises site
http://www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp

and the suggestion that he published widely in academic journals is quite simply wrong. He wrote a couple of notes in the AER in 1951 and a handful in less high-powered places thereafter.

The great majority of his (admittedly voluminous) output was in libertarian house journals, books by libertarian presses and the like.

By: Damocles

Damocles — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:19:17 +0000

A quick examination of Rothbard’s bibliography such that his scholarly publications consist of a smattering of reviews, two articles in American Economics Review and a handful of book chapters – unless you want to count “Libertarian forum” and “Free Man” as academic journals.

By: Uncle Milton

Uncle Milton — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:09:35 +0000

On a parochial note, while Krugman’s prize is richly deserved, the scientific background on his work, published on the Nobel prize web site, contains references to papers by four Australian economists (5 if you count a New Zealander who has been here for decades).

Two of them, Murray Kemp and Max Corden, are worthy contenders themselves for their work in international economics.

By: Damocles

Damocles — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:07:47 +0000

Assuming the Economic prize follows the same rules as the Nobels, Von mises was only eligible from 1969 until his death in 1973.

Also, I’d always understood that while the Sveriges Bank sponsors the award, the bulk of the money for running it and the prizes themslves came from right-wing American sources – hence the early dominanceof the award by Chicago School members.

By: Sukrit

Sukrit — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:32:47 +0000

I was under the impression that Rothbard was taken seriously as an economist. Usually when people have a PhD in economics (as he did, from Columbia University), and publish widely in academic journals, that automatically qualifies them to be “taken seriously”.

You shouldn’t take anything I say about economics seriously, as I’ve never taken economics at university. But Rothbard? Of course you should take him seriously.

By: Sukrit

Sukrit — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:30:06 +0000

John, you’re probably right. Libertarian economists in general are in the minority, and Austrian economists (a more radical bunch) are even more marginal. That probably explains it.

But then, one might argue that the Nobel Prize is merely picking the best of “mainstream” economics, and perhaps not truly the most innovative work. They have to play it safe by picking someone from the mainstream, to maintain the credibility of the award in the eyes of the economics profession (thus even Hayek was a risky choice).

By: jquiggin

jquiggin — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:21:09 +0000

A far more plausible explanation is that von Mises (who died in 1973) was regarded, by mainstream economists in general as being far less eminent than the economists who won the prize while he was in contention and that Rothbard is not taken seriously at all as an economist. To the extent that anyone pays attention to his work, it’s as a political philosopher.

Similarly, the proportion of critics of central banking who have won the prize is not surprising given that this position is about as marginal as Marxism. I don’t think any Marxist/Marxian economists have won the prize, but I don’t attribute this to the fact that bankers don’t like Marxists.

By: Sukrit

Sukrit — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:01:41 +0000

Is Hayek the only critic of central banking to win the prize? Friedman was a very moderate critic, as he didn’t want to switch to a gold standard, free banking or some of the more radical propositions by the Austrian economists (correct me if I’m wrong). So maybe he doesn’t count as a critic.