By KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers;
Paul Krugman, the Princeton University scholar, New York Times columnist and unabashed liberal, won the Nobel prize in economics Monday for his analysis of how economies of scale can affect international trade patterns.
Krugman has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration and the Republican Party in The New York Times, where he writes a regular column and has a blog called "Conscience of a Liberal."
He has also taken the Bush administration to task over the current financial meltdown, blaming its pursuit of deregulation and unencumbered fiscal policies for the financial crisis that has threatened the global economy with recession.
Perhaps better known as a columnist than an economist to the public, Krugman has also come out forcefully against John McCain during the economic meltdown, saying the Republican presidential candidate is "more frightening now than he was a few weeks ago." Krugman (pronounced KROOG-man) also has derided the Republicans as becoming "the party of stupid."
Tore Ellingsen, a member of the prize committee, acknowledged that Krugman was an "opinion maker" but added that he was honored on the merits of his economic research, not his political commentary.
"We disregard everything except for the scientific merits," Ellingsen told The Associated Press.
The 55-year-old American economist was the lone winner of the 10 million kronor ($1.4 million) award and the latest in a string of American researchers to be honored. It was only the second time since 2000 that a single laureate won the prize, which is typically shared by two or three researchers.
Not one to tone down his opinions, Krugman has compared the current financial crisis to the devastation of the 1930s.
"We are now witnessing a crisis that is as severe as the crisis that hit Asia in the 90's. This crisis bears some resemblance to the Great Depression," Krugman told reporters Monday.
But he was optimistic that a global effort aimed at stemming the financial blood loss had taken root.
"I'm slightly less terrified today than I was on Friday," he said, referring to the weekend crisis talks among European leaders that led to the nationalization of British banks, unlimited access to U.S. dollars to banks worldwide and efforts to stave off a global recession.
In contrast to his treatment of U.S. officials, Krugman has praised Britain 's financial leaders for their nimble response to the credit crisis.
In a column Monday in the New York Times, Krugman wrote that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling "defined the character of the worldwide rescue effort, with other wealthy nations playing catch-up."
Whereas U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson at first rejected giving financial institutions more money in return for a share of ownership, the British government "went straight to the heart of the problem ... with stunning speed," he wrote.
"And whaddya know," Krugman continued, "Mr. Paulson - after arguably wasting several precious weeks - has also reversed course, and now plans to buy equity stakes rather than bad mortgage securities."
The U.S. administration would not comment Monday on whether President George W. Bush would invite Krugman to the White House as is custom with American Nobel laureates.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences praised Krugman for formulating a new theory to answer questions about free trade and said his theory had inspired an enormous field of research.
"What are the effects of free trade and globalization? What are the driving forces behind worldwide urbanization? Paul Krugman has formulated a new theory to answer these questions," the academy said in its citation.
"He has thereby integrated the previously disparate research fields of international trade and economic geography," it said.
The award, known as the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, is the last of the six Nobel prizes announced this year and is not one of the original Nobels. It was created in 1968 by the Swedish central bank in Alfred Nobel's memory.
In addition to his work as an economist at Princeton University in New Jersey , where he has been since 2000, Krugman has written for Foreign Affairs, the Harvard Business Review and Scientific American, among other publications.
He graduated with a bachelor's degree from Yale in 1974 and received a Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. Besides teaching at Yale and MIT, he also taught at Stanford.
Krugman said winning the Nobel award won't change his approach to research and writing.
"I'm a great believer is continuing to do work," he told reporters. "I hope that two weeks from now I'm back to being pretty much the same person I was before."
Krugman's work on new trade theory also garnered him the John Bates Clark medal from the American Economic Association in 1991. That prize is given every two years to an economist under the age of 40.
The Nobel citation said Krugman's approach is based on the premise that many goods and services can be produced at less cost in a long series, a concept known as economies of scale. His research showed the effects of that on trade patterns.
"Trade theory, like much of economics, used to be discussed in the context of perfect competition: thousands of farmers and thousands of customers meeting in a market," with supply and demand governing prices, said Avinash Dixit, a Princeton professor and economist who specializes in trade theory.
Gradually, people began to realize that conditions in the market were less than perfect, and the small number of companies in some industries had economies of scale that changed the trade equation.
"Krugman was the main person who brought all the theory together, recognized its importance to the real world (and) produced a large expansion of international trade theory," Dixit said.
Krugman introduced his trade theory in 1979 in a 10-page article in the Journal of International Economics.
It posited that because consumers want a diversity of products, and because economies of scale make production cheaper, multiple countries can build a product such as cars. A nation like Sweden can build its own car brands for both export and sale at home, while also importing cars from other countries.
The article also outlined a new theory of economic geography. Krugman's idea was that if two countries were alike but one had a larger population, real wages would be somewhat higher in the more populous country because companies there could make better use of economies of scale, creating a greater diversity of goods, lower prices, or both.
Because this enhances the welfare of consumers in that country, its population would increase as more people moved there, which would lead to additional increases in real wages.
Krugman is not the first Nobel economics winner to be a familiar name.
Paul Samuelson, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who won the prize in 1970, and the late Milton Friedman, longtime University of Chicago professor who won in 1976, were both columnists for Newsweek magazine for many years.
Friedman, who died in 2006, also was known for his PBS TV series "Free to Choose" in the United States , while Samuelson, 98, wrote an economics textbook used by millions of college students.
The Nobel Prizes in medicine, chemistry, physics, literature and economics will be handed out in Stockholm by Sweden 's King Carl XVI on Dec. 10, the anniversary of prize founder Alfred Nobel's death in 1896. The Nobel Peace Prize is handed out in Oslo , Norway , on the same date.
Associated Press writers Malin Rising in Stockholm , Geoff Mulvhill in Mount Laurel , New Jersey , Polly Anderson in New York and AP Business Writer Ellen Simon in New York contributed to this report.




Comments: 25
Thanks for sharing a wonderful article, Carla.
He may have the degree, and folks at NYT and the ambitious collectivists at the Nobel prize committee may be pleased to call him an economist; but he is, in reality, an "economist" only in the same sense that Miss Cleo is an astronomer; or in the sense that Judge Judy is a legal theorist.
He's a charlatan, on the same ethical level as a swindling "psychic advisor" who pretends to read palms and tell fortunes using Tarot cards.
If Paul Krugman is really an economist, who deals in economic reality in his partisan screeds; then it should logically follow that the state of natural scarcity that humankind is forced to deal with can be vanquished by government fiat; which is exactly what the bare substance of the sum of Krugman's postulates would infer.
Could you tell me what causes the business cycle? what causes recessions? could you give me a coherent response, in less than 30 words, if I asked you What is the social function that the price system serves?
Could you describe for me what are the indirect, long-term effects of minimum wage laws? of commodity price-fixing laws? of central bank interest-rate manipulation? of protectionist tariffs?
Do you know what distinguishes fractional-reserve banking from free banking? Could you tell me the difference between the economic effects of a commodity money standard as opposed to a fiat money system?
Could you give me your opinion on the central bank system? Is it advantageous, or detrimental, to the economic welfare of the general public? Do you believe it is necessary? If so; why?
If you could coherently respond to anything I've just written, then I'll at least concede that perhaps I shouldn't disregard your opinions on the subject as just so much thoughtless garble.
Those two are equivalent to asking a physicist to explain the principle that unifies electromagnetism, gravity, the strong force, and the weak force.
Some of the others like the minimum wage and protective tariffs are the subject of disagreement among economists.
I don't know the answers to any of them. OTOH I'm not sure economists do either.
The infusion of inflationary money and credit into the economy has the dual effect of raising the nominal price of higher-order goods, creating an illusion of increased demand in localized sectors of the economy, and at the same time artificially lowering interest rates (as the expanded supply of credit gives the illusion that there is a greater supply of genuine savings available for capital investment than there really is).
These two factors combine to create bouts of malinvestment. Entrepreneurs, taking the artificially-lowered interest rates into account in their calculations, view certain projects as viable based on the apparent profitability according to the current rate of interest. In other words, masses of business owners/managers and investors are misled into believing that there is sufficient capital available to underwrite potential projects and expansions, because of the artificially reduced interest rate (which ideally is a market signal indicating the current conditions regarding supply and demand for advanced capital).
But alas, the resources did not really exist; ultimately all investments must be underwritten by what is genuinely saved by the public. Eventually the reality of the true conditions on the market become evident, and it becomes evident that some projects were undertaken for which there was no underlying justification (i.e., there was not sufficient consumer demand for those goods or services to justify the allocation of scarce economic resources to their production). This is when the "boom" phase of cycle ends, and the "bust" begins. The market attempts to liquidate the malinvestment, and certain commodity and/or asset prices (which were artificially inflated due to the expanded supply of money and credit; hence the term "bubble") must be brought back down to reality.
What we know of as "recession" is simply market forces trying to correct, by driving inflated prices down to a realistic level reflective of actual conditions of supply and demand, and to otherwise liquidate bad debt and malinvestment.
"the minimum wage and protective tariffs are the subject of disagreement among economists."
Not among actual real economist. Any economist who knows his ass from his elbow will tell you that any arbitrary third-party interference with the natural tendency toward equilibrium inherent in the market-economy price system, is a surefire recipe for disturbances, shortages, and misallocation of scarce resources.
I don't think economics has come up with a definitive answer to those questions in the scientific sense of being able to predict the outcome of economic situations within a reasonably defined margin of error.
I'm willing to agree to differ.
However, my opinion isn't "colored" by any such "assumption" as you ascribe. I know the free market is better, because I've put enough effort into actually learning about the things I think are important.
Government planners will always suffer from a serious information deficit. As F.A. Hayek (a real economist who won the Nobel in 1974) put it: "the knowledge of the circumstances of which they [government planners] must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess."
In short; the free workings of the market economy's price/profit-and-loss mechanism is the only viable way to channel the allocation of scarce resources to those areas where they are most urgently demanded and desired by the mass of consumers -- each of whom is making judgments according to their own subjective valuations, and not according to any predictable model that can be rationally or efficiently anticipated and acted upon by politicians or bureaucrats.
To say that government needs to arbitrarily intervene in this process -- to "regulate" -- as a well-armed and monopolized consumer protection advocate; is to imply that we are all like children who need to be protected by the benevolent and disinterested political class; that we cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions; that we would constantly fall victim to cheats, frauds, quacks, and peddlers of hazardous products, over and over again, without ever figuring out which firms are reliable and responsible; because we are all so stupid and bureaucrats are all so benign.
You may buy that line of thinking; not I.
The US put - and kept - a venal moron in the White House for eight years.
Using fraud, he launched a war that will cost US taxpayers at least $3 trillion.
As if that weren't enough, the "creative financing" he employed to pay for the war now threatens to destroy the US financial system.
Not just cause a recession, but destroy the US financial system.
This is not my opinion...it's the opinion of the former president of the World Bank and a Nobel Prize winner in economics...
This was recorded over six months ago.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/442.html
I can criticize Krugman because I've taken the time to learn enough about economics to know that Krugman's a fraud; a Marxist ideologue pretending to be an objective man of science. Even when he takes off his partisan hack hat, and pretends to be an economist, his theories are all founded upon Keynesian neo-mercantilist fallacies, which have been thoroughly debunked and destroyed by some of the greatest economic minds the world has ever known.
In any case, I might just as well question you as to your qualifications to call my criticism into question?
You are the one who wrote the article praising Krugman. I assert that Krugman is a fraud whose postulates are grounded in ideological dogma, and not sound economic science.
The difference is that I can coherently defend my position; you cannot.
"The US put - and kept - a venal moron in the White House for eight years."
Agreed. But seems to me more like a cogent argument against the merits of the sacred cow we call "democracy," than anything else.
"This is not my opinion...it's the opinion of the former president of the World Bank and a Nobel Prize winner in economics..."
Any half-baked moron can see that George Bush is a tyrant and a criminal. Recognition of that does not amount to sound economic/political philosophy.
If you're asserting that the disaster that is the Bush Administration is in any way even remotely a reflection of the validity of free-market economics? please...
And what is your theory about economics, Joe? Do you even have any theories based on rational anlysis, or do you just have some purely emotionally-based ideas that you've picked up from politicians and pundits?
"Republicans are hanging on to the theory that an unregulated market creates a healthy economy."
Suuuuure. You believe that one; I have some prime real estate crossing the East River I'd like to sell you.
Your problem is that you believe the empty rhetoric and platitudes that Republican politicians use to mollify their economically-oblivious "base" are actually their true convictions, that they intend to act upon.
To my knowledge, there is only one member of the national government who actually understands economic principles, and is a true advocate of free markets; and that's Congressman Ron Paul. All the rest like to talk about the ideals of liberty and free markets; but it's only so much empty words. The massive and ever-increasing apparatus of political interventionism into our economy is testament to that fact.
"The truth is something different and the past eight years have proved the point."
Are you trying to be a comedian? or just completely clueless?
What exactly has the Bush Administration to advocate or facilitate free markets? Name just one single thing.
You can't. And not just because you (apparently) have no idea what would even constitute "free markets," either; you can't because George Bush has been just as big an economic interventionist than any president before him; just as was Reagan, Eisenhower, or Herbert Hoover, as well.
"In the future, consider that conservative ideas have been tried and they were found wanting."
Okay; but how about this: In the future, consider that free market economics is obviously not included in the repertiore of "conservative ideas," so you cannot claim that free-market ideas have been "found wanting," simply because WE HAVE NOT HAD FREE MARKETS.
"We are in the middle of a serious recession."
Yep. So what happened? Well, first, the state-created and -sanctioned central banking cartel -- with their politically-created monopoly over the nation's supply of money and credit -- injected massive amounts of inflationary money and credit into the economy, consequently leading to an artificial "boom," which necessarily, inevitably always must lead to a corresponding "bust," the likes of which become more severe according to the severity of the preceding interventionism.
The federal government passed laws that facilitated the extending of credit for mortgages to people who not have qualified for loans under normal, free-market conditions. The result was the characteristic, inevitable malinvestment that always accompanies inflation, was channeled to the housing sector -- real estate prices became the subject of an artificial asset bubble. Market forces, as they always do, uncovered the truth behind the real conditions of supply and demand in the economy, and the housing bubble burst.
Bankers, who ostensibly control our federal government, were stuck with probably trillions of dollars worth of apparently far overvalued assets. Instead of suffering the consequences of their ownh behavior, and the consequences inherent in the fractional-reserve banking system that they sustain through the force of government, they had Congress rob the American public so that they wouldn't have to accept fair market value for the assets that they themselves purchased on their own free will.
Who to blame for all this?
Free markets, of course!
What a joke. Give me a break, would you?
When, Joe? When has deregulation been "proven false?"
Again; you're making assumptions based on pervasive fallacy. Republicans do not, and have not ever, had the "philosophy of deregulation."
They preach deregulation. But what we always end up getting is reregulation.
You're just simply mimicking the bullshit they spew on netwrok news stations and such; that Republicans are the party of "free enterprise."
The truth is that we don't have, and have never had, a true system of free enterprise.
If you took a little time out of your busy life to learn something about economics, you would realize this.
"Industry continually proves that it is not willing or able to police itself."
Well, when government stifles or removes every mechanism inherent in the market economy to establish consumer sovereignty, effectively removing every method that the consuming public might have had to punish mismanagement and fraud -- all through their vast network of so-called "regulations" -- what else should one expect?
When the government makes nearly every important industry and trade in this country the subject of a state-sanctioned cartel, how should we expect those industries and trades to operate? When the barriers to entry into nearly every industry are artificially heightened, and entry into every enterprise is arbitrated by those with every incentive to keep competition out, what would you expect to happen?
When the government creates and sanctions a central banking cartel, for the purpose of instituting and sustaining the inherently-insolvent scam called "fractional-reserve" banking, and gives it monopoly privileges over the entire supply of money and credit for whole nation; how could one expect anything else but pervasive and widespread plunder and fraud?
Go ahead and blame "unregulated free market," if you want Joe. But you're lashing out at phantoms, and meanwhile giving a free pass to the real culprit: political interventionism into the economy.
And this is one reason why you are not an economist. The others are because you're another Mises religion follower, conspiracy theorizing, fiat money is the cause of all problems history revisionist.