Tag Archives: Nobel Prize

Economist is now practicing medicine?

Knock it off, Paul Krugman.

I get that you’re a smart fellow, Nobel laureate and all.

But your Nobel Prize is in economics, not medicine.

Why, then, are you trying to diagnose a supposedly “obvious” mental illness for the president of the United States?

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-trump-mentally-ill-2017-1

Krugman leans left in his economic theory. He opposes Trump at every conceivable level. Heck, so do I. So do most of those Americans who voted in the 2016 election.

But for crying out loud, Professor Krugman. You need not fire off tweets alleging something about which you have no knowledge.

Sure, the president is acting kind of goofy. He campaigned as a serious goofball. I get all of that.

No one, though, except a medical doctor is qualified to toss out assertions like the one Krugman has tossed. Not even if he is a smarty-pants economist.

Krugman comes to Obama's defense

Paul Krugman isn’t exactly an impartial observer of American politics.

He leans hard left. He writes for the New York Times and other publications. He’s also an Nobel prize-winning economist who knows a thing or three about economics.

He also has determined that Barack Obama has crafted one of the most successful presidencies in American history.

http://www.lovebscott.com/news/rolling-stone-names-president-obama-one-of-the-most-successful-presidents-in-american-history

Go figure that one, eh?

Well, I’ll await the judgment of more historians on the Obama presidency, which still has about 26 months left before he leaves the White House.

Krugman has written a lengthy essay in Rolling Stone in which he lays out his case for the success of President Obama’s time in office.

Here’s a small part of what Krugman has written:

“Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn’t deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it’s working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it’s much more effective than you’d think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.”

I get that Krugman has his critics. They sit on the opposite end of the political spectrum. They’re going to dismiss his assessment of Obama’s presidency through their own bias, contending that Krugman’s bias has tainted his own view.

Funny thing about bias. We always see it in others, never in ourselves.

I must acknowledge this much, even though it pains my friends on the right whenever we lefties bring it up: Barack Obama inherited a first-class financial and economic meltdown when he took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009. He took measures almost immediately to stop the free fall. The government pumped billions of dollars into bailing out auto manufacturers; it slapped important regulations on lending institutions that had loaned money to millions of Americans who couldn’t afford to pay the money back.

All of this drew stinging rebukes from Republicans, who didn’t offer any serious solutions of their own — except to say that the president’s initiatives would fail.

Health care? Oh yes. There’s that. As Krugman notes, the Affordable Care Act isn’t perfect, but it’s working.

I’ll look forward to reading the entire article. I’ll still hold my own final judgment on Barack Obama’s presidency. We need some time to take it all in.

A certain irony in this Peace Prize

Congratulations certainly are due the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the winner of the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.

OPCW won the award for its work in trying to rid Syria of the huge stockpile of chemicals, some of which it used Aug. 21 on its citizens.

The world should applaud the Nobel committee — although I personally was pulling for Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teenager who was shot by Taliban terrorists simply because she was attending school; Malala has taken her cause worldwide in promoting education and persuading the civilized world of the evil being perpetrated by the Taliban against women and girls.

But back to the OPCW.

There’s a certain irony in this organization getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/11/world/europe/nobel-opcw-dangers/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

The Nobel Prize is named after Alfred Nobel, a Swedish inventor. What do you suppose is his most famous invention? Nitroglycerin, which he combined with other chemicals to make an explosive more powerful than dynamite.

Nobel in effect is one of the fathers of weapons of mass destruction. Now the Peace Prize that carries his name is going to an organization dedicated to the eradication of a particularly heinous brand of WMD.

Of course, Nobel’s personal history matters not one bit and takes nothing at all from the honor that has gone to OPCW.

May the group take the $1.2 million it will receive and put it to good work to finish the job it has started.