4 ms·

> Not talking about (fake) Nobel prices of Economy that do not exist but have managed to buy themselves some recognition because the money printing of central b

> Not talking about (fake) Nobel prices of Economy that do not exist but have managed to buy themselves some recognition because the money printing of central bankers. Name one Nobel prize winner in economics with whom you disagree the awarding and explain your disagreement. Otherwise your comment can be dismissed as another vapid "I disagree with the economics Nobel because the economic science sometimes disagree with my preferred political ideology".

mkl 9y ago
There are technically no Nobel Prize winners in economics. I think that's what the comment was talking about. The economics prize is not a Nobel Prize as established by Alfred Nobel, it is the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences [1], established in 1968 by the Swedish National Bank. It is grouped with the others and awarded in the same ceremony, however. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...
- VHRanger 9y ago
  Sure, but he was trying to delegitimize the highest honor in a field of study. The economics Nobel is functionally equivalent to the Fields medal or Turing award, regardless of Alfred Nobel's original intent. The point is the poster above was trying to diminish the field of study's legitimacy. Reading between the lines of his post he was doing so because of his political leanings, not because he disagreed with any particular contribution of a economics Nobelist's contribution to human knowledge. We should aspire to be above of such toxic ideologism.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    shrugs I think we should aspire to be above reading between the lines. When we do so, we tend to see that which we want to see, regardless of the author's intent.
  - yyyyip 9y ago
    Why can't he, or I, diminishing the legitimacy of economics? If someone had made up a fake Nobel prize in psychology I would diminishing the legitimacy of that too. The field of economics is far, far less rigorous than any of the hard sciences for which Nobel prizes are awarded. The fake Nobel prize for economics is strongly disputed by much of the Nobel family, Keynes, and it makes economists act more blowhard, self-congratulatory and self-important than they already do. I say this as someone spends a fair chunk of my time reading economics books and blogs.
    - apoorvkumar 9y ago
      > I say this as someone spends a fair chunk of my time reading economics books and blogs. Them credentials!
      - yyyyip 9y ago
        :rolleyes: ok Apoorv, if you want credentials, here's Hayek's speech agreeing with me. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/la...
        VHRanger 9y ago
        OK, and what Nobelist you think carries to much political power because of his award? Paul Krugman? Joe Stiglitz? Matter of fact turned out to be that politicians and laymen only listen to the economics they want to hear, Nobel or not.
        apoorvkumar 9y ago
        Interesting read. Thanks for sharing that. I read Nobel in Economics as 'Nobel in maths (largely statistical optimization) and behavioural psychology'. I personally believe the field adds significant value to society. That said, I do think the award is rather liberally given away. We credit scientists only when their theories test out in practice with sufficient evidence whereas we are more willing to give economists a pass in the name of 'not enough data' or 'valid under certain conditions' . I think we should award only the fundamental time tested truths (statistical or otherwise) which are so entrenched in the way of the world that its discovery has little or no bearing on its exact function. This would award Nash/Selten but not Merton/Scholes. The basic option pricing ended up being just a bunch of really cool but limited equations which tend to be self fulfilling prophecies until when they don't.
JorgeGT 9y ago
I think the best argument against a Nobel Prize in Economics was made, precisely, by one of its recipients, Friedrich August von Hayek, during the 1974 ceremony [1]: > I must confess that if I had been consulted whether to establish a Nobel Prize in economics, I should have decidedly advised against it.[...] the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess. > This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. > But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally. > There is no reason why a man who has made a distinctive contribution to economic science should be omnicompetent on all problems of society - as the press tends to treat him till in the end he may himself be persuaded to believe. That behavior which he describes... sounds like any Nobel Prize in Economics you know? --- [1] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-speech.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/la...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
kilotaras 9y ago
I have the advantage of hindsight but this quote comes from Robert E Lucas Jr, 5 years before great recession. > macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded: Its central problem of depression prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes [0] [0] http://www.sfu.ca/~kkasa/lucas.pdf http://www.sfu.ca/~kkasa/lucas.pdf
- VHRanger 9y ago
  Well he's still sort of right. The 2008 shock was legitimately more intense than the 1929 one and we came out of it with a "mere recession" instead of the horrors of the 1930s. This is largely due to what the US fed did in response (the US gov. fiscal stimulus probably helped some but not on the same scale). Luckily the fed was headed by Ben Bernanke, one of the most erudite scholars of the Great Depression at the time the world economy was hanging on by a thread.

mkl 9y ago

There are technically no Nobel Prize winners in economics. I think that's what the comment was talking about. The economics prize is not a Nobel Prize as established by Alfred Nobel, it is the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences [1], established in 1968 by the Swedish National Bank. It is grouped with the others and awarded in the same ceremony, however. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...

VHRanger 9y ago
Sure, but he was trying to delegitimize the highest honor in a field of study. The economics Nobel is functionally equivalent to the Fields medal or Turing award, regardless of Alfred Nobel's original intent. The point is the poster above was trying to diminish the field of study's legitimacy. Reading between the lines of his post he was doing so because of his political leanings, not because he disagreed with any particular contribution of a economics Nobelist's contribution to human knowledge. We should aspire to be above of such toxic ideologism.
- KGIII 9y ago
  shrugs I think we should aspire to be above reading between the lines. When we do so, we tend to see that which we want to see, regardless of the author's intent.
- yyyyip 9y ago
  Why can't he, or I, diminishing the legitimacy of economics? If someone had made up a fake Nobel prize in psychology I would diminishing the legitimacy of that too. The field of economics is far, far less rigorous than any of the hard sciences for which Nobel prizes are awarded. The fake Nobel prize for economics is strongly disputed by much of the Nobel family, Keynes, and it makes economists act more blowhard, self-congratulatory and self-important than they already do. I say this as someone spends a fair chunk of my time reading economics books and blogs.
  - apoorvkumar 9y ago
    > I say this as someone spends a fair chunk of my time reading economics books and blogs. Them credentials!
    - yyyyip 9y ago
      :rolleyes: ok Apoorv, if you want credentials, here's Hayek's speech agreeing with me. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/la...
      - VHRanger 9y ago
        OK, and what Nobelist you think carries to much political power because of his award? Paul Krugman? Joe Stiglitz? Matter of fact turned out to be that politicians and laymen only listen to the economics they want to hear, Nobel or not.
      - apoorvkumar 9y ago
        Interesting read. Thanks for sharing that. I read Nobel in Economics as 'Nobel in maths (largely statistical optimization) and behavioural psychology'. I personally believe the field adds significant value to society. That said, I do think the award is rather liberally given away. We credit scientists only when their theories test out in practice with sufficient evidence whereas we are more willing to give economists a pass in the name of 'not enough data' or 'valid under certain conditions' . I think we should award only the fundamental time tested truths (statistical or otherwise) which are so entrenched in the way of the world that its discovery has little or no bearing on its exact function. This would award Nash/Selten but not Merton/Scholes. The basic option pricing ended up being just a bunch of really cool but limited equations which tend to be self fulfilling prophecies until when they don't.

JorgeGT 9y ago

I think the best argument against a Nobel Prize in Economics was made, precisely, by one of its recipients, Friedrich August von Hayek, during the 1974 ceremony [1]: > I must confess that if I had been consulted whether to establish a Nobel Prize in economics, I should have decidedly advised against it.[...] the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess. > This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. > But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally. > There is no reason why a man who has made a distinctive contribution to economic science should be omnicompetent on all problems of society - as the press tends to treat him till in the end he may himself be persuaded to believe. That behavior which he describes... sounds like any Nobel Prize in Economics you know? --- [1] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-speech.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/la...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

kilotaras 9y ago

I have the advantage of hindsight but this quote comes from Robert E Lucas Jr, 5 years before great recession. > macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded: Its central problem of depression prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes [0] [0] http://www.sfu.ca/~kkasa/lucas.pdf http://www.sfu.ca/~kkasa/lucas.pdf

VHRanger 9y ago
Well he's still sort of right. The 2008 shock was legitimately more intense than the 1929 one and we came out of it with a "mere recession" instead of the horrors of the 1930s. This is largely due to what the US fed did in response (the US gov. fiscal stimulus probably helped some but not on the same scale). Luckily the fed was headed by Ben Bernanke, one of the most erudite scholars of the Great Depression at the time the world economy was hanging on by a thread.