3 ms·

> 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.