10 ms·

Because of political bias. Just look at the introduction of the (fake) Nobel Prize for economics. It exists purely to legitimize a neoliberal economic ideology.

Because of political bias. Just look at the introduction of the (fake) Nobel Prize for economics. It exists purely to legitimize a neoliberal economic ideology. Awarding Chomsky a Nobel Prize would undermine that goal.

jacobush 7y ago
Aren't these orgs pretty independent from each other?
- coldtea 7y ago
  Supposedly "Independent" orgs play into the same wider networks all the time... Here's an example from an article posted yesterday. While one might not agree with the article's main premise regarding climate change not being real or anthropogenic (I, for one, don't), the mechanism described here is all too common across many areas of science, economics, politics, public policy, etc: "(...) many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the U.K., the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.A and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations.(...)" That's how one can find and quote N "independent" studies and organizations approving something or verifying another, when, looking carefully there's a single, well funded, or politically well supported, central origin behind all of their "findings", and their "independent verification" is basically a high level re-telling of what was giving to them (with nobody bothering to run the numbers).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- tomp 7y ago
  About as much as Sweden is an "independent" country (really just a US puppet, as we've seen in the Assange affair). (edit: Assange, not Snowden)
  - jacobush 7y ago
    I meant Norway vs Sweden, but your point is well taken. If you want kowtowing even more overt, there is the Pirate Bay raid. That goes beyond the pale.
    - toxik 7y ago
      That’s when I understood that this idea of justice for all under one rule of law was bunk. It is justice against those who don’t have by those that do have. Interestingly I’m not sure if that drives me further right or left. Neither I guess.
      - jevgeni 7y ago
        Justice is a legal concept and by that measure both Assange and Pirate Bay had to be prosecuted. Or am I misunderstanding something?
        toxik 7y ago
        You are missing entire swaths of information about particularly TPB from Wikileaks. Swedish police basically rushed the process when the US embassy said “fucking shut it down or face sanctions.” There were prosecutorial issues and the trial was a complete farce with one of the judges sitting in some copyright lobby’s board of directors. Absolutely made a mockery of justice and due process. As for Julian Assange, the hearings with the two alleged rape victims DO NOT describe rape. It describes an asshole having sex with star struck women.
        antirapepolice 7y ago
        > As for Julian Assange, the hearings with the two alleged rape victims DO NOT describe rape They do by the Swedish law. > with star struck women. So justice to you means blame the alleged victim? I still prefer the Swedish way, the tribunals, the judges, and all the ceremony of a real justice system to your tribal "white men are always right" rite.
macspoofing 7y ago
>It exists purely to legitimize a neoliberal economic ideology. As opposed to which model? The highly successful communist alternative?
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian.
  - antirapepolice 7y ago
    Socialism is not Marxian.
    - ianleeclark 7y ago
      I have no idea what this means in this context.
      - antirapepolice 7y ago
        Socialism predates Marx. Marx is socialist, socialism is not (only) Marxist. You can be socialist without being Marxist. So "There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian." it's not technically true.
        ianleeclark 7y ago
        > You can be socialist without being Marxist. Okay, understood. > So "There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian." it's not technically true. These two things just don't even remotely follow. Socialism isn't Marxism, therefore there have only ever existed Neoliberal and Marxian economic systems? What do you think Neoliberalism is? Furthermore, do you believe the United States was Neoliberal in, say, 1963?
        antirapepolice 7y ago
taffer 7y ago
The idea that awarding a prize to the most respected scientists in a particular field is solely for the purpose of advancing an ideology is in itself extremely anti-intellectual and biased. Have you even looked at the work of the scientists who received the prize?
- ernst_klim 7y ago
  I doubt that. When you see evaluations like "plot", "neoliberal", "cultural-marxist" etc etc, you're dealing with a heavily ideology-loaded stuff, which is by definition based on selectivity of facts (since the reality never follows ideology, reality can't be fit into ideology, and even soviet union had ideology only on paper).
  - jevgeni 7y ago
    Could you please elaborate, because I’m sure am not alone in my complete failure to understand what you mean.
    - ernst_klim 7y ago
      Neither social institution could adhere to any rigid ideology. A social institution, which does not correct basic assumptions and axioms lying in its foundation according to new knowledge and data, is doomed. Any widespread movement or social institution exists under the pressure of new facts, new social norms, hence any social institution is a flexible moving target. Only the heterodox, marginal movements can adhere to a rigid ideology. Mainstream science can't have one, only marginal branches can. Modern economics is not a "neoliberal" plot, of course, there is a strong scientific discussion, various competing theories within it, which are constantly being validated using statistics, and omitted, if proved wrong. Economics today, 25 years ago and 50 years ago vastly differs even in methodology, it's a very vigorous field. To say that this edifice is grounded in some ideology, one needs to omit all that constant scientific discussion, render empirically proved parts as ideological, axioms as "truths" etc. This kind of intellectual dishonesty could come only from a ideology-loaded follower of some heterodox (and usually pseudoscientific) theory, most likely grounded in some ideology (guessing from value judgments of op like "neoliberal" -- left one) rather than verified by empiric data.
jariel 7y ago
Both points - that Chomsky has not received the Nobel price due to 'bias' and that the Nobel Price for economics is a neoliberal 'plot' are essentially false and conspiratorial. I like Chomsky because he's such an antagonist (we need them) but I think he also misrepresents a lot of information.
nickik 7y ago
The Nobel prize of economics is not fake. It was added later and it financed by the centeral bank, but it is approved by the Nobel foundation and listed on their website with the other prices. And the claim that it 'legitimize a neoliberal economic ideology' is baseless nonsense if you actually look at who got the prices. Chomsky doesn't get a nobel price in economics because nonthing he has done is close to worthy of that price. Whatever some Hacker News comment thinks.
nerfhammer 7y ago
Out of 84 economics Nobels, maybe 9 were about macroeconomics. Which of those 9 do you think serve only to legitimize "neoliberal" ideology?
- pytester 7y ago
  Krugman wrote a column once I quite enjoyed where he stated that he couldn't quite see why people objected to the TPP because "more trade" isn't something to object to. His own comment section proceeded to school him in what the trade agreement actually contained. This is something that would be quite hilarious to see from an actual scientist about a topic that is supposedly their field of expertise but it's very much something you'd expect from somebody who is there to legitimize a neoliberal (no quotes necessary) ideology.

jacobush 7y ago

Aren't these orgs pretty independent from each other?

coldtea 7y ago
Supposedly "Independent" orgs play into the same wider networks all the time... Here's an example from an article posted yesterday. While one might not agree with the article's main premise regarding climate change not being real or anthropogenic (I, for one, don't), the mechanism described here is all too common across many areas of science, economics, politics, public policy, etc: "(...) many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the U.K., the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.A and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations.(...)" That's how one can find and quote N "independent" studies and organizations approving something or verifying another, when, looking carefully there's a single, well funded, or politically well supported, central origin behind all of their "findings", and their "independent verification" is basically a high level re-telling of what was giving to them (with nobody bothering to run the numbers).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
tomp 7y ago
About as much as Sweden is an "independent" country (really just a US puppet, as we've seen in the Assange affair). (edit: Assange, not Snowden)
- jacobush 7y ago
  I meant Norway vs Sweden, but your point is well taken. If you want kowtowing even more overt, there is the Pirate Bay raid. That goes beyond the pale.
  - toxik 7y ago
    That’s when I understood that this idea of justice for all under one rule of law was bunk. It is justice against those who don’t have by those that do have. Interestingly I’m not sure if that drives me further right or left. Neither I guess.
    - jevgeni 7y ago
      Justice is a legal concept and by that measure both Assange and Pirate Bay had to be prosecuted. Or am I misunderstanding something?
      - toxik 7y ago
        You are missing entire swaths of information about particularly TPB from Wikileaks. Swedish police basically rushed the process when the US embassy said “fucking shut it down or face sanctions.” There were prosecutorial issues and the trial was a complete farce with one of the judges sitting in some copyright lobby’s board of directors. Absolutely made a mockery of justice and due process. As for Julian Assange, the hearings with the two alleged rape victims DO NOT describe rape. It describes an asshole having sex with star struck women.
        antirapepolice 7y ago
        > As for Julian Assange, the hearings with the two alleged rape victims DO NOT describe rape They do by the Swedish law. > with star struck women. So justice to you means blame the alleged victim? I still prefer the Swedish way, the tribunals, the judges, and all the ceremony of a real justice system to your tribal "white men are always right" rite.

macspoofing 7y ago

>It exists purely to legitimize a neoliberal economic ideology. As opposed to which model? The highly successful communist alternative?

ianleeclark 7y ago
There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian.
- antirapepolice 7y ago
  Socialism is not Marxian.
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    I have no idea what this means in this context.
    - antirapepolice 7y ago
      Socialism predates Marx. Marx is socialist, socialism is not (only) Marxist. You can be socialist without being Marxist. So "There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian." it's not technically true.
      - ianleeclark 7y ago
        > You can be socialist without being Marxist. Okay, understood. > So "There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian." it's not technically true. These two things just don't even remotely follow. Socialism isn't Marxism, therefore there have only ever existed Neoliberal and Marxian economic systems? What do you think Neoliberalism is? Furthermore, do you believe the United States was Neoliberal in, say, 1963?
        antirapepolice 7y ago

taffer 7y ago

The idea that awarding a prize to the most respected scientists in a particular field is solely for the purpose of advancing an ideology is in itself extremely anti-intellectual and biased. Have you even looked at the work of the scientists who received the prize?

ernst_klim 7y ago
I doubt that. When you see evaluations like "plot", "neoliberal", "cultural-marxist" etc etc, you're dealing with a heavily ideology-loaded stuff, which is by definition based on selectivity of facts (since the reality never follows ideology, reality can't be fit into ideology, and even soviet union had ideology only on paper).
- jevgeni 7y ago
  Could you please elaborate, because I’m sure am not alone in my complete failure to understand what you mean.
  - ernst_klim 7y ago
    Neither social institution could adhere to any rigid ideology. A social institution, which does not correct basic assumptions and axioms lying in its foundation according to new knowledge and data, is doomed. Any widespread movement or social institution exists under the pressure of new facts, new social norms, hence any social institution is a flexible moving target. Only the heterodox, marginal movements can adhere to a rigid ideology. Mainstream science can't have one, only marginal branches can. Modern economics is not a "neoliberal" plot, of course, there is a strong scientific discussion, various competing theories within it, which are constantly being validated using statistics, and omitted, if proved wrong. Economics today, 25 years ago and 50 years ago vastly differs even in methodology, it's a very vigorous field. To say that this edifice is grounded in some ideology, one needs to omit all that constant scientific discussion, render empirically proved parts as ideological, axioms as "truths" etc. This kind of intellectual dishonesty could come only from a ideology-loaded follower of some heterodox (and usually pseudoscientific) theory, most likely grounded in some ideology (guessing from value judgments of op like "neoliberal" -- left one) rather than verified by empiric data.

jariel 7y ago

Both points - that Chomsky has not received the Nobel price due to 'bias' and that the Nobel Price for economics is a neoliberal 'plot' are essentially false and conspiratorial. I like Chomsky because he's such an antagonist (we need them) but I think he also misrepresents a lot of information.

nickik 7y ago

The Nobel prize of economics is not fake. It was added later and it financed by the centeral bank, but it is approved by the Nobel foundation and listed on their website with the other prices. And the claim that it 'legitimize a neoliberal economic ideology' is baseless nonsense if you actually look at who got the prices. Chomsky doesn't get a nobel price in economics because nonthing he has done is close to worthy of that price. Whatever some Hacker News comment thinks.

nerfhammer 7y ago

Out of 84 economics Nobels, maybe 9 were about macroeconomics. Which of those 9 do you think serve only to legitimize "neoliberal" ideology?

pytester 7y ago
Krugman wrote a column once I quite enjoyed where he stated that he couldn't quite see why people objected to the TPP because "more trade" isn't something to object to. His own comment section proceeded to school him in what the trade agreement actually contained. This is something that would be quite hilarious to see from an actual scientist about a topic that is supposedly their field of expertise but it's very much something you'd expect from somebody who is there to legitimize a neoliberal (no quotes necessary) ideology.