3 ms·

The issue with this prize isn't that economics is not a real science. Nobel prizes are primarily vulgarization and communication tools, and as such are inhenren

The issue with this prize isn't that economics is not a real science. Nobel prizes are primarily vulgarization and communication tools, and as such are inhenrently political. The Sveriges Riksbank is piggy-backing off the popularity of Nobel Prizes to advocate for a certain vision (their vision) of economic orthodoxy. It is overwhelmingly awarded to white western men, who, more relevantly, all share an anglocentric neoliberalist vision of economics. This, I hope, we are allowed to take issue with. EDIT: apparently not. I would rather you explain to me why than downvote mindlessly.

AtlasBarfed 1y ago
Well you are on an anglo-centric neoliberalist imperialist site filled with people that are economic beneficiaries of that. Basic economic game theory that you'd be downvoted.
- lanfeust6 1y ago
  Extreme poverty rates have been plummeting precisely because East Asian countries became economic beneficiaries. The rest of the world operates on the same principles.
underlipton 1y ago
It's a, "They hate him because they told the truth," situation. Frankly, it applies to the Peace Prize as well, but this one has an even more naked agenda. It would be a disservice not to mention its history every time it's brought up, because it is ever-salient to any discussion of the merit of the winners.
lanfeust6 1y ago
White western men are no more represented in Economics than other hard sciences, and concensus in Economics is no different in East Asia and the rest of the world excepting the authoritarian Socialist experiments.
- andrepd 1y ago
  There's no "consensus" in economics, let alone.
  - lanfeust6 1y ago
    That's nonsensical. There is overwhelming consensus over many things, e.g. tariffs.
  - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
    Of course, there is consensus in economics. It's a field which is mostly interested in models and anyone can agree that a model is consistant and implies surprising things even if they think the hypotheses it makes don't faithfully represent reality. It's endlessly fascinating to me how some people will happily disparage economics while having very little idea of what it's actually about.
    - 331c8c71 1y ago
      Modelling isn't the higher intellectual pursuit it's made out to be. Imo designing theoretical models post-hoc to "support" a desired conclusion is not unheard of in econ/finance.
      - astrange 1y ago
        The 2019 economics prize went to empirical research. The non-mainstrean economists (aka heterodox, aka cranks) are usually more obviously pursuing an agenda, but they definitely usually don't have better empirical evidence.
        lanfeust6 1y ago
        The bait-and-switch rhetorical tactics from the cranks like "not a science" is to feign that empirical evidence doesn't exist (for thee) and therefore we should embrace ideology (theirs). This is why the Is-ought problem is frequently brought up. Though this mostly only flies in sloppy online space; in academia, progressives became Rawls acolytes and eschewed Marx, because of baggage and serious errors that can't be overcome. This seems to have translated to a chimera everything-bagel ideology on social media, where they're Rawlsian (qua social justice) but also many don't want to give up Marx, 'cause Capitalism bad, and this doesn't square.

AtlasBarfed 1y ago

Well you are on an anglo-centric neoliberalist imperialist site filled with people that are economic beneficiaries of that. Basic economic game theory that you'd be downvoted.

lanfeust6 1y ago
Extreme poverty rates have been plummeting precisely because East Asian countries became economic beneficiaries. The rest of the world operates on the same principles.

underlipton 1y ago

It's a, "They hate him because they told the truth," situation. Frankly, it applies to the Peace Prize as well, but this one has an even more naked agenda. It would be a disservice not to mention its history every time it's brought up, because it is ever-salient to any discussion of the merit of the winners.

lanfeust6 1y ago

White western men are no more represented in Economics than other hard sciences, and concensus in Economics is no different in East Asia and the rest of the world excepting the authoritarian Socialist experiments.

andrepd 1y ago
There's no "consensus" in economics, let alone.
- lanfeust6 1y ago
  That's nonsensical. There is overwhelming consensus over many things, e.g. tariffs.
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  Of course, there is consensus in economics. It's a field which is mostly interested in models and anyone can agree that a model is consistant and implies surprising things even if they think the hypotheses it makes don't faithfully represent reality. It's endlessly fascinating to me how some people will happily disparage economics while having very little idea of what it's actually about.
  - 331c8c71 1y ago
    Modelling isn't the higher intellectual pursuit it's made out to be. Imo designing theoretical models post-hoc to "support" a desired conclusion is not unheard of in econ/finance.
    - astrange 1y ago
      The 2019 economics prize went to empirical research. The non-mainstrean economists (aka heterodox, aka cranks) are usually more obviously pursuing an agenda, but they definitely usually don't have better empirical evidence.
      - lanfeust6 1y ago
        The bait-and-switch rhetorical tactics from the cranks like "not a science" is to feign that empirical evidence doesn't exist (for thee) and therefore we should embrace ideology (theirs). This is why the Is-ought problem is frequently brought up. Though this mostly only flies in sloppy online space; in academia, progressives became Rawls acolytes and eschewed Marx, because of baggage and serious errors that can't be overcome. This seems to have translated to a chimera everything-bagel ideology on social media, where they're Rawlsian (qua social justice) but also many don't want to give up Marx, 'cause Capitalism bad, and this doesn't square.