3 ms·

the economics "nobel" is not a real Nobel. it's a bogus prize. just saying. see here -> http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/nobel_by_association_beautiful_mind

by HSO 18y ago

the economics "nobel" is not a real Nobel. it's a bogus prize. just saying. see here -> http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/nobel_by_association_beautiful_mind_non_existent_prize http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/nobel_by_association_be...

jacoblyles 18y ago
It's traditional to hype the Nobel prizes of Economists you agree with, and mention that it's not a "real Nobel" when it's given to someone you don't like.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
katz 18y ago
The correct name is Nobel Memorial Prize. It is not a "bogus" prize - I can assure you that you have to be pretty smart to earn one.
- falsestprophet 18y ago
  Smart is a nebulous idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management
- HSO 18y ago
  you don't have to be "smart", you have to fit in. economics is a self-referential discipline. there is no real standard of truth or verity or validity of a theory and hence a lot of bickering even about fundamental questions. and so, there are "schools" of thought. whichever is the current flavor of the month (or rather decade) will carry one of its own to the "highest prize". in terms of hard to get, i'd argue the so-called clark medal is harder. anyway, economists try to act all "science-y" and serious but the fact is, those who arguably understand economics very well (say a soros) and those who win fake nobels are not the same people...
  - katz 18y ago
    > you don't have to be "smart", you have to fit in. economics is a self-referential discipline. there is no real standard of truth or verity or validity of a theory and hence a lot of bickering even about fundamental questions. The closer a theory fit to practice (e.g. economic modelling) the better it is. > those who arguably understand economics very well (say a soros) There is a difference between understanding macro economics and a person doing dubious and unethical things to get money (e.g. Soros). Soros was involved in many dubious financial transactions and was found guilty of insider trading in France. What he did in Hong Kong may not be entirely illegal but it certainly is completely unethical. Also - their is a difference between macro-economics and things such as stock trading or currency speculation. On the other hand - most people have a problem with a lot of economists because of what their results are (i.e. not progressive).
eru 18y ago
As if the 'real' Nobel prices are sacrosanct..

by HSO 18y ago

jacoblyles 18y ago

It's traditional to hype the Nobel prizes of Economists you agree with, and mention that it's not a "real Nobel" when it's given to someone you don't like.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

katz 18y ago

The correct name is Nobel Memorial Prize. It is not a "bogus" prize - I can assure you that you have to be pretty smart to earn one.

falsestprophet 18y ago
Smart is a nebulous idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management
HSO 18y ago
you don't have to be "smart", you have to fit in. economics is a self-referential discipline. there is no real standard of truth or verity or validity of a theory and hence a lot of bickering even about fundamental questions. and so, there are "schools" of thought. whichever is the current flavor of the month (or rather decade) will carry one of its own to the "highest prize". in terms of hard to get, i'd argue the so-called clark medal is harder. anyway, economists try to act all "science-y" and serious but the fact is, those who arguably understand economics very well (say a soros) and those who win fake nobels are not the same people...
- katz 18y ago
  > you don't have to be "smart", you have to fit in. economics is a self-referential discipline. there is no real standard of truth or verity or validity of a theory and hence a lot of bickering even about fundamental questions. The closer a theory fit to practice (e.g. economic modelling) the better it is. > those who arguably understand economics very well (say a soros) There is a difference between understanding macro economics and a person doing dubious and unethical things to get money (e.g. Soros). Soros was involved in many dubious financial transactions and was found guilty of insider trading in France. What he did in Hong Kong may not be entirely illegal but it certainly is completely unethical. Also - their is a difference between macro-economics and things such as stock trading or currency speculation. On the other hand - most people have a problem with a lot of economists because of what their results are (i.e. not progressive).

eru 18y ago

As if the 'real' Nobel prices are sacrosanct..