1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...
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.
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.
(Also I suspect that there might be some linguistic misunderstanding here, maybe some participants are used to think in a language where the most common translation of "science" does not include the subset of social sciences?),
Them credentials!
ok Apoorv, if you want credentials, here's Hayek's speech agreeing with me.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/la...
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.
Matter of fact turned out to be that politicians and laymen only listen to the economics they want to hear, Nobel or not.
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.
> 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/la...
> macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded: Its central problem of depression prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes [0]
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.
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".