In his speech at the 1974 Nobel Banquet Friedrich Hayek stated that if he had been consulted whether to establish a Nobel Prize in economics he would "have decidedly advised against it" primarily because "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."
Aside from the above noted position of influence attained by, and the one million euros currently presented to, a winner of this award, it appears that another benefit conferred by the prize is that the average lifespan of a Nobel laureate is no less than 1.4 years greater than that of his or her immediate peers. The curative powers of an inflated ego, it seems, is the cause.
The event should be good. Price-as-God cheerleaders Myron Scholes and William Sharpe being forced to endure a Joseph Stiglitz rant on the failure of economics.
----------------------------
5 Comments:
One cannot stress often enough that no Nobel Prize in Economics exists.
What economists have succeeded in awarding to themselves is a memorial prize installed by a bank.
Yes, it is discipline that has been very effective at insinuating itself into institutions in which it has no place - thinking particularly of university science programs.
CB, Such nuanced thoughts, while much admired (speaking for myself at least) seems lost upon his many new-found thurifers - whose censer one might surmise is at best the Cliff's Notes version...
Yes darling, it incenses me, too.
My censer even is sub-101. Should I read Cassandra first and then Ibexsalad?
Post a Comment