Hacker News Reader

Comment by oldgradstudent | Hacker News Reader

He did not win the Nobel Prize in Economics because there is no such prize.

It's The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

http://exiledonline.com/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-there-i...

Just imagine the ridicule if instead of the Turing or Shannon awards we'd have the ACM Prize in Computer Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel, or the IEEE Prize in Electrical Engineering in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

BTW, here's a great paper by George Akerlof and Paul Romer who both won the prize: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~promer/Looting.pdf

View on HN

Except Sveriges Riksbank is the central bank of Sweden. It doesn't care much about name recognition, and given the name and design of the prize clearly desired a strong association of its prize with the Nobels.

If there's any slight it's to Alfred Nobel, who didn't create a prize for economics.[1] Apparently Nobel's great-great-nephew was upset by the conflation. "In 2001 [he] asked the Bank of Sweden to differentiate its award to economists given 'in Alfred Nobel's memory' from the five other awards". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel#cite_note-31

[1] Is there any evidence that this was deliberate? If not then I fail to see what's substantively lost in the conflation.

The implication is that the prize is an attempt by bankers to give their self-interested policies an air of legitimacy via association with the nobel prize.

The "evidence" is that it was not in his will. Where do you think we should draw the line on what could be called a Nobel price? It is not like Alfred Nobel did not understand economics, he just (highly probably) did not want such a price (or he would have created it).

If someone created a price for pedophile arts, brain studies of humans of lesser value, or other questionable "sciences" in the memory of Alfred Nobel, do you think we should call it a Nobel price? Do we have evidence that Nobel would disagree with such a price?

I would say we have no evidence, but it is highly unlikely that Alfred Nobel would like that. I think the question that should be asked is: do we have any evidence (or even any sign at all) that Alfred Nobel wanted a Nobel price in economics???

Is that a picture of Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek with the word "fraud" plastered over it? And what is the word "libertards" in the headline supposed to mean?

> It's The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

Also known as the Nobel Prize in Economics, selected by the same institution as the other prizes (the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences), announced at the same time as the other prizes, awarded at the same ceremony as the other prizes, and selected "in accordance with the rules governing the award of the Nobel Prizes instituted through [Alfred Nobel's] will."

> Just imagine the ridicule if instead of the Turing or Shannon awards we'd have the ACM Prize in Computer Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel, or the IEEE Prize in Electrical Engineering in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

Why would that be ridiculous?

The Exile was always a little bit over the top. Their coverage, though, especially their Russia coverage, was always top notch.

I'm pretty sure the history of the prize is accurate.

> Why would that be ridiculous?

Because that's so blatant in using the reputation of the Nobel Prize to bolster their own questionable discipline.

> The Exile was always a little bit over the top.

A little? It's obvious they have an ideological axe to grind, even stooping to name-calling.

> I'm pretty sure the history of the prize is accurate.

What about its history is accurate?

> Because that's so blatant in using the reputation of the Nobel Prize

The Nobel Prize in Economics has existed since 1968 and, like I said, is awarded by the same institution as the other prizes, in the same ceremony, and in accordance with the same rules governing the awarding of the other prizes. What's dubious about that?

> to bolster their own questionable discipline.

What discipline is questionable?

What discipline isn't questionable?

Theology and to a lesser extent, mathematics.

> A little? It's obvious they have an ideological axe to grind, even stooping to name-calling.

It's called understatement.

The Exile never tried to hide their ideological bent or claim any sort of objectivity. You can read their work, disagree with their point of view, but still respect the reporting.

> What about the history of the prize is accurate?

The purpose of starting the prize.

> The Nobel Prize in Economics has existed since 1968 and, like I said, is awarded by the same institution as the other prizes, in the same ceremony, and in accordance with the same rules governing the awarding of the other prizes. What's dubious about that?

Sure, but it is not a Nobel Prize. It is parasitic growth on the Nobel Prize reputation.

> What discipline is questionable?

Economic Sciences. There are great economists, and great economic research (see the Akerlof and Romer paper I linked to above), and some even win the prize. But it is not a science.

> The Exile never tried to hide their ideological bent or claim any sort of objectivity. You can read their work, disagree with their point of view, but still respect the reporting.

Not sure why I should ever respect reporting that doesn't even attempt to be objective. If you are not aware of your biases, they have a tendency to irreparably color your "facts".

Art and Literature aren't sciences, either.

Hmm, Computer science isn't a science either, so what?

> The Exile never tried to hide their ideological bent or claim any sort of objectivity. You can read their work, disagree with their point of view, but still respect the reporting.

Why should I respect reporting that doesn't claim any sort of objectivity? How can I trust reporting that doesn't even aspire to be objective?

> The purpose of starting the prize.

Can you be more specific?

> It is parasitic growth on the Nobel Prize reputation.

Can you explain why you think it is a "parasitic growth"?

> Economic Sciences. There are great economists, and great economic research (see the Akerlof and Romer paper I linked to above), and some even win the prize. But it is not a science.

What definition of "science" are you using? Is literature a science? Is peace a science?

What about anthropology? Geography? History? Linguistics? Political science? Psychology? Sociology?

Do you think computer science and electrical engineering are "questionable disciplines"? If not, what point did you intend to illustrate with them in your original comment?

fact check :

Also known as the Nobel Prize in Economics, selected by the same institution as the other prizes (the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) ...

"Nobel Peace Prize" is selected by Norwegian government. ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize )

"Nobel Peace Prize" is selected by Norwegian government.

Technically by an independent committee appointed by the Norwegian government.

Sveriges Riksbank is government institution and the world's oldest central bank. The Prize is based on a donation received by the Nobel Foundation. None of that really matters. What Afred Nobel's intentions do not matter either.

What really matters is the prestige and good judgment of those who give it has created for the award over time. Nobel for economics has much better reputation than literary and peace prices. It's up to par with Nobels in physics and other sciences. They don't give it for people who don't deserve it.

Nobels in physics have more controversies than economics. For example the Nobel committee failed to recognize Albert Einstein's work in Brownian motion, general relativity, special relativity or mass-energy equivalence.

The prize is mentioned with the other sciences in the Nobel prize website.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-prizes-in-econom...

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economics/

edit: compare to https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/

>He did not win the Nobel Prize in Economics because there is no such prize.

Hey look, it's the guy who shows up every year to point out a technicality that no one cares about. Thanks!

This is so common now it's an SMBC meme.

Or Dilbert http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-04-02

Reply on news.ycombinator.com