Hacker News Reader

Comment by scottlocklin | Hacker News Reader

It's worth pointing out that economics is a fake "Nobel" prize, funded not by the Alfred Nobel foundation, but by a Swedish bank trying to cash in on the name recognition.

Economics is almost entirely ideology accompanied by linear regression, and should be ignored or at least laughed at by numerate people.

View on HN

The Nobel Foundation recognizes the economics prize as a Nobel prize.

So, yes, it is a Nobel prize because the guys in charge of Nobel prizes say it is. It's also awarded by the guys who award the other Nobel science prizes (the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences).

It is my understanding that out of respect for the original establishment of the prize, they haven't amended it as an "official" prize, but have essentially fully adopted it - it's just a matter of economics not being much of a discipline when the prize was originally established, no?

Oh, it’s more than lack of familiarity.

‘“Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being", saying that "There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize", and that the association with the Nobel prizes is "a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation".’ [0]

I’ve also heard rumors that Nobel had a personal animosity towards certain academic areas because of an affair his wife had with a professor, but I can’t find any good references for that.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...

I'm pretty sure the latter is as you intimate, incorrect[0]. If it was correct, it apparently pertained to Mittag-Leffler, who is a very admirable human (with an amazing mustache) who was unfairly more or less forgotten[1] outside of complex analysis class.

The fact that the "economics Nobel" isn't a real one, of course, is indisputable[2].

[0] http://almaz.com/nobel/why_no_math.html

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6sta_Mittag-Leffler

[2] for example https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/nobel-...

According to [1] it is not, even though it is awarded by the same organization.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...

Saying _a_ Swedish bank is misleading, since it is the central bank of Sweden. If instead of "central bank" they had called it "federal money & banking administration", suddenly the negative connotation would be (mostly) gone.

This year's recipients got it for RCTs. Would you say that recipients from the real Nobel Prize in Medicine that use the same methodology should also be laughed at?

A rose by any other name...

The massive conflict of interest in that set up is something I didn't know. It does greatly affect how I view it.

In terms of Medicine, that's different. Doctors aren't only financially driven. Bankers are.

That's a pretty strong claim. I know people in accounting because they like organizing, finance because they love analysis, quant because they love math, etc. I've also met anesthetists and cardiologists who chose their speciality for financial reasons.

I should have used more accurate language 'primarily driven'.

I've known a bunch of doctors (my sister's partner is a doctor). They tend to list helping others as their primary motivation, with fulfilling a childhood dream as another big one. Financial rewards for a specialty sure, but not for why they got into medicine.

I don't know many bankers. But I'd guess their primary motivation will be different. Sure they might enjoy something like analysis. But in the end of the day, you could be an analyst for a conservation NGO. Being a banking analyst attracts people with a specific set of financial desires.

Bankers can be financially driven, however, 'Central Bankers' [1] if you prefer that terminology, like those mentioned above, are generally not. :)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank

The people in the central bank, are bankers. Bankers have a personal motivation for choosing banking as a career.

I should have used more accurate language and said 'primary' instead of 'only'.

Again, would a government economist from a (hypothetical) administration dedicated to financial regulation and interest rate setting have a personal motivation for choosing economics as a career?

If no, why does it change anything that this administration is called "bank" for historical reasons rather than "federal interest rate administration"?

My assertion: Doctors are motivated by non-monetary reasons more so than economists. Doctors have the primary motivation to save lives/help people. If economists have the motivation to save lives/help people, that motivation isn't as strong as with doctors.

You can agree or not. To me it seems obvious this is true.

If you agree that the assertion is true, then 'doctors are more reliable to provide assessments that aren't based on self interest' would be a logical conclusion that would be drawn from the initial statement. Of course if you don't agree with that assertion (and it's hard to prove either way in a scientific manner, so I'm quick to admit it's just my perspective), then you obviously won't agree with the logical conclusion.

You changed your argument from (or at least, what I understood to be your argument):

1. Bankers are primarily interested by money, which includes employees of the Swedish central bank

2. There is a conflict of interest because the prize is funded by a bank

to:

3. Economists are more motivated by money than doctors.

1 and 2 are not relevant because the central bank is not a bank in any meaningful sense.

I fail to see how 3 has any impact on how one should view the economics prize. Could you elaborate?

It should be noted that the Central Bank doesn't select the laureates; they're selected by the same entity that Nobel himself chose to select the Physics and Chemistry awards, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences has been established by a donation of Sweden's central bank (which is a government agency) to the Nobel Foundation. It is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which also awards the Nobel Prize for physics and chemistry.

Both of your assertions are inaccurate. First of all the economics prize, while not an original prize, is recognized by the Nobel foundation, and that 'Swedish bank' is the central bank of Sweden.

Secondly, the idea that modern academic economics is driven by ideology and linear regression is demonstrably false. Take a look at the latest edition of QJE, the highest impact factor economics journal (link: https://academic.oup.com/qje/issue/134/4). Most of those articles are use empirical evidence to answer questions with obvious policy importance (e.g., causes of food inequality, effectiveness of workplace wellness policies). And modern econometric methods do not amount to linear regression, they include things like regression discontinuity design, instrumental variables techniques, panel data methods, that can provide convincing evidence of causal effects when only quasi-random variation is available. The Nobel prize your commenting on was awarded to researchers carrying out RCTs to assess the impact of specific interventions, how is that mere ideology and linear regression?

While it's not one of the original prizes, the laureates are still selected by the same institution as those in physics and chemistry, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

> In 1968, the Sveriges Riksbank established the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was given the task to select the Laureates in Economic Sciences starting in 1969.

[0] - https://www.nobelprize.org/the-nobel-prize-organisation/priz...

The price money was donated by the swedish central bank, I do not think they need to cash-in on anything

Central banks are Schrödinger institutions, both described as banks to link them to actual private banks when it suits one's argument, and also to the government agency (that they are) when it suits one's argument.

This makes me wonder: - would there be less backlash against the econ prize had it been funded by another government agency with "bank" in its name? - would there be less backlash if econ was like math, with no Nobel prize but a "top prize for the discipline" instead (the John Bates medal for econ, the Fields medal for math)?

Journalists should just say "Nobel Memorial Prize" rather than "Nobel Prize". Anybody that doesn't know about this difference won't be distracted and pedants that do will be satisfied.

GP wasn't just pedantic but actively spreading wrong and misleading information.

What makes the other prizes any more or less valid than this one?

you forgot IMO in your last sentence

mods (@dang) can you do something about this unsubstantiated and inflammatory comment

I don't see how it's inflammatory. I don't see how it's unsubstantiated (except for the "trying to cash in on the name recognition", as if the Swedish central bank needed Nobel's name for PR).

Unsubstantial? Yeah, it's definitely that. Who cares what the technical name of the prize is? It is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics.

This is like the person who keeps going on about "There is no country named America". Maybe not, but there's one called that. We're probably going to keep calling it that, since it's more convenient than the official name, and everyone knows which country we're talking about.

But that person (or those people) claim that there are people in the Americas who take offense to only one country being called "America". scottlocklin, on the other hand... why does he keep beating this particular horse?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com