View Full Version : A good economist -- at last.
11-16-2006, 11:56 PM
Milton Friedman, dead, 94 years too late -- a dead economist is a good economist. No, he didnt win a Nobel Prize -- this is just one more bit of his fakery and fraudery and quackery.
In the words of Winston on the night after Pearl Harbour (of which Winston and Roozy both knew quite well beforehand thankuverymuch, but that is a story in itself)...
.... "i will sleep soundly for the first time since the war started tonite"
....or wordz to that effect. madMac.
11-17-2006, 07:25 AM
MadMac I would assume that Winston knew in his heart that America would be drawn into the War in Europe and that now Germany would be defeated and now he could sleep in peace.####
11-17-2006, 07:36 AM
MadMac I had to post this. While Winston could get a good night sleep. I couldn't get one for four solid years. I lived in Watervliet,New York home of the first Federal Arsenal. All day long,all night long all you could hear was the testing of machine guns,cannons. After awhile the rattytattat beat would put you to sleep.####
11-17-2006, 05:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> MadMac I would assume that Winston knew in his heart that America would be drawn into the War in Europe and that now Germany would be defeated and now he could sleep in peace... <hr /></blockquote>
Yes. There is plenty of stuff out there re the british knowing what was coming, and deciding to keep mum about it. And, very interestingly, there is a bit of stuff out there re Roosevelt knowing about it, and keeping mum, koz i guess a successfull attack would impress a hostile (anti-war hostile) congress. Seems that Roozy made sure that there were lots of bandaids etc ready to go, but not much of anything else that might give the secret away.
Anyhow, Pearl Harbor sure saved Ozz. Even so, the japs bombed darwin and (not so well known) townsville (my home town later).
I guess that Milton avoided thinking about how the war brort full employment and prosperity and the end of the depression (with no high inflation) to the USA, contrary to everything he (and every other economist) ever wrote and said -- what an idiot(s). madMac.
11-17-2006, 09:08 PM
Who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1976? No doubt he was a self promotor,and his ideas did little good,but I do think he won the prize that year.
11-17-2006, 11:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1976? No doubt he was a self promotor,and his ideas did little good,but I do think he won the prize that year. <hr /></blockquote>
Hi Harry -- here is an xtrakt from an earlyr posting by one of my favorite posters here -- madMac.
"The history and award process of the Nobel prize
The Nobel prize for economics is not one of the five original prizes that Alfred Nobel created in his 1895 will. The economics prize was added in 1969, but not by any of the Nobel prize-awarding institutions (such as the Swedish Academy, the Norwegian parliament, etc.). It was actually created by the Bank of Sweden. For this reason, it is not really the "Nobel Prize for Economics." It's real name is "The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." The prize money does not come out of the Nobel inheritance, but is paid for by the Bank of Sweden.
The creation of a Nobel prize in economics has raised many criticisms. Some protest that the Bank of Sweden has no legal or moral right to use Nobel's name. Others argue that a radical idealist like Alfred Nobel would have never approved of an award defending capitalist economics. Others claim that the award was created to legitimize capitalism at a time of great social protest against it. These are, to be sure, superficial criticisms, but there are more substantial ones that can be leveled at the Nobel newcomer.
Perhaps the most troubling is that the selection process for economics does not resemble the other five. Although the economics committee boasts that it uses the same procedures, a closer look reveals this to be untrue. In the other five categories, the process starts by gathering nominations from as many as 3,000 scientists, which are then assessed by 15-member prize committees. The committees must then argue their own selections before a Nobel Assembly of 50 scientists before reaching a final decision. Usually the discussion of a prize lasts from 5 to 10 years before the prize is awarded.
There is a potentially weak link in this process: the 15-member prize committee. It is free to select any nominations it wishes -- and with thousands of scientists making the nominations, it basically has its choice. And the committee is more expert in its scientific category than the Nobel Assembly, so whatever case it makes is bound to be persuasive. At any rate, the Nobel Assembly has generally rubber-stamped the committee's recommendations.
Where the economics committee differs from the others is that it does not seat 15 members, but only six -- nearly two-thirds smaller. This greatly increases the possibility of bias. How much so becomes apparent in Assar Lindbeck's own description of his committee's selection process:
"So far, the proposals of the prize committee to the [Swedish] Academy have been unanimous. A consensus has in fact developed quite 'automatically' within the committee, as if by some kind of invisible hand." (6)
This is an astonishing admission, for two reasons. First, the "invisible hand" is one of the most famous and sacred economic concepts of the far right, and to say that an invisible hand guides the committee's consensus is an open taunt to the left. Second, there is probably no field of science as wracked by controversy as economics. For the committee to advance unanimous recommendations year after year is possible only if a perfect bias exists in the committee. And even then, were six libertarians to sit on the committee, it is still implausible that their proposals should be unanimous -- even libertarians have bitter disputes. What is more likely is that the "invisible hand" guiding the committee is the iron hand of Lindbeck himself.
Why would committee members defer to Lindbeck? Because Lindbeck's positions create a conflict of interest. Lindbeck serves in two powerful positions: both as head of the Nobel committee and the prestigious Institute for International Economic Studies. If you are a Swedish economist and are serving either on the Nobel committee or in the Nobel Assembly, you must kowtow to Lindbeck if you want your research funded or your career advanced.
Circumstantial evidence? You bet. But the chain of implausibilities required to believe that the committee is acting without bias is too long to be seriously believed. And at any rate, even if it were, the Bank of Sweden needs to initiate immediate reforms to correct a very strong appearance of bias."
Gayle in MD
11-18-2006, 09:25 AM
He was brilliant, but not always correct...
Here's another view...which fills in some of his unaddressed gaps in reasoning.
Gayle in Md.
11-18-2006, 11:07 AM
The conceited swine. Thanks for the right info.
11-18-2006, 04:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ... He was brilliant, but not always correct... Here's another view...which fills in some of his unaddressed gaps in reasoning.... <hr /></blockquote>
Hi Gayle -- thanks for the link. U can allso google his lies re the supposedly successfull Chile miracle. The Estonian miracle is presently allso held up as proof of his theorys -- i am waiting for an expert appraisal of the facts -- we shall see.
"brilliant" -- hmmmmm, i doubt it. Western style economics is a dogma -- hence it is mainly about looking and sounding good. I allways lump together Dietrickery & Psychiatrickery & Economitrickery as the fake-sciences -- with due respect to the good work of some, and with due respect to those who play a cue-sport. madMac.
11-18-2006, 04:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> The conceited swine. Thanks for the right info. <hr /></blockquote>
Economics is actually a contraction of Econceitonomics.
I reckon that the most amazing No1 top story in economics is Adolph Schicklegrubber's effort in germany in the 30's. Testicularly-challenged adolph said that he knew nothing about economics -- but then raised germany from her death-bed. madMac.
Gayle in MD
11-18-2006, 04:27 PM
You're quite welcome. Thanks, and I'll check that out...
Gayle in Md.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.