Skip to main content

I don't want to take away anything from Paul Krugman, who has been a good ally in the anti-austerity cause. But the truth is, he never won a Nobel Prize in economics. In fact, there is no such thing as a "Nobel Prize in Economics." Being the reality based community, I figured people would want to know that.

I often see people throw out the "Prize" to give credibility to certain economists. Hopefully, after reading this post, some will reconsider the wisdom of doing so. Because whatever value one may ascribe to attaching the "Nobel" brand to their favorite economist such as Krugman or Stiglitz, the harm from allowing that same branding value to attach to the likes of Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman far outweighs the good.

The prize that is so often, and falsely referred to as a Nobel Prize is actually the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” or the "Bank of Sweden Prize" for short. Not so impressive when you put it like that, is it?

"Bank of Sweden Prize winning economist Milton Friedman said..."

Meh. Who's listening?

But "Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Freidman said...!" Now that sounds really important, and scientific. And that's exactly what it was designed to do.

The Economics Prize has nestled itself in and is awarded as if it were a Nobel Prize. But it’s a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation." - Peter Nobel.”
Here is the relevant text of Alfred Nobel's will that established the five Nobel Prizes for physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and peace:
The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical work by the Caroline Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not.
Notice there's not one word about a prize for economics. Nor is there any authority granted to any entity to create new prizes. No wonder the Nobel family has vehemently opposed the economic prize from the beginning and over the years spoken out against it.

Back in the 50s and 60s, a new breed of economic nutbaggery began to surface. It was  based on a radical, and largely discredited idea that humans were like rational decision making machines and that markets, if left alone, would work more efficiently, and to the better benefit to all.

This was, of course, blathering nonsense. But the banksters and other rightwing plutocrats loved the new "Efficient Market Hypothesis." It put a new face on their old and failed laissez faire nutbaggery. And so they loved ($) the economists who were trying to sell it. Unfortunately, people in the real world, like real economists and public policy makers knew it was bullshit.

So, the geniuses at Riksbank, or probably some PR firm, came up with an idea. We'll give out this prize, and with a big fat grant (and allegedly the support of the King of Sweden), we'll get the Noble Committee to let us bundle our prize with the five real Nobel Prizes. And then suddenly, these nutjobs with their crackpot economic theories and very unscientific analysis couched in esoteric, scientific jargon, will seem like a bunch of Einsteins.

And that is exactly what happened. As Yasha Levine summarized in a must-read article at Alternet:

The details of how the deal went down are still very murky. What is known is that in 1969 Sweden’s central bank used the pretense of its 300th anniversary to push through an  independent prize in “economic science” in memory of Alfred Nobel, and closely link it with the original Nobel Prize awards. The name was a bit longer, the medals looked a little different and the award money did not come from Nobel, but in every other way it was hard to tell the two apart. To ensure the prize would be awarded to the right economists, the bank managed to install a rightwing Swedish economist named Assar Lindbeck, who had ties to University of Chicago, to oversee the awards committee and keep him there for more than three decades. (Lindbeck’s famous free-market oneliner [7] is:  “In many cases, rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”)

...

At the time of the prizes, neoclassical economics were not fully accepted by the media and political establishment. But the Nobel Prize changed all that.

What started as a project to help the Bank of Sweden achieve political independence, ended up boosting the credibility of the most regressive strains of free-market economics, and paving the way for widespread acceptance of libertarian ideology.

Take Hayek: Before he won the award, it looked like Hayek was washed up. His career as an economist was essentially over. He was considered a quack and fraud by contemporary economists, he had spent the 50s and 60s in academic obscurity, preaching the gospel of free markets and economic darwinism while on the payroll of ultra-rightwing American billionaires. Hayek had powerful backers, but was out on the fringes of academic credibility.

But that all changed as soon as he won the prize in 1974. All of a sudden his ideas were being talked about. Hayek was a celebrity. He appeared as a star guest on NBC’s Meet the Press, newspapers across the country printed his photographs and treated his economic mumblings about the need to have high unemployment in order to pay off past inflation sins as if they were divine revelations. His Road to Serfdom hit the best-seller list. Margret Thatcher was waving around his books in public, saying “this is what we believe.” He was back on top like never before, and it was all because of the fake Nobel Prize created by Sweden’s Central Bank.

I don't think Levine actually nails this story as precisely as he could have though. The establishment of the fake Nobel Prize wasn't just about advancing right wing ideology. It was also about elevating the "dismal science", as Krugman likes to call it, which is hardly science at all, to the status of physics and chemistry etc. Only by doing this were the crackpot ideas of the so-called neoclassical movement given the sheen of legitimacy.

The story of the rise of this repackaging of laissez faire, with pseudo-scientific bows and ribbons, has many threads, including that which leads to the infiltration of this movement within the Democratic party.

But this story cannot be told without inclusion of the PR coup that is the formation of the bogus Nobel Prize in Economics. One of the best parts of Charles Ferguson's documentary Inside Job, was that he 'went there' on the issue of the entire economic establishment as being little more than a propaganda front for the international bankster class. He wasn't the first, but his stature helped draw overdue attention to this aspect of the story.

As for Krugman, I sure can't knock him for taking the prize. It's a lot of money. But I do think people should know that this prize has largely functioned as a propaganda device, and therefore a weapon, for forces who seek to destroy the advances made following the Great Depression, weaken democratic governance of the economic system, and return the world to a serfdom.

Of course, I don't believe that Krugman is part of some PR front by the banking establishment. Nor do I think that every economist who has won the "Nobel Prize in Economics" are crackpots. Some legitimate work has gotten through. But I do think when people cite Krugman's prize winning bona fides, they should call it by its real name: Paul Krugman, winner of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  There's a lot more to this story (49+ / 0-)

    that I just don't have time to get in to. One is the analysis of the work of the Bank of Sweden prize winners and how much of that work is absolute garbage cloaked in highly scientific sounding jargon. Read some of it sometime. It's actually comical. Like cult leaders speaking in King James English to sound biblical.

    Another is the rightwing mafia who controlled the BOS prize for 30 years, gaining immense power in doing so.

    Another is worthy of a whole book and that is how this whole PR scam worked in Sweden, allowing its central bank to finally get through laws that gave the bank independence from government, and how this quickly led to Sweden's fall from being one of the most prosperous economies to high inflation and unemployment rates.

    Keep an eye out for a forthcoming report on all of this by Notre Dame economic historian Philip Mirowski.

  •  This diary is simply an attempt to (16+ / 0-)

    take a swipe at Mr. Krugman.  Is his prize impressive, you bet it is.  Mr. Krugman is a brilliant man.  You can examine how this prize is awarded without trying to bring him down.  It won't work.

  •  T&R for a reality based diary. (10+ / 0-)

    I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

    by second gen on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 04:26:21 PM PDT

  •  Your history of the economics is spot on (11+ / 0-)

    in that it clearly was devised as an effort to rehabilitate the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics by awarding its principal practitioners with a prize linked to the real Nobels.

    However, I think the prize has evolved quite a bit from its early days, and the fact that it has been awarded to the likes of Krugman and Stiglitz -- both saltwater economists who would never have even been considered in the early days of the prize -- shows just how far it has come.

    I'd also quibble a bit with how the Chicago school came to be accepted in the mainstream.  Maggie was influenced more than anything by the success of the Chicago Boys in Chile, who of course were able to implement their brutal shock because Pinochet had already murdered the democratic opposition to his regime.

    When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

    by litho on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 04:26:42 PM PDT

    •  Can't disagree with any of that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quicklund

      I can't agree or disagree with the evolution of the prize point however. I'm just not sure of that. I spent hours going through the works of prize winners. I only made up to the mid-eighties before I had to take a break.

      I look forward to confirming your assertion though at a later date. Or not as the case may be.

      •  I haven't researched it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Timaeus

        but I remember being surprised when Stiglitz won it.  IIRC, he was the first non-righty to get it and since then it's been going to real economists who do real work.  That is, work that is not driven by an ideological agenda to prove that markets are perfect and that government intervention always leads to distortion and inefficiency.

        Stiglitz got it in the late 90s, if I'm not mistaken.

        When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

        by litho on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 05:05:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Or not as the case may be"? (0+ / 0-)

        Needlessly rude response to a generally supportive and amicably articulated comment.

        Since you didn't research past the eighties, you would seem to know less than litho about the particular point. To be crabby about it ... ick.

        "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

        by Bob Love on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 12:12:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  she also conveniently ignored it, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Love

      Maggie was influenced more than anything by the success of the Chicago Boys in Chile, who of course were able to implement their brutal shock because Pinochet had already murdered the democratic opposition to his regime.

      when the whole edifice came crashing down around chile's feet. give reagan some credit, he did, finally, listen to those advisers who told him that friedman's theories were a disaster in practice. that's how he ended up passing all those tax increases, in an effort to make up for it.

    •  Economics is not my field, although I've (0+ / 0-)

      read quite a bit of it.  Awful stuff.

      What is a "saltwater economist"?

  •  Move over Burger King (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Hepburn

    Sveriges Riksbank is the new Home of the Whopper.

    Will their thirst for brand-name larceny ever be slaked?

    Actually, thanks for this. That Nobel award for Economics always seemed oddly out of place - at least with hindsight.

  •  Gawd. I wish I were a philanthropist (4+ / 0-)

    I would create the Boobel Laureate in Economics and award it to Alan Greenspan.



    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 04:45:16 PM PDT

  •  Excellent Diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund

    We should never stop calling out the voodoo artists, astrologers, alchemists, charlatans, and fools that promote Right-Wing Economics.

    They have the nerve to call their bullsh-t Laws, as if they can be empirically verified by observable facts.

    They ape and imitate real sciences by using equations and graphs -- even though their equations output no numerical values and their graphs have no numbers on the axis.

    My only (minor) quibble is the reference to the "Efficient Market Hypothesis". The EMH doesn't say that markets allocate resources efficiently. It just says that a trader can't make a profit through pure speculation. It's also unproven bullsh-t, though.

  •  This juice is a little sour. This grape juice. nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  The Nobel Prize has been tainted by steroid (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice, accumbens, triv33, Trix, grubber

    users anyway.  It will never be the same.  

    "I'm an antiwar propagandist as accused by democrats. Not even republicans have called me that."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 05:26:28 PM PDT

  •  Not to be argumentative, but the link (6+ / 0-)

    Here, seems to say that one of the Nobel Prizes is the "Prize in Economic Sciences". And the organization making that claim happens to be

    Nobelprize.org (http://nobelprize.org) is a registered trademark, and is produced, managed and maintained by Nobel Media. Nobel Media AB is a Swedish corporate entity and subsidiary of the Nobel Foundation Rights Association, a non-profit association managing the rights of the Nobel Foundation.
    So maybe Alternet is "accurate" and wrong.
    •  Exactly... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deconite, Bob Love, JimWilson, MGross

      you've hit the objection that I had practically from the moment I started reading this. The economics prize is administered by the Nobel Foundation and awarded by the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, just like all the other Nobel Prizes. The money originally came to the Foundation as a donation from Sveriges Riksbank (which is not a private entity but is the Swedish central bank, controlled by the national Riksdag) but once given they had no control over how the prize was and is awarded.

      Alternet does make this sound like a conspiracy to pump up right-wing economists on the behalf of the banksters, but I'm damned if I know exactly how the banksters can manage that when they have never had any control over how the prize is awarded or over the funds that back it. This is only a step above CT and the diarist should have done better research before making accusations that could have been dismissed by a simple search of the Nobel Foundation's own resources.

      As for me, I say that if it's being passed out by the Nobel Foundation according to the same rules and by the same body as the other prizes they award, then the Economics prize properly deserves the name "Nobel Prize" even if it wasn't originally one chosen by old Alfred himself.

      Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

      by Stwriley on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 06:06:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You and your validation.... (0+ / 0-)

      meh...

      "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

      by justmy2 on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 06:47:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let me clarify by reposting what I already wrote (0+ / 0-)

      ...again.

      So, the geniuses at Riksbank, or probably some PR firm, came up with an idea. We'll give out this prize, and with a big fat grant (and allegedly the support of the King of Sweden), we'll get the Noble Committee to let us bundle our prize with the five real Nobel Prizes.

      I hope that by putting certain text in bold, it clears up any confusion.

      Sigh.

      •  So you admit is a Nobel Prize? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MGross

        If the Nobel Foundation (for whatever reason) wishes to grant a Nobel Prize in Basketweaving, well then there is a Nobel Prize in Basketweaving.

        I understand that YOU want to say that the Economic Prize it is not a Nobel, but that really is irrelevant.

        I may want to say that "Diet Coke" isn't really Coke because it doesn't contain cocaine or sugar, but the Coca Cola company gets to determine how its products are branded. Just like the Nobel Foundation gets to determine how its products are branded.

  •  Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. (13+ / 0-)

    heh.  Now watch this drone.

    •  Now the Nobel Prizes mean exactly the (4+ / 0-)

      opposite of how they're named.  Krugman should be elated at this news.

      "I'm an antiwar propagandist as accused by democrats. Not even republicans have called me that."

      by BigAlinWashSt on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 05:58:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, but after Jimmy Carter and Henry (5+ / 0-)

      Kissinger won it, you just knew it's given out ironically, or at least with a healthy dose of snark.

      Brings to mind SideShow Bob who once said after once again being foiled in his attempts to off Bart - (paraphrasing): "Attempted murder? What kind of charge is that?? Do they give out Nobel Prizes for Attempted Chemistry?"

      Well, obviously not - that's why that's funny.  But there clearly are no such constraints on Chemistry's Nobel peace prize cousin . . .

      •  Carter?!? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Little, Bob Love, IreGyre

        I can roll with you on Kissinger, who was a hawk from the word "go" and deeply involved in the Vietnam War, but Carter? The man who negotiated the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaty (and carried out the subsequent return of the Canal to Panama as well), one of the more successful rounds of SALT talks, and refused to go to war with Iran despite the hostage crisis? That Jimmy Carter?

        I fail to see how Carter's record constitutes an ironic awarding of the Peace Prize, since he is one of the few modern presidents to fight no wars and instead be instrumental in some of the more important moves for peace and international justice of the 20th century.

        But maybe you're using a different definition of "irony" than I am.

        Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

        by Stwriley on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 06:19:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe you are thinking of a different (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, FG, RageKage, MGross

          Carter than I am, who knows?

          The Carter I was thinking of was the one who lured the Soviets into the "Afghan Trap" - yeah, pretty clever!!  Unless you think of the million or so innocent Afghani's - including many kids - who were casualties.   Not to mention setting in motion (or at least giving increased impetus) to a chain of events that led to 9.11 and Bush's response thereto.

          And why not google the Carter Doctrine wrt middle east oil?

          Heck, I'll do it for you (it's easy, Wikipedia has it):

          The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the U.S. would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region.
          needless to say, when Bush the Elder and Bush the Idiot followed through and actually carried out this doctrine - most at this site didn't stand up and cheer too loudly.     But you might have a point that if they had been Dems, we would have . ..
          •  The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            voicemail

            Jimmy Carter's fault?

            •  Fault? It was a deliberate strategy (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW, FG
              Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs10 that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention.11 In this period you were the national security adviser to Pre s i dent Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

              Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980,that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality,
              closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was Ju ly 3, 1979 that Pre s i dent Ca rter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention

              link

              well woohoo you fuckwads, it worked!!

              •  That link you gave me does not say (0+ / 0-)

                it was a deliberate strategy. I am more than willing to learn more about this, but you have not made the case for this.

                •  Are. You. Kidding? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nada Lemming
                  And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention
                  Can you think of some other reason Carter would have funded right-wing fundamentalist monsters who were rebelling against their Government because it had started funding schools in which girls were being taught to read?

                  dEar Ellois: U send Fud down holez, we no eaTz u. That iz deAl. No forget. MooRlockz Haz 2 eats. Stoopid Elloiz.

                  by JesseCW on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 06:55:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm doing very simple math here. (0+ / 0-)

                    Brzezinski says he wrote that after Carter signed the directive.

                    •  You did the math? (0+ / 0-)

                      Based on this??

                      And that very day, I wrote a note to the president

                      I suppose you have a minute by minute timeline of these guys schedules from that day?

                      Well OK then - I believe you.  But having that level of detail makes your claim a couple of posts ago that you knew nothing about this just a tad sketchy.

                  •  Wait - he says "that very day." I somehow (0+ / 0-)

                    read that as the next day.

                    Although, he says, right after that, this:

                    Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

                    B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

                    And the source of my objection up ther was teh commenter acting like the Soviets had ZERO repsonsibility.
                •  I dunno - read the entire interview (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Little

                  he gave more than one essentially saying the same thing with slightly different wording

                  Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

                  Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

                  IOW, they weren't sure the Soviet would take the bait, but the Soviets did and were successfully goaded into Afganistan - it's a fact they were quite willing to brag about in 1998.  Strangely it's not looking all that good these days and tends to be swept under the rug for some reason . . .
              •  I meant to say that that paragraph does (0+ / 0-)

                not say that. REading at the link now.

          •  And you bought that? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IreGyre

            That's not exactly a new charge, but one that's never had much credibility. Aid to the Afghan rebels was one thing, but this idea that it was a deliberate strategy to lure the Soviets into an invasion is contradicted by the very nature of the actions taken by the Soviets themselves. The Afghan invasion had been in the works (i.e., we'd seen the troop movements and other unconcealable evidence) for almost a year before it actually happened. Thus we know quite clearly that nothing that Carter did or did not do caused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

            As for the Carter Doctrine, what of it? As I pointed out above, Carter specifically chose not to go to war in the Persian Gulf despite pretty clear violations of our sovereign territory (which an embassy is) and making hostages of American diplomats. You don't get to blame what every Republican yahoo who followed him did in the ME on Carter.

            Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

            by Stwriley on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 07:07:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is a principle in criminal law (0+ / 0-)

              that to be a party to a crime, you only have take a positive action with the intent of furthering a crime, even if, in fact, your actions did not have that effect.

              We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

              by RageKage on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 10:52:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly, that's the point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RageKage
              The Afghan invasion had been in the works (i.e., we'd seen the troop movements and other unconcealable evidence) for almost a year before it actually happened.
              they knew something was in the works and wanted to be 100% (or as high of a percentage as possible) that the Soviets wouldn't wuss out and NOT invade.

              So the Carter Administration did everything the could to ensure that the invasion took place.

              Which is quite unbefitting for somebody who was given a Nobel Peace prize, which is my major point in this discussion.  Heck, in a sane world wouldn't somebody worthy of a prize with such a name have been furiously working behind the scenes to ensure that the Soviets * didn't * invade when it appeared that this eventuality was in the offing?  But no, they were doing just the opposite

              Just curious, what is the motivation of people who come on this site and defend the completely immoral and outrageous atrocities of US foreign policy on an ongoing basis?   You know, aren't there more appropriate internet sites for that?

          •  That "Carter Doctrine" has been US policy (0+ / 0-)

            since the Eisenhower era. Just because Carter made it explicit doesn't mean he changed middle east policy in the slightest.

            There was never a time when the US would not defend its nation interests, anywhere. Let's not get carried away here.

            "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

            by Bob Love on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 12:04:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, but you find no irony in somebody (0+ / 0-)

              who did such iconic things as install solar panels on the White House with one hand up the ante wrt protecting "our" foreign oil by killing the locals?

              As compared to getting out of the thrall of Big Oil and saying fuck it, we don't need foreign oil (at least not middle east oil, if the Europeans want/need it that's their business / problem) .  Instead, he could have put us on a real path to become energy independent, which very likely could have been realized if we had undertaken a German-like effort starting back then.

              But again, relevant to this discussion - yeah, maybe that's not realistic given (as you point out) our country is not like that.   It's always military first, no matter what.  But still, by explicitly endorsing this, why the fuck was he awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (unless my original point that it is awarded just for the irony quotient is valid).

  •  Wait, so the whole thing is bull-pucky? lol (0+ / 0-)

    And I feel like a sap because I've used the classic "appeal to authority" in past debates: "Well, so and so has the Nobel Prize for Economics, and he says ...".   haha

    But I've always felt that the economics prize was weird.  I always got this "One of these things doesn't belong here" feeling whenever it was listed among Nobel prizes.  :)

    But still, maybe this Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics still has great merit.  I think it probably does, but I also know that it has little to do with particular economic ideology, since people diametrically on opposite sides of the economics spectrum have won the thing.  I think it has more to do with rigour.  It's like getting a PhD or Masters Degree: The dissertation or thesis doesn't have to reach a particular conclusion in order to get the PhD or Masters Degree, it just has to be well done and defensible against arguments attacking it.   I could easily see both Karl Marx and Adam Smith winning the "Nobel" economics prize, since their theories are well developed even if they disagree.

    So I still give the winners props, but I do find it hilarious that this isn't a genuine Nobel prize after all.  lol

  •  Danny Kahneman won a Nobel Prize (0+ / 0-)

    In Economics and he doesn't belong to any school

    He's a psychologist who never had a couse in economics

    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

    by Kayakbiker on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 05:51:23 PM PDT

  •  it may not be one of the 5 established in the (12+ / 0-)

    will, but it is also commonly called the Nobel Memorial Prize and is awarded in the same ceremony as the others. and the selection process used is the same one as the other Nobels.

    not only that, but when you say "members" of the Nobel family objected, it's only Peter that has. and i do tend to agree with the objection.

    but this piece reads a LOT like a hit job intended to take away some gravitas from Paul Krugman.

    what should be noted is that this is one of the most, if not the most prestigious economics prizes awarded.

    and really, after awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama way prematurely, the family really doesn't have all that much leg to stand on in complaining.

    The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

    by poligirl on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 06:04:12 PM PDT

    •  i'll go even further and point you to the (10+ / 0-)

      actual Nobel Foundation site.

      from the top there:

      The Nobel Prize awarding institutions have set the following dates for their announcements of 2013 prize decisions:

      PHYSIOLOGY OR MEDICINE- Monday 7 October, 11:30 a.m. at the earliest
      PHYSICS - Tuesday 8 October, 11:45 a.m. at the earliest
      CHEMISTRY - Wednesday 9 October, 11:45 at the earliest
      PEACE - Friday 11 October, 11:00 a.m.
      ECONOMIC SCIENCES - Monday 14 October, 1:00 p.m. at the earliest
      LITERATURE - The date will be set later

      The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

      by poligirl on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 06:05:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Very well said (6+ / 0-)

      If if the diarist did not intend to diminish Paul Krugman, the diary did have that effect, though it did share some very interesting facts.  The title is very negative feeling towrad Mr. Krugman.

    •  This story is old news...albeit news that a lot... (8+ / 0-)

      ...of folks don't know. Stiglitz won the award and the guy is spot-on with my sentiments, politically and in general, IMHO. Otherwise, I tend to agree with your sentiments on the matter, poligirl.

      The fact that this is being brought up here seems a bit pointed at undercutting whatever it is the author of the post doesn't like about Krugman. I'm not Krugman's biggest fan, contrary to what some in this community might say about that, too. Although I do tend to agree with most of his positions. (I AM a huge fan of Stiglitz, however; and I do pretty much agree with somewhere about 99% of what the guy stands for.) But, when it comes to the field of economics, I think the very fact that some refer to it as a "science," is pretty damn absurd.  I'm NOT the biggest fan of "economic orthodoxy" either. Economics is, really, more about political science/sociology/psychology, than anything else, IMHO. Folks that look at it as a field unto itself are, frankly, talking about something that only exists in an imaginary (theoretical) world. And, unlike other sciences--such as physics, which DOES get quite theoretical, of course--even the concept of economics as a "science" doesn't really hold up well under the microscope, as far as many are concerned! (Including yours truly.)

       

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 06:24:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm disappointed to see you take that position (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dburn, LaEscapee, bobswern, poligirl

        As I am to see you projecting that this is somehow a slight against Krugman or Stiglitz.

        The fact that this is being brought up here seems a bit pointed at undercutting whatever it is the author of the post doesn't like about Krugman.
        Really Bob? What did I say that gives you that impression? Because, believe me, if I were to go after Krugman, you would know it.

        Have you read my comments here? I assure you, you and I are completely aligned in our views. About pretty much everything.

        I assumed that some would let their personality based politics cause them to project motive that there is no evidence for. But I didn't expect that from you.

        But since I wasn't clear enough in my diary, let me be so now:

        I don't want to take away anything from Paul Krugman, who has been a good ally in the anti-austerity cause.

        The rest of your comment is spot on as usual.

        •  We're cool...however... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl, SpecialKinFlag

          ...Krugman's singled out in the headline, when (even Stiglitz received this prize) this is about all of the recipients of the economics award. So, there's that. It's really not that big a deal, frankly, as far as my own sentiments are concerned. And, yes, there is a BEVY of institutionalized propaganda in our society. And, it's pervasiveness is getting more devious by the day.

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 08:05:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Economics as a Science (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn

        I had the impression once with a simplistic view of a hard science, that someone formulated a theory and then attempted to prove the theory via peer reviewed  studies and experiments. Where is the data that would support that theory type of thing. Something many Science professors ask of their students.

        The fact that economics is still viewed as a science seems more dangerous as politicians seem to think that a theory is good enough to go on to  make large scale policy that will affect millions just to see what happens. See supply side, Laffer Curve, Trickle-down and of course the most recent that the failure of the banks would send us back five centuries.

        Kind of like a Chemist spraying a new mosquito formula over New York City just to see if a 96% probability that it was harmless to humans was in fact true, while claiming that lab studies were too time consuming and funding was a bit shy to spend too much time fretting.

        “ Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men. ” — Demosthenes

        by Dburn on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 07:50:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I took the diarists point to be the same as yours, (0+ / 0-)

        more or less:  that Economics is not a science.  But I understood the diarist's point to be that the idea of a Nobel Prize in economics relies upon and reinforces the idea that it is a science.  And in the end all this does is cast legitimacy upon wacky (but useful for the rich) economic ideas, which are not based in reality.

        We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

        by RageKage on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 11:00:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  By whom? (0+ / 0-)
      but it is also commonly called the Nobel Memorial Prize
      You say that as though it's evidence of something other than the establishment media being a propaganda organ.

      You mean by the serious people?

      •  how about the Nobel Foundation: (4+ / 0-)

        The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

        and yes, my bad, commonly called "in Memory of Albert Nobel" so ya got me there...

        The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

        by poligirl on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 08:23:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, I misread you comment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl

          ...even the part I cited - duh. I thought it said this:

          but it is also commonly called the Nobel Prize
          I was trying to participate in my diary while doing a million other things. It didn't work.
        •  OK, now that I've read your comment properly (0+ / 0-)

          you are full of it. It wasn't just Peter. If it weren't so late, I'd dig it up for you. But I'm really just bored to death with the comments here.

          You'd think I called Paul Krugman a Nazi or something. I really can't believe so many people can't separate the issues involved here.

          And what was this?

          and really, after awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama way prematurely, the family really doesn't have all that much leg to stand on in complaining.
          Is this a joke or something? You're blaming the family for Obama's peace prize?

          I'm going to do something fun now.

          •  listen, i wasn't in here maligning you so... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Little, BvueDem

            geez, you can cut the invective a bit. i think you and i tend to agree on things more than disagree.

            i picked on the title cuz it did make it seem to be a hit on Krugman, especially at a time when anyone going against the austerity shit is attacked by the PTB. i bristle at this stuff. i do understand though that the title draws the reader, but when you use a title like that you've got to expect a little pushback, even from unexpected places.

            and i did a little research and could not find anyone ither than Peter that was in the Nobel family who objected. but i did note that i agree with Peter's objections. but if others in the family had been critical, i could not find it in my looking, though it was only a short time i had. i did find several places where Peter criticized, just none from any others.

            and no, i'm not blaming the family for Obama's peace prize. all i was saying was there is a lot more to be critical about in regards to the Nobel Prizes, than simply the memorial economic award.

            that's all i was saying and you're coming on like i spit on you or something...

            The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

            by poligirl on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 10:58:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poligirl

              I was getting shell-shocked by the time I responded to you and took it out on you. Please accept my apologies for my rudeness. And for my repeatedly failing to properly interpret your comments. I really just wanted to draw attention to the story of the creation of the economics prize and thought using Krugman would be a more honest way to do it.

              I somewhat underestimated how some would respond. Anyway, I do see that you and I are allies and I do hope that you will be able to forgive my impertinence going forward.

  •  Doesn't matter to me. (0+ / 0-)

    A Nobel doesn't mean you're any better than the next guy.

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 06:12:54 PM PDT

  •  Whatever (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nada Lemming

    Dumb post.  He's still Paul Krugman.

  •  Is this like that time when Bill O'Reilly won (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Nada Lemming

    a Polk award and thought he had won a Peabody?

    Meh, these things tend to be very confusing when you have more important things to think about . . .

  •  There's a lot less to this story... (0+ / 0-)

    ...but I simply don't have time to go into it. The diarist sounds like a failed academic, or maybe a real one. We get the point. It could be made in three or four sentences. He must have a lot of free time.  

    •  Let me guess (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Suzanne 3

      You love Paul Krugman and see this as an affront to his good name. No?

      •  No (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JerryNA

        Your history of the prize is interesting and worth telling. However, you yourself did one of the things you railed against --- your Krugman stunt was a self-admitted PR stunt.

        As the various comments showed, it's pretty much splitting hairs at this point, regardless of the history, to argue that it's not really a Nobel prize. I won't insert poligirl's research here, as you read it.  

        And, to those who noted that economics isn't a science, the Nobel prizes are not just for science--viz. literature, peace.  

        This place can get pretty wacky. How does anyone get to claim, unchallenged, that Daniel Kahneman never took a course in economics? How would they ever know that? It all reminds me of my noble brother-in-law who once asked how the social sciences can be sciences at all, because there is too much variability in people.

        At any rate, thanks for the history. Can we say these guys (are they ALL guys?) won noble prizes and move on?

  •  Jesus the things you learn here. (0+ / 0-)

    I have no idea how many times I've read Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner.  The misinformation campaign by the banksters doesn't surprise me though.  I took a few econ courses as part of a so called social science major in the late 60s early 70s and thought it was all bunk then but then so was the rest of the so called science in the social.  Now the real oxymoron is Political Science.  

    A bad idea isn't responsible for those who believe it. ---Stephen Cannell

    by YellerDog on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 09:48:37 PM PDT

  •  NB: "the dismal science" is Thomas Carlyle's (0+ / 0-)

    and is not particularly identified with Krugman. Doug Henwood uses it all the time. Everybody does.

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 11:51:22 PM PDT

  •  so it is not a Nobel (0+ / 0-)

    because there were only five named in the will by Nobel.  Makes sense, but then almost every tissue is referred to as a kleenex in my family, so we dont really give proper attention to 'tradename' status.

    Mostly the non-nobel in honor of Nobel, is still a significant international award from a peer review group.   That we may not like the contect of the work of every person means it is a meaningless prize.  So we can conclude the Nobel peace prize, a real prize, is no good, not an honor or distinction, because Henry Kissinger won it once upon a time.  Or as so many of the racists around here would say, it's no honor because that black man parading around as president in our WHITE House won it.

    Your argument may have technical merit, but you're still wrong.

  •  Another attack on Economics as a science. (0+ / 0-)

    I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, after all, it gores some people's favorite oxen.

    Just remember while you're on DailyKos:  

    Climate models don't match actual data = science needs to be refined.

    Economic models don't match actual data = economics is not a science.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site