Technically correct, but considering that the official Nobel organization endorses the prize on their website, it's a little bit of a stretch to call it a "fake". From nobelprize.org [1]:
> The economics prize was established much later and is a memorial prize, as indicated by its full name: the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Its addition was an exception, to celebrate the tercentenary of Sweden’s central bank in 1968.
Of course, I do understand where the author is coming from. Economics as a discpline has large, shady pieces. But I think some of that shadiness exists in the Nobel organization itself....
It is the 'Nobel Memorial Prize' [1], not the Nobel Prize. The former is official, the latter is unfortunately colloquial now.
>> The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, officially the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel[2][3][4] (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne), is an economics award funded by Sveriges Riksbank[5] and administered by the Nobel Foundation.
Although not one of the five Nobel Prizes established by Alfred Nobel's will in 1895,[6] it is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics,[
> Economics is not a science. It is more like history, a set of useful methods but nonetheless highly colored by the current political mood.
> Crucially, economics also lacks the basic accountability mechanism that real sciences have: data. Bad theories in biology or physics disappear when new data repudiates them, but bad theories in economics never go away.
Economics uses data, but unlike other sciences it is not falsifiable. If an economist makes a prediction that is incorrect, nothing happens. Instead they will always attribute the error to some unexpected factor that couldn't be accounted for (the "black swan" doctrine).
It is sensationalist, but there is a small kernel of truth. Economists have major physics envy and want desperately to be a full mathematically based science, but it's more of a social science (as in not hard science). Doing regression models on the economy is obviously somewhat flawed. There is an experimental branch of economics that does repeatable experiments though, so some practicioners are probably pretty close.
There are a lot of things economists almost universally agree on (e.g. price caps bad), but there are big differences in schools of thought. Politicians can choose a la carte and can find an economist to agree with them on practically any policy.
As far as I understand, economics is a part of Social Science, not just resembling it. I don't think it can contend with the other two branches [1] per se - Formal and Natural, whose basis is different.
I don’t think anybody cares what Nobel’s family member’s protests were about. Does anyone even bother to learn their names or know a single thing about their lives? It’s also not “fake” and the university didn’t invent it.
The point is there is a prize that many/most people agree is one of the top recognitions of achievement for the field. Whether you call it Nobel or something else, doesn’t change a thing for anyone, as long as the prize is well known and well regarded.
But still, the bank that created the prize went to an awful lot of effort to make it seem like it was a Nobel. There are awards in every field. Advertising executives even have an award of their own called the Clio. Imagine if they had been so bold as to name it "The Clio Award in Memory of Alfred Nobel". Would it make sense to call it "The Nobel Prize in Advertising"?
"Whether you co-opt a famous prize to give legitimacy to yours, or use some other prize, doesn't change a thing for anyone, as long as the prize is equally famous" is a bit of a tautology.
No one ever said Economics is purely a natural science. Studying a specific time period or "current political mood" is not the aspect that determines whether its a "science". Following the scientific method is what's important. With the author's logic, all social science is Fake.
Given social science's penchant for producing untestable theories and valueless navel-gazing there's at least some footing available if someone wanted to plant that flag.
If you look closer, Economics is at least two sciences, with the unfortunate names Microeconomics and Macroeconomics.
Microeconomics, better named Price Theory, which deals with supply and demand curves, is very important and successful. We can now understand things that were completely misunderstood 1-2 centuries ago, and the world is a much better place for it.
Macroeconomics, OTOH, may have an impossible task. The system it tries to understand is aware of the science and alters its behavior as soon as something new is discovered.
economists carried out bloodless coups of central banks
around the globe, co-opting the essentially arbitrary
and political matter of setting interest rates
for themselves.
Interest rates not set by politicians? I think thats been a societal good - though I worry that the independence of the Fed could be undermined by the next president depending on how things go.
[...] bolstered economics as a tool for governing
technocratically and shutting down people who disagree
with the elite consensus
The dawn of a new conspiracy theory.
Economics is not a science
Correct. Lets qualify that - it is a social science. This is a stated thing and not hidden. No one claims its a science on the level of physics or chemistry.
economics also lacks the basic accountability mechanism that real sciences have
In that sense, yes - its a social science. It is not the same. I defer to others on how that is good/bad but the comparison is off.
I don't think the author knows what economics really is (which is shocking "Ben is in his second year of UChicago’s JD-MBA"), but hey, he made the front page on HN.
Certainly. After 45 years of observation of economists tanking national/regional/global economies, cheerlead neoliberal bullshit that contravenes the most basic principles outlined in an econ 101 textbook, and in general standing behind policy that creates shit outcomes for ~ 98% of the nation, the skepticism starts to set in in earnest. The lack of empiricism alone in the social sciences should be sufficient to dismiss them out of hand. The fact that one has been promoted to the notional captain's chair of the world economy beggars belief. And on a personal note I get off on watching folks get kicked in the worldview, so dude's screed is guaranteed to rattle all the right cages.
Technically correct, but considering that the official Nobel organization endorses the prize on their website, it's a little bit of a stretch to call it a "fake". From nobelprize.org [1]:
> The economics prize was established much later and is a memorial prize, as indicated by its full name: the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Its addition was an exception, to celebrate the tercentenary of Sweden’s central bank in 1968.
Of course, I do understand where the author is coming from. Economics as a discpline has large, shady pieces. But I think some of that shadiness exists in the Nobel organization itself....
[1] https://www.nobelprize.org/frequently-asked-questions/#categ...
It is the 'Nobel Memorial Prize' [1], not the Nobel Prize. The former is official, the latter is unfortunately colloquial now.
>> The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, officially the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel[2][3][4] (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne), is an economics award funded by Sveriges Riksbank[5] and administered by the Nobel Foundation.
Although not one of the five Nobel Prizes established by Alfred Nobel's will in 1895,[6] it is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics,[
<<
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...
> Economics is not a science. It is more like history, a set of useful methods but nonetheless highly colored by the current political mood.
> Crucially, economics also lacks the basic accountability mechanism that real sciences have: data. Bad theories in biology or physics disappear when new data repudiates them, but bad theories in economics never go away.
Lost me there. This is just sensationalist.
Economics uses data, but unlike other sciences it is not falsifiable. If an economist makes a prediction that is incorrect, nothing happens. Instead they will always attribute the error to some unexpected factor that couldn't be accounted for (the "black swan" doctrine).
It is sensationalist, but there is a small kernel of truth. Economists have major physics envy and want desperately to be a full mathematically based science, but it's more of a social science (as in not hard science). Doing regression models on the economy is obviously somewhat flawed. There is an experimental branch of economics that does repeatable experiments though, so some practicioners are probably pretty close.
There are a lot of things economists almost universally agree on (e.g. price caps bad), but there are big differences in schools of thought. Politicians can choose a la carte and can find an economist to agree with them on practically any policy.
As far as I understand, economics is a part of Social Science, not just resembling it. I don't think it can contend with the other two branches [1] per se - Formal and Natural, whose basis is different.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science
> Economists have major physics envy
All the rigor of pure mathematics, none of the predictive power of Physics.
The sciences, ranked: https://xkcd.com/435/#math-purity
Peace, famously, is easy to judge objectively; that's why it gets a nobel
Kissinger still got it without peace in Vietnam.
Obama got it for winning an election while being half-white...
The interesting part is:
> Ben is in his second year of UChicago’s JD-MBA
I don’t think anybody cares what Nobel’s family member’s protests were about. Does anyone even bother to learn their names or know a single thing about their lives? It’s also not “fake” and the university didn’t invent it.
The point is there is a prize that many/most people agree is one of the top recognitions of achievement for the field. Whether you call it Nobel or something else, doesn’t change a thing for anyone, as long as the prize is well known and well regarded.
But still, the bank that created the prize went to an awful lot of effort to make it seem like it was a Nobel. There are awards in every field. Advertising executives even have an award of their own called the Clio. Imagine if they had been so bold as to name it "The Clio Award in Memory of Alfred Nobel". Would it make sense to call it "The Nobel Prize in Advertising"?
"Whether you co-opt a famous prize to give legitimacy to yours, or use some other prize, doesn't change a thing for anyone, as long as the prize is equally famous" is a bit of a tautology.
"Whether you call it Nobel or something else, doesn’t change a thing for anyone"
Ok if you believe that, stop calling it a Nobel prize then. Win win
Well, not like that!...
No one ever said Economics is purely a natural science. Studying a specific time period or "current political mood" is not the aspect that determines whether its a "science". Following the scientific method is what's important. With the author's logic, all social science is Fake.
Given social science's penchant for producing untestable theories and valueless navel-gazing there's at least some footing available if someone wanted to plant that flag.
...yes.
Correct: It's not a real Nobel prize
Wrong: Economics is a science, and very important one.
If you look closer, Economics is at least two sciences, with the unfortunate names Microeconomics and Macroeconomics.
Microeconomics, better named Price Theory, which deals with supply and demand curves, is very important and successful. We can now understand things that were completely misunderstood 1-2 centuries ago, and the world is a much better place for it.
Macroeconomics, OTOH, may have an impossible task. The system it tries to understand is aware of the science and alters its behavior as soon as something new is discovered.
> Wrong: Economics is a science, and very important one.
a social science, in other words, a racket
Economics is worse than psychology and that's saying something. Failed sciences
> Bad theories in biology or physics disappear when new data repudiates them
String theory?
No direct data and no predictions.
The safest of bets.
I don't think the author knows what economics really is (which is shocking "Ben is in his second year of UChicago’s JD-MBA"), but hey, he made the front page on HN.
>(which is shocking "Ben is in his second year of UChicago’s JD-MBA"),
Honestly it wouldn't have surprised me if it said he was in his second year of high school.
Can someone who upvoted this, explain why they upvoted this submission?
Certainly. After 45 years of observation of economists tanking national/regional/global economies, cheerlead neoliberal bullshit that contravenes the most basic principles outlined in an econ 101 textbook, and in general standing behind policy that creates shit outcomes for ~ 98% of the nation, the skepticism starts to set in in earnest. The lack of empiricism alone in the social sciences should be sufficient to dismiss them out of hand. The fact that one has been promoted to the notional captain's chair of the world economy beggars belief. And on a personal note I get off on watching folks get kicked in the worldview, so dude's screed is guaranteed to rattle all the right cages.
> Economics is not a science.
Not like Literature, or Peace.
You're both right:)