Economics : Nobel = Mud Wrestling : Olympics

["John Gelles" <johng@xxxxxxxxxx>]

        Reading Sven R Larson on Sat, 24 Nov, offers food
        for thought:  Perhaps economics is NOT a material
        science, but is rather a moral undertaking. Perhaps
        most moral undertakings are equal in the sense that
        they ARE moral--NOT immoral or amoral.
                    If this is so, morality as the basis for a contest
        is not well suited to become an Olympic event or a
        field for a Nobel prize.  After all, there is no Nobel
        prize for religion or law.
                    The Nobel prize for peace does suggest that
        Alfred Nobel had in mind to encourage morality--and
        the fact that economics, religion and law were excluded
        may be proof that it is now wrong to use his name to
        bring fame to any practioners in these fields.

        Even if Sven is wrong and my musings foolish,
        the truth is that "winning" a prize cannot create all
        the admirable facts that ought to stand behind it.
        Some awards are deserved--and some are not.

        If economics as a field of study were to result in
        improved minimum standards of living, (adjusted
        for natural disasters,) year after year, people might
        agree the bank's prize is OK--even its use of the
        Nobel name.

        The prize can even be rescued in a far easier way:
        Award it to John Kenneth Galbraith and I'll stand
        up and cheer.

            John Gelles