Re: The Prize by Any Other Name

[Harry L Cook <hlc710@xxxxxxxx>]

I seldom disagree with Henry C.K. Liu, but I  think that analytically
markets and capitalism can be seen as evolving quite naturally
throughout most of the Middle Ages, at least the last two thirds.  First
there were markets, then merchant capitalism, the capitalism of trade
and exchange, then with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in
England industrial capitalism, the capitalism of saving and investment.

						Harry L. Cook

"Henry C.K. Liu" wrote:
>
> If morality should disqualify economics as a Nobel Prize, the Peace Prize should
> slao be disqualified.  It seems to me the arguement is not about economics as a
> discipline, whether its is capable of delivery the greatest good to the greatest
> number, to human civilization and knowledge, but that the discipline of economics,
> much like the dispcipline of political sicence, has been co-opted by capitalism as
> an intellectual  rationalization for market fundamentalism which by defintion
> limits rather than expands the greatest good to the greatest number.  The market is
> an invention of capitalism, not a natural human institution any more than slavery
> is.
>
> There is nothing wrong with competition in morality. What is wrong is when the
> judges are all member of a particular morality camp.
>
> Lets look at a comprehensive picture of the subject matters honored as described by
> the Nobel Prize Internet Archive (http://almaz.com/nobel/nobel.html):
>
> 2001  The prize was awarded jointly to:  GEORGE A. ACKERLOF, A. MICHAEL SPENCE, and
> JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ, for their analyses of markets with asymmetric information.
>
> 2000  The prize will be shared between:  JAMES J. HECKMAN for his development of
> theory and methods for analyzing selective samples and  DANIEL L. MCFADDEN for his
> development of theory and methods for analyzing discrete choice.
>
> 1999  ROBERT A. MUNDELL for his analysis of monetary and fiscal policy under
> different exchange rate regimes and his analysis of optimum currency areas.
>
> 1998  AMARTYA SEN for his contributions to welfare economics.
>
> 1997  ROBERT C. MERTON and MYRON S. SCHOLES for a new method to determine the value
> of derivatives.
>
> 1996 1 JAMES A. MIRRLEES and WILLIAM VICKREY for their fundamental contributions to
> the economic theory of incentives under asymmetric information.
>
> 1995  ROBERT LUCAS for having developed and applied the hypothesis of rational
> expectations, and thereby having transformed macroeconomic analysis and deepened
> our understanding of economic policy.
>
> 1994  The prize was awarded jointly to:  JOHN C. HARSANYI , JOHN F. NASH and
> REINHARD SELTEN for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of
> non-cooperative games.
>
> 1993  The prize was awarded jointly to:  ROBERT W. FOGEL and DOUGLASS C. NORTH for
> having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory and
> quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional change.
>
> 1992  GARY S. BECKER for having extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a
> wide range of human behaviour and interaction, including nonmarket behaviour.
>
> 1991  RONALD H. COASE for his discovery and clarification of the significance of
> transaction costs and property rights for the institutional structure and
> functioning of the economy.
>
> 1990  The prize was awarded with one third each to:  HARRY M. MARKOWITZ , MERTON M.
> MILLER and WILLIAM F. SHARPE for their pioneering work in the theory of financial
> economics.
>
> 1989  TRYGVE HAAVELMO for his clarification of the probability theory foundations
> of econometrics and his analyses of simultaneous economic structures.
>
> 1988  MAURICE ALLAIS for his pioneering contributions to the theory of markets and
> efficient utilization of resources.
>
> 1987  ROBERT M. SOLOW for his contributions to the theory of economic growth.
>
> 1986  JAMES M. BUCHANAN, JR. for his development of the contractual and
> constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision-making.
>
> 1985  FRANCO MODIGLIANI for his pioneering analyses of saving and of financial
> markets.
>
> 1984  SIR RICHARD STONE for having made fundamental contributions to the
> development of systems of national accounts and hence greatly improved the basis
> for empirical economic analysis.
>
> 1983  GERARD DEBREU for having incorporated new analytical methods into economic
> theory and for his rigorous reformulation of the theory of general equilibrium.
>
> 1982  GEORGE J. STIGLER for his seminal studies of industrial structures,
> functioning of markets and causes and effects of public regulation.
>
> 1981  JAMES TOBIN for his analysis of financial markets and their relations to
> expenditure decisions, employment, production and prices.
>
> 1980  LAWRENCE R. KLEIN for the creation of econometric models and the application
> to the analysis of economic fluctuations and economic policies.
>
> 1979  The prize was divided equally between:  THEODORE W. SCHULTZ and SIR ARTHUR
> LEWIS for their pioneering research into economic development research with
> particular consideration of the problems of developing countries.
>
> 1978  HERBERT A. SIMON for his pioneering research into the decision-making process
> within economic organizations.
>
> 1977  The prize was divided equally between:  BERTIL OHLIN and JAMES E MEADE for
> their pathbreaking contribution to the theory of international trade and
> international capital movements.
>
> 1976  MILTON FRIEDMAN for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis,
> monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of
> stabilization policy.
>
> 1975  The prize was awarded jointly to:  LEONID VITALIYEVICH KANTOROVICH and
> TJALLING C. KOOPMANS for their contributions to the theory of optimum allocation of
> resources.
>
> 1974  The prize was divided equally between:  GUNNAR MYRDAL and FRIEDRICH AUGUST
> VON HAYEK for their pioneering work  in the theory of money and economic
> fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic,
> social and institutional phenomena.
>
> 1973  WASSILY LEONTIEF for the development of the input-output method and for its
> application to important economic problems.
>
> 1972  The prize was awarded jointly to:  SIR JOHN R. HICKS and KENNETH J. ARROW for
> their pioneering contributions to general economic equilibrium theory and welfare
> theory.
>
> 1971  SIMON KUZNETS for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth
> which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure
> and process of development.
>
> 1970  PAUL A SAMUELSON for the scientific work through which he has developed
> static and dynamic economic theory and actively contributed to raising the level of
> analysis in economic science.
>
> 1969  The prize was awarded jointly to:  RAGNAR FRISCH and JAN TINBERGEN for having
> developed and applied dynamic models for the analysis of economic processes.
>
> It is not dififcult to see that many economic concepts honored by the Nobel
> Committee, while usually for work done decades earlier, were concepts much in vogue
> at the time the prizes were awarded, soon to be followed by real life disasters
> cause by the unquestioned, widespread applications of these very same concepts.
> Stiglitz, who only belatedly raised questions about market fundamentalism, but who
> was very much apart of the economics establishment that promoted the market as the
> solution for the post Cold War era, is the latest example.
>
> The Nobel Prize seems to serve one unspoken function: that of tomb stones for the
> graveyard of dangerous, harmful and obsolete economic theories.
>
> Henry C.K. Liu
>
> larson@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> > There is a good reason why Alfred Nobel never instituted an economics prize. It
> > is not the case, as one sometimes hears, that economics was not a developed
> > science in Scandinavia a good century ago - one need not go farther than to
> > Wicksell to see how wrong that is. So Nobel was probably well aware of
> > economics. However, our discipline was then, and still is, fundamentally a
> > moral science, and you can't compete in morale. You can achieve excellence in
> > ethics - the study of morale - and you can have high moral standards as an
> > individual. But if competition in morale had been a good idea it would not have
> > been awarded a Nobel prize; it would have been part of the Olympics.
> >
> > As a principle I object to the Bank of Sweden prize, but if I disregard that
> > principle for a moment I'd vote for Paul Davidson. But his chance of winning it
> > is as big as Astrid Lindgren's is to win the Literature prize.
> >
> > Besides, Paul can be happy not having to go to Sweden to recieve the medal. All
> > the decent folks not doubt left that place last century.
> >
> > E Svecia Nil Nisi Male,
> > /srl
> >
> > Quoting John Gelles <johng@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > >         My sincere thanks to Per Gunnar Bergulund for
> > >         allowing us to share thoughts about Alfred Nobel,
> > >         the Royal Academy of Science's Committee for
> > >         the Bank of Sweden Prize in economics, the
> > >         difference between doing good as a scientist and
> > >         doing your best as an economist, and the current
> > >         feelings of certain heirs of Alfred Nobel.
> > >
> > >         Similar thanks must go to all involved in the Nobel
> > >         prizes, including the heirs above and the actual
> > >         people who have awarded the many prizes over
> > >         the years, as well as those who got the prizes.
> > >
> > >         If we look at all the prizes that get our attention,
> > >         the Nobel's stand up as the best if our measure is
> > >         close to Albert Nobel's expressed intention. No
> > >         doubt the record is less than perfect. But the
> > >         awards are deserving of the good reputation
> > >         most of them enjoy.
> > >
> > >         As to economics?  Can ant good come of it?
> > >         Was the warm feeling many of us had when
> > >         Vickery won the prize totally bogus?  I don't
> > >         think so.
> > >
> > >         We wish God, himself, gave prizes -- and that
> > >         he always consulted each one of us before he
> > >         did. Our wish has been denied. But the Nobel
> > >         prize in economics, if awarded to one of our
> > >         own, makes it a better day.
> > >
> > >         Yes, it has often gone to winners we didn't
> > >         respect. Bus is not the acid test: "Do we prefer
> > >         the prizes, with all their faults, to a different
> > >         world -- where news of the lesser prizes we
> > >         suffer were all we ever heard?'
> > >
> > >         John Gelles
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sven R Larson
> > PhD; Assistant professor of economics
> > Department of Social Sciences, Bldg. 22.2
> > Roskilde University
> > Pb 260
> > DK-4000 Roskilde
> > Telephone: (+45) 4674 2910