Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Committee Lowers Nobel Prize Award

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the economics-of-the-prize dept.

The Almighty Buck 178

Snirt writes "The Nobel Committee has chosen to lower this year's Nobel prize winnings by two million kronor ($283,030) due to turbulence in the current economic climate. The prize now stands at 8 million kronor, down from the 10 million of 2011. 'The reason behind this decision is that the financial markets are really unstable and there are reasons to suspect that this turbulence will continue for a while still,' said Lars Heikensten, head of the Nobel Committee, to the TT news agency. 'Long term, we aim to raise the figure, even though we think that the Nobel Prize's value should lie in the prize itself and not the prize money,' he said. While Heikensten admits that it was a 'tough decision' to cut the prize money, he told the news agency that it's not the first time the prize sum has been altered, adding that it has been lowered and raised several times over the past few years."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nobel Faget Award (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40287917)

Fucken cheap-ass fagets.

Forget it (5, Funny)

ewg (158266) | more than 2 years ago | (#40287965)

I was going to try winning one, but now? Forget it!

Re:Forget it (1)

gameboyhippo (827141) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288277)

Maybe if you win a Nobel Prize in Economics, you can receive a higher prize.

Re:Forget it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288405)

A wooden spoon?

Re:Forget it (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288569)

Personally, I'm very concerned about the Chocolates that are also awarded. The only reason I got involved with my dissertation, "Gaming the Euro to a Zero Sum Value" was because of the Chocolates that came with the award. Now, I just don't know.

Nobel Prize in Economics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288897)

Actually, Economics is not one of the Nobel Prizes. It is given out by a separate organisation in memory of Nobel. As such, this decision should not affect the "Nobel" Prize in Economics.

Re:Forget it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40289489)

Monopoly (fake) money for a fake prize?

Re:Forget it (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288469)

Go for the Nobel peace prize. It's got a lower bar.

Re:Forget it (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288703)

+1 "sad but true"

Re:Forget it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40289329)

Why sad? Surely the lower bar reflects the difference between economic achievements and real ones. :P

Re:Forget it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288749)

I learned that you can't nominate yourself, so I too am out.

Re:Forget it (1)

MisterSquid (231834) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289119)

This throws my entire FY 2012 planning out the window!

Re:Forget it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40289129)

Typical Liberals, punishing the job creators and innovators by decreasing the incentive to do, um, stuff. Ah, screw it, I can't melt my brain enough to do this, just find someone who is serious about this us-vs-them mentality and read it as a joke.

Much of a difference? (5, Insightful)

jbuk (1581659) | more than 2 years ago | (#40287975)

Yes, they've cut it down to 80% of what it was before -- but the prize money will continue to fund the same scale of project as before, and people are not going to stop aiming for the award. It's still serving its purpose.

Re:Much of a difference? (4, Insightful)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289065)

Nobel prizes aren't grants, they don't fund projects. The prize is cash money you get to keep yourself; although I think most people donate it to charity. Unfortunately, google is swamped with discussion of what Obama did with his, but Smoot donated his(http://phys.org/news93885786.html), which I understand to be typical.

I lucked out (4, Funny)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#40287979)

Good thing I didn't get selected for a Nobel Prize this year. I think I'll wait til they raise the prize back up before unleashing my brilliance upon the world. I do feel sorry for those suckers winning one now. They're getting screwed over. Just another data point that shows hard work is never the fastest way to riches.

Re:I lucked out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288227)

Would not hurt to start now to unleash your brilliance, because often takes decades before they award someone for their impact on science.

Re:I lucked out (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289747)

I think I'll wait til they raise the prize back up before unleashing my brilliance upon the world.

Sorry to break it to you, but removing your wig doesn't count, no matter how dazzling you think your head is.

Well, that's it, count me *OUT* Nobel Committee!! (0)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40287993)

I'm not doing a bunch of groundbreaking work in physics to be treated like a bitch.

Re:Well, that's it, count me *OUT* Nobel Committee (2)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288705)

I'm totally doing that, but the new prize level isn't *nearly* low enough to count as being treated like a bitch, so I'm out.

Re:Well, that's it, count me *OUT* Nobel Committee (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289351)

I'm not doing a bunch of groundbreaking work in physics to be treated like a bitch.

Please, no! The world needs a versatile quark!

They are irrelevant (5, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40287995)

They are completely irrelevant, at least to people who understand that this is all politics and nothing else. Obama has gotten his for 'peace' and Krugman has gotten his for 'economics'. More so called 'economists' have gotten theirs, with their only contributions being that they support the status quo. They insist that counterfeiting fiat currency supports the bubble economies (of-course that's not what they call it), and they see this as a positive and give governments the green light justifications to print and spend more money when in fact counterfeiting must stop and governments must shrink to fix the economies. You will never hear this from the 'economists' who get their Nobel prizes, not since Hayek has gotten his. Nobel prize is irrelevant, it's a political tool and nothing else.

Re:They are irrelevant (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288137)

Agreed. Ever since Obama got his for Peace-In-Advance I've been skeptical. After 4 years of not doing shit and the Nobel Committee saying nothing of note they must condone his warlike actions as peace prize worthy.

Re:They are irrelevant (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40289199)

I think that whole "We shot Bin Laden" speech would have been more effective if he'd delivered it with his peace-prize medal draped around his neck.

Re:They are irrelevant (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288167)

The economics "Nobel" is separately administrated, and not funded by the Nobel estate.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288189)

Yeah, well, if they want to somehow redeem themselves, they should revoke all of the economics awards since Hayek and then they should immediately nominate Schiff and others, like Rogers [youtube.com] - now that right there is 56 seconds worth a Nobel prize in economics and peace.

Re:They are irrelevant (2)

camperslo (704715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288505)

Maybe those in economics should be given reward futures instead?

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289017)

Yeah well, the real economists just make money based on their own understanding of economics. They shorted the banking sector before the 2008 and they have gold and silver for at least 10 years now.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40289703)

Waaah, Nobel prize committee are idiots because they don't agree with everything I believe in! waaaaah!

For a libertarian, you sure whine a lot. Why'd you care about Nobel prize, anyway? It's their money to spend as they see fit. Your geniuses of Austrian economics should be able to earn their own dime quite easily if everything they say is true.

To republicans maybe (2, Interesting)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288185)

Care to explain how Krugman's predictions on how the crisis would pan out have been so accurate if he doesn't understand any economics? Care also to explain where the inflation, long predicted by the likes of senator Paul and other epigones of Hayek, has been hiding?

As for the nobel peace prize awarded to Obama: that was political indeed, but how could the peace prize not be?

Re:To republicans maybe (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288301)

Care also to explain where the inflation, long predicted by the likes of senator Paul and other epigones of Hayek, has been hiding?

Education, Gas, Corn... It's where the government puts the money after it prints it.

Re:To republicans maybe (4, Informative)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288313)

besides that, the Nobel is awarded for a specific piece of work in science or economics. It's not supposed to reward a long illustrious career, it's about a specific piece of work with lasting impact. Granted in physics especially it tends towards people with long illustrious careers.

Krugman happens to have had a good track record on economic theory. But just as easily he could be a complete trainwreck on macroeconomic theory but have very correctly described one specific phenomena. That would still warrant a nobel prize. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/krugman.html specifically lists what his prize is for.

I remember a few years ago UBC was looking to hire a nobel in physics. I don't know if they got him, but that's immaterial. His nobel was in some actual physics research, but everything he was doing at that point was about innovation in teaching physics.

You can write one ground breaking science paper, and then be a complete loon for the rest of your career, as long as that specific paper is sound you can still theoretically be considered.

Re:To republicans maybe (2, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288317)

how Krugman's predictions on how the crisis would pan out have been so accurate if he doesn't understand any economics?

- Krugman couldn't see the crisis coming until he was already IN it, near the collapse, there (2005 and 2006) [youtube.com] are people (2002) [youtube.com] who predicted (2006) [youtube.com] it and explained why it would happen in advance.

Krugman in fact WANTED a housing bubble [businessinsider.com] , same as him wanting a fucking war with aliens actually [youtube.com] , he believes destroying assets, counterfeiting money and creating bubbles is good for economics, he is a charlatan, not an economist. He is one of those 'economists' used to justify the policies of the gov't, regardless of the administration, they use him - he is 'main stream'.

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288459)

Ok, so there were people who predicted a crisis. This doesn't take away from the fact that during the crisis Krugman was right on most counts, whereas the hyper-inflation Paul has been obsessing over hasn't come to take place.

As for the war with aliens quotes that's not what he said, not even in your link.

Re:To republicans maybe (2, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288759)

I just watched his stupid remarks in that clip: "it's very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy" - fucking retard.

Depressed economy with his recipe - counterfeit as much currency as possible and finance gov't spending that way (and taxes and borrowing, but print print print) - that's how you get inflation, that's what inflation is.

In the 70s USA was exactly in that situation for 10 years - huge inflation (gold going from 35 to 800 etc.) and a recession or depression, whatever the official definition spin is - the production capacity is falling so fast that people are losing jobs and even all the printing doesn't lower the wages fast enough to make it worthwhile keeping them employed.

What do you think 0 or negative interest rates are in relation to the employment? How do you think Federal reserve (with Krugman's ideology) is supposed to 'increase employment'? Do you KNOW HOW? Inflation - it means that the REAL WAGES ARE FALLING.

So the fucking gov't is printing money so that the real wages are falling, and that is what its fucking solution is - lower the wages of employees.

Well fuck me sideways, first they implement fucking retarded minimum wage laws and various welfare programs (and years of EI is also welfare) and then they want to keep people employed by lowering their real wages.

The people are not good at understanding that it's not the number on the dollar bill that counts, it is what it can buy, the equivalent purchasing power of that dollar is NOT stable, it depends on various things, but when gov't prints, it depends heavily on all that inflation, the purchasing power is destroyed by gov't.

Now, Krugman will tell you that gov't must hire and keep all sorts of people hired with all that FAKE money and taxes, and what does that do?

It doesn't allow the economy to restructure the debts it is in, that's first.

Second, it doesn't allow the economy to reduce the amount it's spending on gov't, and that amount has to be reduced. Gov't is a luxury, not an essential of some sort. The bigger the gov't the bigger the luxury, and somebody is PAYING for that luxury, and it's the productivity of the economy that is suffering.

Third, it steals purchasing power from the private sector, misallocates the resources to the public sector, and look at the trade deficits - record high trade deficits for 15 or 20 years now, right? What is it, 54 billion USD a month? That means that US economy is that unproductive, it consumes 54 Billion USD / month MORE than it produces. Why is that? Because:

Fourth, inflation destroys savings and savings are investment capital. Investment capital is destroyed by the inflation and investment capital leaves.

That's why the US is in this crisis today, it's because the dollar is fake, it's because in 1971 the dollar was defaulted on completely and since then everybody who had any savings and investment in production capacity moved their savings and investment in production capacity out of the country.

Krugman's solution? MORE OF THAT SAME THING THAT CAUSED THE DESTRUCTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Yeah, and if the bail out didn't work, in Krugman's world it means it wasn't big enough.

The 800 Billion USD of bail outs? Not big enough by Krugman. He wanted it to be another 2 or 3 hundred billion. As if that would have done the trick - fixing economy with fake money doesn't work, because fake money does not equal real investments.

Real investments cannot happen with fake money, because fake money is only good for gambling and not for productive capacity, because inflation is faster than any return on any real business. That's why the bubbles are inflated and burst, the next one is in dollars and bonds.

You won't hear that from Krugman. But if you listen to that clip, you'll hear that an alien invasion would be good, because it would create fake demand. He is for a war like spending.

Krugman believes that WWII was the key to ending the Great Depression, as if all that employment making bombs and tanks actually HELPED the economy! Yeah, how about all that rationing that was going on - nobody could get a new washing machine and bombs don't make good refrigerators.

It was the END of the WWII that stopped the Great Depression, because spending was cut by near 70% and taxes were cut by 30% and 10 million people returned home and became available as a working force. By the way, the so called 'main stream' economists all insist that the Great Depression was created by the free market, as if free market existed in USA past 1913.

I touched on the way Hoover and FDR created the Great Depression [slashdot.org] out of the recession that was created by the Fed starting from 1925, as the Fed was propping up the bad UK debt and UK pound, created the bubble in agriculture stocks that blew up, and then Hoover started huge bail outs and stimulus programs and all kinds of money printing and asset purchasing and destruction (Greenspan and Krugman would have been proud, Greenspan said he'd buy the houses off the market and destroy them to 'solve the housing bubble', another fucking idiot).

In any case, this is beyond this topic here, but I hope you get my drift.

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288929)

So where is this inflation that you are seeing right now? Consumer Price Index certainly doesn't show it. According to the St Louis fed the monetary base nearly tripled in late 2008 while inflation remained unchanged [stlouisfed.org] (I plotted change in CPI times 100 in order to fit both plots on the same graph. So where's the 1970ies-like inflation to go along with it?

Maybe your view of the world is a tiny bit too simplistic.

Re:To republicans maybe (2, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288993)

CPI? You are serious, aren't you? CPI?

It's been a long time since 1970s, and they have redrawn the way they measure that pathetic index in so many ways, it is absolutely irrelevant. They are going to pass more measures this year to make it smaller, they are saying even now it 'overstates inflation'.

If inflation is measured the way they used to during Nixon, it would be anywhere between 11 and 15% [shadowstats.com] , and it's been there for a couple of decades.

Of-course there are plenty of my comments, where I show simple examples of inflation based on commodity prices, I don't need to redo that, I can just link to one of them [slashdot.org] .

As to my world view - at least I have one and I base my decisions on my world view, that's how I do business, that's how I invest my money.

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289125)

Well, I'm too lazy to do the math for all the cases you give, but where I did it the average annual change needed for the change over the period given falls into the ballpark of CPI. It would have been a lot more useful if you had taken you table an given the exponential of (the logarithm of (the ratio of prices) divided by number of years elapsed). And come on, rubber?

Anyway, how do these numbers show me the hyperinflation of Ron Paul escapes me.

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289165)

Besides, I forgot to say this. There's a lot of value added after the raw materials are imported. You should really use consumer prices when you try to measure inflation. It simply doesn't matter how much wheat costs, if it's only a small fraction of what one pays for a cake. That aside from the prices of agricultural products being highly volatile, choose +- 1 year and you can get a factor two in price in both directions.

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289281)

Hyperinflation is the worst case scenario, and as long as USA can keep EXPORTING its inflation (by other countries printing too and buying up US dollars fast and debasing their own currencies and thus subsidising the USA, thus the trade deficits of 54 Billion USD / month) the inflation will be hurting the people who PRODUCE first, and in USA the prices are rising slower.

USA has gotten very lucky after the WWII, when it didn't have any destruction of its infrastructure, so it had about 15 years of head start on all sorts of production and that's why USA had the very well paid working class (not middle class, that's business owners and professional, no, just working class).

But as the US economy was growing, so was the gov't, and all the excesses of the fifties and sixties lead to the stagflation of the seventies, when USA defaulted on the dollar.

Today the gold priced in US dollars is 1600, that's up from 19 per ounce dollars in 1913, are you too lazy to figure out the percentage of value of the dollar that was lost?

It doesn't have to be 'hyper' inflation to be bad, and it doesn't have to translate to USA not being able to afford eating as long as the rest of the world is willing to buy the inflated dollar.

The rest of the world is on the same path as USA in terms of money destruction because the rest of the world has the same type of 'economists' telling them what's what.

Well, this will end. One good thing about the coming collapse, the real collapse, when the US dollar and bond bubbles collapse, is that it will bring down this type of "economics".

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289401)

Now the gold price is a measure of inflation? A metal with no inherent value whose price can be easily influenced by a few people buying it? Anyway, 1600 from 19 in 100 years that's an inflation of exp(log(1600/19.) / 100) - 100% = 4.5% -- doesn't sound like hyperinflation to me, especially compared to the growth in disposable income per capita http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=7Wt [stlouisfed.org] which grew from 10000$ to 30000$ over the past 30 years which gives me 3.7% annual growth (which for the record is above CPI growth). People are being robbed sloooooooowly it seems.

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289421)

Can you show me any index that responded to the huge increase in the monetary base in 2008 with large inflation? You seem to have missed that part of my reply, focusing on my mention of CPI. If the CPI measures anything related to inflation, shouldn't it have shown an uptick in response?

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288771)

You do realize that the federal government has been sandbagging [shadowstats.com] inflation rates since 1990? In what most of us would call a "bad" economy, necessities are often the worst hit (and hurt the poor the most), yet those are exactly the items that the feds do not count.

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289053)

I'm averaging very roughly, forgive me. From the graph I read that their inflation rate since 1990 was on average 7% (per annum), whereas the CPI gave 3%. That's a price increase of 1.07^22 = 4.43 vs. 1.03^22 = 1.91 over the 22 years since. I picked a random price of the internet to see what comes closer. Of course the product is boxed so there is some fudge factor and I could have made a lucky choice of product -- I just picked the first product that came to mind where I could find prices both past and current. I find on this page [foodtimeline.org] that 36oz of Corn Flakes cost 3.98$ in 1990 while in 2012 they cost 11.40$, which is a factor of 2.86, which is significantly closer to 1.91 on a linear scale, and slightly closer to 1.91 on the more appropriate log scale. Color me unconvinced.

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288665)

Many of the people who take credit for predicting the crises predict a crises every year.

Predictably they are right once in a while.

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288817)

Yeah, well, predicting something by only paying a LIP SERVICE to it is not predicting at all.

Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Mark Faber, Jim Rogers, etc.etc. are not just predicting this, they are making money on their predictions by following their own advice and owning inflation hedges and playing against the market, that's the REAL prediction.

Krugman isn't predicting shit, because he isn't putting his money where his mouth is (very tightly wrapped around the politicians' collective cock).

Re:To republicans maybe (1)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289233)

well, Peter Schiff's clients appear to have lost money during the crisis, e.g. , and the hyperinflation he has predicted didn't come to place. According to your logic, everybody who invested into housing during the bubble was the wisest man on earth -- and suddenly stopped being so when the bubble collapsed. But maybe I fail to see your logic. [businessinsider.com]

Anyway, if Krugman is independent of the market's movements by not investing based on his predictions, it appears to me that he is in a much better position to give neutral advice than somebody who depends on their bets turning out successful.

Re:They are irrelevant (4, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288209)

They are completely irrelevant, at least to people who understand that this is all politics and nothing else. Obama has gotten his for 'peace' and Krugman has gotten his for 'economics'.

Unlike the other prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by the Swedish Nobel institute, but by Norway.
In general, the Swedish prizes are awarded as a recognition for past work, while the Peace Price is just as often meant as an incentive.
So very different politics are at play.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288255)

But Obama is ENDING the wars. S-l-o-w-l-y. He deserves the peace price for ending the wars in 4 years instead of Bush's 8 year schedule, and thereby "only" killing half as many people.

Re:They are irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288371)

But Obama is ENDING the wars. S-l-o-w-l-y. He deserves the peace price for ending the wars in 4 years instead of Bush's 8 year schedule, and thereby "only" killing half as many people.

Bush had a schedule for that? That's news to me.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288457)

The Iraq withdrawal was agreed to prior to Obama taking office, and Obama wanted to EXTEND that withdrawal deadline.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288409)

Well yeah, he is 'ending them' in the same way that we are all eventually going to die - it's political and economic entropy that is ending them.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289069)

But Obama is ENDING the wars. S-l-o-w-l-y. He deserves the peace price for ending the wars in 4 years instead of Bush's 8 year schedule,

He ended Iraq war by following the timeline laid out and agreed upon by the US and Iraqi governments while Bush was still in office. He didn't end the Iraq War, the Iraq War ended on him.

Re:They are irrelevant (2)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288257)

The Peace Prize is hit or miss. I just about gave up on it after they blew one on the worthless UN, but then they sucked me back in a little by giving it to Muhammad Yunus, someone who's actually praiseworthy. (Unlike Barack Obama, who's launched more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined, although I realize that even among the committee that made the decision it was a controversial decision.)

Re:They are irrelevant (4, Funny)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288337)

The Peace Prize is hit or miss. I just about gave up on it after they blew one on the worthless UN, but then they sucked me back in a little by giving it to Muhammad Yunus, someone who's actually praiseworthy. (Unlike Barack Obama, who's launched more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined, although I realize that even among the committee that made the decision it was a controversial decision.)

Those were Cruise Missiles for Peace. So that's completely different. It's like that old saying goes, "you got to spend money to make money". In this case you've got to kill people to save people.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288811)

Which time? They must have awarded the UN or arms of the UN six times! I gave up when they awarded Yasser Arafat.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288941)

I was referring to 2001, but obviously your point is excellent.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

guises (2423402) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288331)

They are completely irrelevant, at least to people who understand that this is all politics and nothing else. [Spewing political flamebait] Nobel prize is irrelevant, it's a political tool and nothing else.

The nobel peace prize has been given both as a prize for previous efforts at promoting peace and as a tool in itself - the committee has given the prize to people who they hope will use whatever status it confers to promote peace in the future. This is not inconsistent with the intention of the prize, but rubs some people the wrong way since it's not what they feel a prize is supposed to be.

I see the same phenomenon with Chicago-style pizza - some people dislike it simply because it's not what they expect pizza to be. They derisively call it "pizza casserole" or some such and refuse to eat it, even though they're only depriving themselves.

To the best of my knowledge, the other nobel prizes have been given exclusively for previous accomplishments and contributions to their fields.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288543)

Ahh yes, mock the Nobels by picking on the two most controversial. So original. (Literature's not that great either, IMO, but whatever...)

The peace prize, by its nature, is controversial. Oh, sure, you have your occasional Lech Walesa or Martin Luther King Jr., but just exactly HOW many have gone to "easing hostility in the Middle East"? (Don't answer that.)

Economics isn't a real Nobel anyway, made by a BANK and piggybacking off the more anointed brethren.

But no complaints over chemistry, physics, medicine / physiology?

Re:They are irrelevant (5, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288639)

The so-called Nobel Prize in economics isn't really a Nobel prize like the one say in Chemistry. It's a prize started by the banksters running the Nobel foundation much later. The complete name is something like "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".

It's shenanigans.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288909)

Mod parent up!

Re:They are irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40289385)

Mod parent off topic!
Starting at +1 is enough to get noticed by the mods.

Re:They are irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288669)

Poor examples.
The "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" is not actually a "real" Nobel prize, as established in the will of Alfred Nobel.

The Nobel peace prize is a real Nobel prize, but is awarded by a Norwegian committee independently of the other prizes. Unfortunately they have a bad habit of occasionally selecting completely absurd awardees, like Obama, which I'll agree cheapens it.

They do have they redeeming moments though. The 2010 Nobel Peace Price [wikipedia.org] springs to mind. It was awarded to Liu Xiaobo [wikipedia.org] , a Chinese human rights activist, sparking a diplomatic incident between Norway and China.

Liu Xiaobo himself was promptly placed under house-arrest by the Chinese government and prevented from accepting the award. Which just goes to show what a freedom-loving and tolerant government they are, of course.

That's the kind of balls I wish the Norwegian Nobel Committee would display more often.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288831)

They are completely irrelevant, at least to people who understand that this is all politics and nothing else. Obama has gotten his for 'peace' and Krugman has gotten his for 'economics'.

Excellent usage of "understand" to mean "make up in a vacuum of ignorance". Here's what's irrelevant: The opinions on the Nobel of people who don't understand the difference between various prizes with the name "Nobel" attached.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288919)

Looks like YOU are the one who can't even understand the written word. The 2 freaking Nobel prizes are mentioned in my comment: peace and economics.

There should be another one just for you, in using straw to make arguments.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289151)

I understood perfectly well that you're claiming the Nobels are irrelevant using as your examples two that are not awarded by the same committee as the natural science prizes. So you're either ignorant of the distinction, or were just choosing to ignore it. Which either way is ignorant and stupid. A point your reply does not address. So I guess it's clear who doesn't understand the written word: The same one who doesn't understand (whether by ignorance or willful stupidity) the nature of the various things called "Nobel prizes".

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

Alomex (148003) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288973)

Krugman did a lot of revolutionary work in Economics, much before the great recession was an interest of his. From your posting it is clear you do not know much economics, since you speak of "fiat currencies" as if they were a relatively recent development, when in fact currencies were already being debased 2000 years ago, in effect making them fiat. Indeed the very term "debasing" comes from diluting the metal alloy.

Economics has the problem that people feel they are experts on it simply because they spend money. To make things even more complicated it is full of counter-intuitive results.

For example suppose you have a company whose fixed costs are making it lose money, so the natural thing is to lower expenditures right? Well it turns out that if your company has a successful wealth-producing idea, then actually the best thing to do is to spend more money. I kid you not. Read on.

You can model your product/idea/merchandise as a black box that takes $1 dollar as input and produces (after manufacturing, advertisement, sales, wages, etc) $1.40 in return. Your $0.40 is your profit margin. Problem is your fixed costs are eating into the profits. So either you can work really hard at reducing fixed costs (hint: they are fixed, so how low do can they go?) or you can invest money, up your production of thingamajigs, and cover the fixed costs from increased sales.

The solution to your company's money losing woes in this case is to spend more money. There are many more like it. So every simpleton and their brother (including high up politicians) thinks they have a grasp of the problem when they don't.

So far during the great recession things have evolved pretty much the way Krugman called them, when conventional wisdom was pointing in a different direction.

So forgive me if I give more credence to the Memorial Nobel Prize of Economics opinion than yours.

Re:They are irrelevant (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289177)

The solution to your body losing blood because of a wound is to lose more blood. See how that works out for you.

Maybe the solution for your body having cancer is to add more cancer cells to it, maybe that will work.

Maybe the solution to you getting fat is to eat more sugar and chicken, who knows, you may just slim down.

The solution to your back aching is to put more stress on it.

The solution to your house being flooded is to add more water.

When your house is on fire, just add more kerosene, yeah, that's the ticket.

The solution to you being in debt is to add more debt indefinitely, in fact you should get one credit card after another and just move your debt from one to another, no problem, right? Because it's totally up to you and not up to your lender when to cut you off.

The solution to you being poor is to get into gov't subsidised housing debt, never mind the extra expenses that come with that - taxes, maintenance, etc., you'll be rich, because you'll have this asset.... oh, and if you have no downpayment - no problem. Just get FHA to finance your downpayment for you at 0%, who needs equity? The banks certainly shouldn't care, right? They are "insured by the gov't".

---

Saying that spending more money by GOVERNMENT is equivalent of INVESTING into something useful is about as smart as all of the above, given the fact that gov't has spent plenty of the borrowed and taxed and printed money over the decades, this should have created a golden age in USA if your ideas actually worked.

But your ideas are as dumb as they get, the gov't spends and all that it means is that the credit is unavailable to the private sector, the investments are destroyed, because investments come from savings, and nobody saves in this inflation, and whoever had investments in production capacity moved out already.

USA isn't producing and no amount of spending by gov't will change that hard fact. FACT: the trade deficit is greater than ever and it's growing, and it's 54 Billion USD/month, this means USA is consuming 54 billion USD / month more than it produces.

Fact: inflation is here, that's what all the commodity prices are showing. Gov't is pretending that speculators are to blame, but speculators are only the discoverers of real prices, they don't set them, they don't make the rules, they discover prices AND they stand on BOTH sides of the trade. So if they are wrong, some of them lose money and those who are right make money, but they can't move the market, they can only tell us what the prices are.

Fact: gov't spending is growing all the time and you are still NOT getting what you are proposing - some sort of 'investment'. It's not an investment - stealing money and spending on gov't projects. If it was a legitimate investment the trade deficit would shrink.

Fact: USA cannot afford this government and it is already bankrupt. USA is bankrupt today, if people stop lending USA money, it cannot make even interest payments on what it has, because that would be the consequence - huge spike in rates, never mind spending on anything else, USA would spend all of its taxes on interest payments alone. Of-course it wouldn't actually do that, because foreigners don't vote in US elections, and no POTUS will say: we are raising taxes and stopping SS and Medicare payments because Chinese and the rest must be paid.

USA is bankrupt, the sooner the world understands it and stops the credit line, the better for everybody, including the USA. Collapse is inevitable, the only question is: will it be a normal bankruptcy or an insane type of inflation?

Fact: Krugman is a politician, not an economist.

--
You can go argue with him if that's your preference.

Re:They are irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288989)

The Peace Nobel is given by a different organization. The only thing it shares with the other Nobels is the name.

Meta: on moderation (1)

Bananenrepublik (49759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289259)

BTW I find it funny to see how the scores of both your post and my first post jump up and down all the time. It appears there are a number of libertarians modding out of political motivation being barely held in check by more intelligent moderators. Just kidding with the interpretation, but the observation is funny nonetheless.

Re:They are irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40289477)

Okay, can I have the 8 million Kroner then, if you ever receive one, since you say they're irrelevant?

I'll agree in terms of prestige, if you can "earn" a Nobel prize for being born half-black/half-white and managing to become President of the United States... inasmuch as someone got one for that "achievement" in "the advancement of peace" without doing anything more than that, following it up with having at least as much blood on his hands as his blood-covered predecessor...

Can we safely assume that every US President elected who is not both white, and male will ALSO get a Nobel prize?

The fact that there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics made it irrelevant right off the bat, actually. Whatever the actual reason, whether it was because someone got jilted, or they just didn't think math was important... (What kind of a fucktarded sonofabitch would think such things as physics, chemistry and economics are important, but that MATH, underpinning ALL three of those AND lots more, is NOT IMPORTANT? Duhhhhh...)

Then they give "Peace" prizes to the likes of Carter and Obama...

Yeah, basically it's more like a game-show, Who Wants To Be Awarded Ten Million Kronor For Nothing, without the actual "show" part.

No biggie (1)

pegasustonans (589396) | more than 2 years ago | (#40287999)

If you're a Nobel laureate at Berkeley, you know the Nobel parking permit [berkeleyside.com] is worth at least 2 million kronor.

Nobel prize lowered by $283,030 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288053)

Or vagina.

Should switch to the gold standard (2)

DSS11Q13 (1853164) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288115)

it would be less economically volatile to just give out a brick of gold with the award... or better yet, just make the medal out of gold, it would only weigh about 44 pounds

Re:Should switch to the gold standard (1)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288261)

If it's not gold-pressed Latinum, then it's worthless.

Already tainted (3, Insightful)

vuke69 (450194) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288159)

It's value was lowered by a lot more than that when Obama won it.

Re:Already tainted (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288577)

It's always easy to spot the ignorant little kiddies. They're the ones who bitch about Obama's prize and never seem to mention Kissinger's.

Re:Already tainted (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288715)

It's always easy to spot the ignorant little kiddies. They're the ones who bitch about Obama's prize and never seem to mention Kissinger's.

It was also awarded to Arafat and Carter. No need to go back to Kissinger to see the award make a mockery of itself.

I stopped caring when... (3, Insightful)

sdguero (1112795) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288211)

Obama got one for being elected President. Nobel hipsters can suck my balls.

Re:I stopped caring when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288351)

I thought he did the "getting elected" part extraordinarily well the last time around. Definitely worth a price or two.

Don't judge all the awards by the peace group (2)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288567)

they became political far too long ago making a mockery of the prize.

The areas of hard science are still doing well, time will tell if they become as corrupted.

and yes, I too shook my head when President elect Obama received one, if anything it probably had the complete opposite effect those who rewarded wanted it too. As in, they are as connected to the opinion of the world as Washington DC is to the rest of America

Re:I stopped caring when... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288587)

In light of Obama's award for Peace, Goldman Sachs should get the Economics prize

Re:I stopped caring when... (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288589)

But what are your thoughts on the Nobel winners for Chemistry, Physics and Medicine/Physiology?

Any complaints there? Cause there's 4* other Nobels besides Peace. (*Fuck economics.)

Re:I stopped caring when... (1)

sdguero (1112795) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288671)

Same committee right? If so, I don't trust any of them...

Re:I stopped caring when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288803)

Wrong.

Very wrong.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awards the Nobel Prize in Physics, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet awards the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. The Swedish Academy grants the Nobel Prize in Literature. The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by a Swedish organisation but by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

Thanks for learning.

The prize wasn't for Obama. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288739)

It was an attempt to reward the American people for belatedly rejecting the globally-loathed politics of Bush. You have no concept of how grateful the rest of the world was that the US wasn't completely batshit crazy. That there were moments of clarity. This prize was Norway's attempt at positive reinforcement. Forgive them their misguided enthusiasm. For it turned out you really are batshit crazy.

Re:The prize wasn't for Obama. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40289645)

Yeah.. we totally rejected Bush. As soon as he hit the term limit, he was out of there so fast. (we would have done it sooner, but kicking him out before the full 8 years would have hurt his feelings.)

Seems appropriate (2)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288215)

They've lowered the standards over the last years, why not lower the award as well?

Of course, I think about $1 is where it's worth today.

Re:Seems appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40288431)

$1? Well there's my 2eurocents!

Re:Seems appropriate (4, Informative)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288563)

So you could have done for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/ and think it's only worth a dollar?

or:
for palladium-catalyzed cross couplings in organic synthesis http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2010/

How about "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work" http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/

maybe "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China"." (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2010/)

Maybe something so fundamentally pointless as "for the development of in vitro fertilization" http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2010/

or how about something that no one would ever use like ", one half awarded to Charles Kuen Kao "for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication", the other half jointly to Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith "for the invention of an imaging semiconductor circuit – the CCD sensor"." http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2009/

Because you know.. those achievements are low standards. Cutting the prize money is unlikely to matter much. By the time people get it they are either young enough that the real money is in speaking fees and in the huge salary boost they get, or old enough their estate planning is already done and adding more to it is giving money to their kids or charity.

When you develop a cure for aids, develop a quantum computer that can actually solve a meaningful problem, find a way to replace the government in north korea and china with ones that respect human rights, or lift a couple of billion people out of poverty, then you get to claim the nobel prize is worthless. Until then, you're talking out of your ass.

Yes, because the Nobel prize is only for... (1)

swx2 (2632091) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288403)

... Peace, and Economics. Forget that what most people look for when they announce the prizes is to see who/what topic won the Physics and Chemistry prizes.

Gender equity (4, Funny)

icensnow (932196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288473)

They lowered it to 80% of its former value? A sure sign that they're planning to give them to women this year.

Comedy prize (2)

istartedi (132515) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288489)

They cut the current awards to fund a comedy prize. Sorry none of you guys joking about getting the other prizes made the cut. It's all mine, baby.

Nobel Committee Awards Itself (1)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288495)

Nobel Committee Awards itself the Nobel Prize in Economics for their keen insight into the current world economic situation.

You get what you pay for (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288591)

The value of the Nobel prize has been deflating for several decades, which has resulted in (correlates with) an increase in wars and conflict. This latest cut could trigger a new set of skirmishes.

Kills the retort... (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288849)

This absolutely kills the comeback that I used to use to the question: "if you're so smart, how come you ain't rich", to which I would say "when I win my Nobel, I will be". Now I can win a Nobel and not be rich. Very sad.

This is what happens when you forget math (1)

Qubit (100461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40288907)

Ummm... how about instead of pegging the prize money at a set purse, they just set it to a simple formula such as "Amount of money we expect the principal to earn between now and the next time we award the prize." ?

Couldn't they just phone up one of the many Nobel Prize-winning mathematicians of the last couple of decades and ask them for help?

Non-Scientific Nobels are far less worthy. (1)

cribera (2560179) | more than 2 years ago | (#40289045)

Peace, Economics and Literature, too many omissions and subjective criteria.

It can get lower? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40289079)

I thought it had hit rock bottom when they gave obama the peace prize... for doing NOTHING!

Pretty damm low.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?