RE: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
-Original Message- From: Technotranscendence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 4:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics ... Of course, there's no need to wait for the Nobel people to do that. You can always just form another award and hand that out on the criteria you feel are more relevant. I believe there are too many awards and too many awards ceremonies. I'm more interested in the work then the award or the awards process. I guess they are signaling devices, but some of them seem woefully distorted and I wonder what they really signal. (The Nobel Prize might be one of the better ones, in terms of this, BUT look at who gets the peace prize. In the past decade or so, it looks more like a popularity contest than anything else.) Cheers! Daniel Ust http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/ --- Because government violence must be used to protect intellectual property rights, I have mixed feelings about such protection when copying does not take anything material from the one with the original. Yes, copying reduces market value, and therefore market rewards for creativity, etc., and if there were no patents or copyrights, possibly progress would be inhibited. Still, when my car is stolen, I don't have it. When my idea is copied, I still do. That's a huge difference, to me. I can imagine many, many, different and varied awards (ad nauseum?), as an alternative market reward for the creative innovators, especially those whose ideas are most frequently copied. It's a pleasant fantasy, as I burn my own CDs... Tom Grey PS sorry about the other post. Send, delete, what's the difference?
RE: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
-Original Message- From: Technotranscendence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 4:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics On Friday, September 21, 2001 9:27 PM fabio guillermo rojas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other nobel prizes have been awarded to individuals that weren't formally trained. Some literature winners were not fiction writers, a recent physics went to an engineer and medicine/physiology often goes to non-MD biologists. If people started thinking contribution to economic thought, then we might open it up to people in b-schools, psychologists and others. thne it might get interesting. Of course, there's no need to wait for the Nobel people to do that. You can always just form another award and hand that out on the criteria you feel are more relevant. I believe there are too many awards and too many awards ceremonies. I'm more interested in the work then the award or the awards process. I guess they are signaling devices, but some of them seem woefully distorted and I wonder what they really signal. (The Nobel Prize might be one of the better ones, in terms of this, BUT look at who gets the peace prize. In the past decade or so, it looks more like a popularity contest than anything else.) Cheers! Daniel Ust http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
On Friday, September 21, 2001 9:27 PM fabio guillermo rojas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other nobel prizes have been awarded to individuals that weren't formally trained. Some literature winners were not fiction writers, a recent physics went to an engineer and medicine/physiology often goes to non-MD biologists. If people started thinking contribution to economic thought, then we might open it up to people in b-schools, psychologists and others. thne it might get interesting. Of course, there's no need to wait for the Nobel people to do that. You can always just form another award and hand that out on the criteria you feel are more relevant. I believe there are too many awards and too many awards ceremonies. I'm more interested in the work then the award or the awards process. I guess they are signaling devices, but some of them seem woefully distorted and I wonder what they really signal. (The Nobel Prize might be one of the better ones, in terms of this, BUT look at who gets the peace prize. In the past decade or so, it looks more like a popularity contest than anything else.) Cheers! Daniel Ust http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
Tullock's degree is in law, but almost all of his countless publications are in economics. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'When a man thinks he's good - *that's* when he's rotten. Pride is the worst of all sins, no matter what's he's done.' 'But if a man knows that what he's done is good?' 'Then he ought to apologize for it.' 'To whom?' 'To those who haven't done it.' -- Ayn Rand, *Atlas Shrugged*
Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
Nash, a mathematician, has won. - Original Message - From: fabio guillermo rojas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, September 22, 2001 0:27 am Subject: Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics Other nobel prizes have been awarded to individuals that weren't formally trained. Some literature winners were not fiction writers, a recent physics went to an engineer and medicine/physiology often goes to non-MD biologists. If people started thinking contribution to economic thought, then we might open it up to people in b-schools, psychologists and others. thne it might get interesting. Fabio On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, jim horsman wrote: Not to be picky, (I guess I am) but, isn't Tullock a lawyer by primary credential and training sure, but we can define an economist as one who publishes in economic journals. Not too many more prolific than Gordon.
Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
Is there anyone the team sees as leading research into intangibles, human relationship constructs such as trust, knowledge, social and intellectual capital? Excuse me if some of these are not dead central in economics vocabulary. In working with major multinational companies, these are now core to their wealth creating and value exchanging potential. I would like to make the best links to theory and practice both from the economist's viewpoint and the general management viewpoint. From the latter's viewpoint this takes on renewed urgency when a magazine like The Economist can write such a superficial analysis of the practical economics of intangibles as the cover story ProLogo 2 weeks ago chris macrae - Original Message - From: Bill Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 September 2001 21:21 PM Subject: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics As Fall approaches one of the interesting rituals involves the selection of Nobel Laureates. While I'm not a legitimate bookie, I do engage in some innocuous speculation about who will receive the Nobel Prize in Economics. I did however correctly forecast Robert Mundell several years ago but for the most part my track record is not impressive. Paul Romer is a sure lock as a future recipient. This year I submit the following three (3) names: 1. William Baumol 2. Albert Hirshman 3. Janet Yellen [sorry Prof. Ackerlof but your wife will be the first family member recognized :-)] So, who are your deserving entries? Bill Dickens
RE: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
Not to be picky, (I guess I am) but, isn't Tullock a lawyer by primary credential and training? I know there are many outstanding legal theorists [Tullock, Posner, Greg Sidak, Ian Ayers, etc.] who have made significant contributions in formal economic theory. Then again the role of transaction costs in economics has definitely blurred the distinction between law and economics. QED Bill Dickens [FL-based] -Original Message- From: jim horsman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics Tullock- a great injustice was done to this man when he wasn't given a joint prize with Buchanan. Does anyone know if Buchanan agrees? I have never heard him address this. Baumol- that would be a wonderful choice. Smith- see above. my 2 personal favorites, though they have no chance of winning are a- Joe Ostroy- the no surplus condition april 82 jet. Reading that paper was the highlight of my academic education. b- Gibbard-Satterwaite .I guess in many ways it is derivative, but was i impressed at their technique.
Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
Not to be picky, (I guess I am) but, isn't Tullock a lawyer by primary credential and training sure, but we can define an economist as one who publishes in economic journals. Not too many more prolific than Gordon.
Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
Other nobel prizes have been awarded to individuals that weren't formally trained. Some literature winners were not fiction writers, a recent physics went to an engineer and medicine/physiology often goes to non-MD biologists. If people started thinking contribution to economic thought, then we might open it up to people in b-schools, psychologists and others. thne it might get interesting. Fabio On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, jim horsman wrote: Not to be picky, (I guess I am) but, isn't Tullock a lawyer by primary credential and training sure, but we can define an economist as one who publishes in economic journals. Not too many more prolific than Gordon.
Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
Of course, Bill, the right thing to do would be to state some odds and place a bet. Fabio On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Bill Dickens wrote: As Fall approaches one of the interesting rituals involves the selection of Nobel Laureates. While I'm not a legitimate bookie, I do engage in some innocuous speculation about who will receive the Nobel Prize in Economics. I did however correctly forecast Robert Mundell several years ago but for the most part my track record is not impressive. Paul Romer is a sure lock as a future recipient. This year I submit the following three (3) names: 1. William Baumol 2. Albert Hirshman 3. Janet Yellen [sorry Prof. Ackerlof but your wife will be the first family member recognized :-)] So, who are your deserving entries? Bill Dickens
Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
My wish (not prediction): Joint prize for Anne Krueger and Gordon Tullock for rent-seeking. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what *they* thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. --Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
I'd love to see Tullock or Smith. My prediction is that the winner will be some obscure person. Not a single one of us will be able to think of what he's done. Mitch - Original Message - From: Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, September 20, 2001 2:37 pm Subject: Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics My wish (not prediction): Joint prize for Anne Krueger and Gordon Tullock for rent-seeking. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what *they* thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. --Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
Re: Handicapping the 2001 Noble Prize in Economics
I will happlily give 5 to 1 that George beats out Janet in getting the Nobel. - Bill Dickens (the DC one) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/01 18:44 PM Of course, Bill, the right thing to do would be to state some odds and place a bet. Fabio On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Bill Dickens wrote: As Fall approaches one of the interesting rituals involves the selection of Nobel Laureates. While I'm not a legitimate bookie, I do engage in some innocuous speculation about who will receive the Nobel Prize in Economics. I did however correctly forecast Robert Mundell several years ago but for the most part my track record is not impressive. Paul Romer is a sure lock as a future recipient. This year I submit the following three (3) names: 1. William Baumol 2. Albert Hirshman 3. Janet Yellen [sorry Prof. Ackerlof but your wife will be the first family member recognized :-)] So, who are your deserving entries? Bill Dickens
