[jolepp]

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 1974 Prize for Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel to

Professor Gunnar Myrdal and Professor Friedrich 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.
...

(The Prize in Economics 1974 - Press Release)

That is, the 1974 Economics Nobel prize was shared by Myrdal and Hayek, two economists with opposing views. The former was a leading figure of the 'Stockholm school of economics', while Hayek was in a similar position in the Austrian school. A summary of the former might be that it is a part of the Keynesian school of thought and that, in particular, it has provided the intellectual underpinnings of the (Northern) European welfare state.

In general, the above should demonstrate that the Nobel prize (of Economics) should perhaps not be seen as a blanket endorsement of a particular person or school of thought, but rather as an acknowledgment of work that has pushed the boundaries of its respective field of study.

[ meta-discussion: This thread is an experiment with the idea of starting a new thread on a tangential issue from another thread; sometimes the tangents are interesting as such, but getting far off topic in the original thread. ]

[Lupine]

Lean much closer to Hayek, but I'm a Libertarian, so...

[jeffkrol]

(The Prize in Economics 1974 - Press Release)

That is, the 1974 Economics Nobel prize was shared by Myrdal and Hayek, two economists with opposing views. The former was a leading figure of the 'Stockholm school of economics', while Hayek was in a similar position in the Austrian school. A summary of the former might be that it is a part of the Keynesian school of thought and that, in particular, it has provided the intellectual underpinnings of the (Northern) European welfare state.

In general, the above should demonstrate that the Nobel prize (of Economics) should perhaps not be seen as a blanket endorsement of a particular person or school of thought, but rather as an acknowledgment of work that has pushed the boundaries of its respective field of study.

[ meta-discussion: This thread is an experiment with the idea of starting a new thread on a tangential issue from another thread; sometimes the tangents are interesting as such, but getting far off topic in the original thread. ]

No discussion can be complete without the "irony" of Nobel.........

Alfred Nobel (About this sound listen (help·info)) was born on 21 October 1833 in Stockholm, Sweden, into a family of engineers.[5] He was a chemist, engineer, and inventor. In 1894 Nobel purchased the Bofors iron and steel mill, which he made into a major armaments manufacturer. Nobel also invented ballistite, a precursor to many smokeless military explosives, especially the British smokeless powder cordite. Nobel was even involved in a patent infringement lawsuit over cordite. Nobel amassed a fortune during his lifetime. Most of his wealth was from his 355 inventions, of which dynamite is the most famous.[6]

In 1888, Alfred was astonished to read his own obituary, titled ‘The merchant of death is dead’, in a French newspaper. As it was Alfred's brother Ludvig who had died, the obituary was eight years premature. The article disconcerted Nobel and made him apprehensive about how he would be remembered. This inspired him to change his will.[7] On 10 December 1896 Alfred Nobel died in his villa in San Remo, Italy, from a cerebral haemorrhage. He was 63 years old.[8]

To widespread astonishment, Nobel's last will specified that his fortune be used to create a series of prizes for those who confer the "greatest benefit on mankind" in physics, chemistry, peace, physiology or medicine, and literature.[9

this is funny..........

To round off the oddities about this year’s prize, one of the laureates, Peter Diamond, had been nominated by President Obama for a seat on the board of the Federal Reserve. His nomination has been blocked, however, because Republican opponents have doubts about his qualifications for the job.

It seems the main purpose of this year’s prize is to underline that markets often do not work, in this case because of search costs in labour markets. But that such costs exist is hardly disputed.

It would have been more appropriate if the Nobel committee had honoured an economist who had made contributions to showing how markets work. Like Liu Xiabao, who was widely pipped to win the Nobel last year, Israel M. Kirzner may have to wait one more year.

http://www.oliver-marc-hartwich.com/publications/ideas-thecentre/this-year-s...market-failure

2010................