A Professor of Economics, who happened to win a Nobel Prize, not good enough for Fed

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chibibar

AshburnerX said:
Republicans blocking a move that would be good for workers and bad for Big Business? I'm SHOCKED.
Click to expand...
Bingo!!

This just proves (at least to me) that the Republican doesn't really care of about the economic. They only care who can lined their pockets!

Nobel Prize, isn't this the highest award a person can get? it is like saying a person who got one for Physics can't do physics work.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Interestingly, there actually is no Nobel Prize in economics, the thing that people call the nobel prize in economics is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences

It's still a prestigious award though.....

But you have to be really careful making appeals to authority like this. If I recal correctly there have been a number of laureates for this award who have devised policies and equations that have been seriously detrimental to the economy. Economics isn't necessarily a hard science, so being able to use a subjective award system as a way to validate authority.....well, this guy said it best:

"Yet I must confess that if I had been consulted whether to establish a Nobel Prize in economics, I should have decidedly advised against it.......

It is that the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.

This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence.

But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.

There is no reason why a man who has made a distinctive contribution to economic science should be omnicompetent on all problems of society - as the press tends to treat him till in the end he may himself be persuaded to believe.

One is even made to feel it a public duty to pronounce on problems to which one may not have devoted special attention.

I am not sure that it is desirable to strengthen the influence of a few individual economists by such a ceremonial and eye-catching recognition of achievements, perhaps of the distant past.

I am therefore almost inclined to suggest that you require from your laureates an oath of humility, a sort of hippocratic oath, never to exceed in public pronouncements the limits of their competence."

Note the last line. Then note the line from the article:

"LAST October, I won the Nobel Prize in economics for my work on unemployment and the labor market. But I am unqualified to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve — at least according to the Republican senators who have blocked my nomination. How can this be? "

So, because he won a Nobel Prize he is qualified for this work? That is a massive failure of logic, and frankly stinks of not the smallest amount of butthurts.

Oh yeah, and that previous quotation was attributed to Friedrich August von Hayek's acceptance speech. He wasn't the only one to make this argument.

Also, if winning that award implies a special unnassailable insight and ability, let me also point out that Milton Friedman won it.
 
Krisken

Krisken

Qualified? You mean like being a professor of Economics at MIT, wrote books on pension reform, behavioral economics and its applications, social security reform, and unemployment. I'm sure all that means he knows nothing about economics and god forbid how to properly influence the markets.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
No, see those are qualifications. Those are good arguments, or at least, less bad arguments (some still are simply appeals to authority, but at least they are better appeals). Arguments about what he has worked on and why that's important for the country are good. Same as arguments about what he hasn't worked on and why that would be bad for the country.

"He has a nobel prize" is not a good argument, and he should have known better than to cage it like that (even though the rest of the article goes on to make a solid argument for why he would have been good)
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Necronic said:
"He has a nobel prize" is not a good argument, and he should have known better than to cage it like that (even though the rest of the article goes on to make a solid argument for why he would have been good)
Click to expand...
Well you don't exactly get Nobel prizes without doing something very well in your field... unless it's a peace prize...

And the guy made a great case why the work he won the prize for is relevant...
 
strawman

strawman

Economic policy is very directly politically motivated. However, you can't easily reject someone because you disagree with their economic policy. Much easier to reject them for being unqualified, especially if there are things that could be used to discredit them.

The democrats do the same thing when the positions are reversed. It's simply part of the nomination process.

The idea that a nobel prize is qualification for being on the fed is utterly insane. There is absolutely no correlation between successfully guiding the fed and winning a nobel prize. He may be otherwise qualified, but it should be quite obvious that not all economic nobel prize winners should be automatically offered a seat on the board.

That he is using his prize in this way does a lot to discredit him, in my view.
 
Krisken

Krisken

stienman said:
The democrats do the same thing when the positions are reversed. It's simply part of the nomination process.
Click to expand...
No one said he should be qualified because he has a nobel prize (really, who keeps pushing that? I'm starting to find this being continually pushed to be really, really annoying).
I also don't agree with this. People are being held up for ridiculous reasons. More nominees of Obamas have been rejected (by about 40) than Bush and Clinton (who had the same number approved) had been at this time in their Presidencies.

What really peeves me off is if the Dems were being this obstructive they would be raked over the coals by the so-called 'liberal media'.
 
strawman

strawman

Krisken said:
No one said he should be qualified because he has a nobel prize (really, who keeps pushing that? I'm starting to find this being continually pushed to be really, really annoying).
Click to expand...
Nobel Prize winner in Economics not good enough for Fed


Change the title of the thread if it's not about the Nobel Prize.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

stienman said:
The idea that a nobel prize is qualification for being on the fed is utterly insane. There is absolutely no correlation between successfully guiding the fed and winning a nobel prize. He may be otherwise qualified, but it should be quite obvious that not all economic nobel prize winners should be automatically offered a seat on the board.
Click to expand...
It was a nobel prize for work that is relevant to the position... which is his argument in the article.
 
strawman

strawman

Krisken said:
It's an attention grabber.
Click to expand...
Wait. You use an "attention grabber" headline, then complain when people attack the headline?

Good luck with that, boss.

@Li3n said:
It was a nobel prize for work that is relevant to the position... which is his argument in the article.
Click to expand...
It was for work relevant to the position in an indirect way. Yes, monetary policy affects job rate, but he's presenting it as though no one on the board understands it and takes it into account, and thus he should be on the board so he can help them make better decisions that will indirectly impact the job rate. It's interesting that he supposes they are idiots in his field.

But the real issue isn't whether he's qualified - the issue is what stance he will take going forward:

a policy of keeping short-term interest rates exceptionally low and buying Treasury securities to keep long-term rates down.
Click to expand...
His argument is that doing so won't increase inflation. He may be right, he may be wrong. It may be that his policy would be better for the economy.

Regardless, the salient point is that the republicans disagree with his analysis and the stance he's espousing regarding what the fed should be doing right now, and they are blocking his nomination.

Are you arguing that he should be placed on the board because you believe they should keep interest rates low, despite the possibility of inflation (not to mention his assertion that we are experiencing primarily structural unemployment)? Or are you arguing that he should be appointed to the board simply because the republicans don't like him and the democrats do?

:popcorn:
 
Covar

Covar

It's just a headline. You know, like "Scott Adams Supports Rape". Or "Superman Renounces American Citizenship." Krisken you and DC both knew what you were doing. You don't get to write the controversial attention getting headline then get upset when people argue it/don't like it/point out it's flaws.
 
Krisken

Krisken

It's all in how you read it. If you want to read "Nobel Prize winner in Economics not good enough for Fed" as "A man, who's only qualification is the Nobel Prize, is not good enough for the Fed", there's not much I can say to you. If, however, you read the words as they are written, it in no way suggests that his qualification is dependent on being a Nobel prize winner.

Cover, eat a dick. I know what I was trying to do, don't tell me what I intended. If it has to be spelled out for everyone I'll change the title to stop the nonsensical distraction from a discussion which should be about someone very qualified for a position being denied a position he would serve well in by a partisan ass-hat whose only goal is to try to somehow punish Obama. Of course, fuck the country.

Everyone happy now?
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Krisken said:
Cover, eat a dick.
Click to expand...
Dude, too much. The only way the Politics forum can keep from degenerating into a free-for-all every post is by everyone keeping their cool. Out and out insults are not cool here because it inflames people already talking about passionate topics.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
AshburnerX said:
Dude, too much. The only way the Politics forum can keep from degenerating into a free-for-all every post is by everyone keeping their cool. Out and out insults are not cool here because it inflames people already talking about passionate topics.
Click to expand...
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT DO IT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
 
Tress

Tress

AshburnerX said:
Dude, too much. The only way the Politics forum can keep from degenerating into a free-for-all every post is by everyone keeping their cool. Out and out insults are not cool here because it inflames people already talking about passionate topics.
Click to expand...
Of course. The rule here is you make snide comments and implied insults constantly while adding little to the discussions. You can't be direct with your insults; that's just uncouth.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

stienman said:
It was for work relevant to the position in an indirect way. Yes, monetary policy affects job rate, but he's presenting it as though no one on the board understands it and takes it into account, and thus he should be on the board so he can help them make better decisions that will indirectly impact the job rate. It's interesting that he supposes they are idiots in his field.

But the real issue isn't whether he's qualified - the issue is what stance he will take going forward:

His argument is that doing so won't increase inflation. He may be right, he may be wrong. It may be that his policy would be better for the economy.

Regardless, the salient point is that the republicans disagree with his analysis and the stance he's espousing regarding what the fed should be doing right now, and they are blocking his nomination.

Are you arguing that he should be placed on the board because you believe they should keep interest rates low, despite the possibility of inflation (not to mention his assertion that we are experiencing primarily structural unemployment)? Or are you arguing that he should be appointed to the board simply because the republicans don't like him and the democrats do?:popcorn:
Click to expand...
No, i'm arguing that his complaint about being dismissed with a BS excuse is right...

And so are you when you say it was because they didn't agree with his ideas... so i guess we're not disagreeing on anything except the fact that you seem to think Nobel prizes are awarded in a vacuum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top