• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nobel Prize for econ a farce, and thus so is libertarian economics.

JP Hochbaum

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have often said that libertarian economics, particularly Austrian econ, is faith based economics, and has no empirical proof to back up the majority of its claims. This is a detailed history of just how they came into power and credibility. It is not even close to a science and more so resembles a religion.

"Sweden’s Central Bank quietly snuck it in with all the other Nobel Prizes to give free-market economics for the 1% credibility. One of the Federal Reserve banks explained it succinctly , “Few realize, especially outside of economists, that the prize in economics is not an “official” Nobel. . . . The award for economics came almost 70 years later—bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden’s 300th anniversary.” Yes, you read that right: “a marketing ploy.”"

The Nobel Prize is fake:

"The details of how the deal went down are still very murky. What is known is that in 1969 Sweden’s central bank used the pretense of its 300th anniversary to push through an independent prize in “economic science” in memory of Alfred Nobel, and closely link it with the original Nobel Prize awards. The name was a bit longer, the medals looked a little different and the award money did not come from Nobel, but in every other way it was hard to tell the two apart. To ensure the prize would be awarded to the right economists, the bank managed to install a rightwing Swedish economist named Assar Lindbeck, who had ties to University of Chicago, to oversee the awards committee and keep him there for more than three decades. (Lindbeck’s famous free-market oneliner is: “In many cases, rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”)"

Then Friedman and Hayek were thrust into the limelight because of it:

"In 1974, five years after the prize was first created, it was awarded to Friedrich Hayek, one the leading "laissez-faire" -- enrich the rich -- economists of the 20th century and the godfather of neoclassical economics. Milton Friedman, who was at the University of Chicago with Hayek, was not far behind. He won the prize just two years later, in 1976."

"Take Hayek: Before he won the award, it looked like Hayek was washed up. His career as an economist was essentially over. He was considered a quack and fraud by contemporary economists, he had spent the 50s and 60s in academic obscurity, preaching the gospel of free markets and economic darwinism while on the payroll of ultra-rightwing American billionaires. Hayek had powerful backers, but was out on the fringes of academic credibility."

"Friedman’s Nobel Prize had a similar impact. After getting the prize in 1976, Friedman wrote a best-seller, got his own 10-part PBS series Free to Choose and became President Ronald Reagan’s economic advisor, where he had a chance to put the society-crushing policies he developed in Chile under Pinochet.

Friedman would spend the rest of his time denying it, but he was deeply involved and invested in the Pinochet’s totalitarian-corporate economic experiment. Chilean economist Orlando Letelier published an article in The Nation in 1976 outing Milton Friedman as the “ intellectual architect and unofficial adviser for the team of economists now running the Chilean economy” on behalf of foreign corporations. A month later Letelier was assassinated in D.C. by Chilean secret police using a car bomb."
 
Only in the last ten years has the prize gone to more non-traditional thinkers like Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz.
 
Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laissez-faire - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Not all libertarians are for laissez-faire. Turns out there is middle ground. You can say minimal regulations are necessary and still believe in free markets.

Please cite your quotes.

I never mentioned that they were. This piece is mostly about how the Austrian theories were thrust onto us via a Swedish central bank and being bank rolled by the Koch Brothers. In normal circumstance they would have had to get acceptance through academia first.
 
I never mentioned that they were. This piece is mostly about how the Austrian theories were thrust onto us via a Swedish central bank and being bank rolled by the Koch Brothers. In normal circumstance they would have had to get acceptance through academia first.

I don't agree that they were thrust onto us. Even if I grant your premise that the Nobel Prize application is inappropriate, you still have to prove that somehow we practice libertarian economics. Otherwise, presented to us is a better phrasing.

Additionally, if you want to claim that libertarian economics is a farce, you have to demonstrate that beyond saying two people who won awards didn't earn anything special. It's not even directly attacking the source since Hayek and Friedman were not the founders of the concept.

There is too big of a leap here, to be sure.
 
Only in the last ten years has the prize gone to more non-traditional thinkers like Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz.

When has Krugman been consistently right about anything?

I find it interesting that you use terms like "to enrich the rich" to label libertarian economics.

What exactly do you call it when the government taxes the middle class 15-28%, then turns around and loans to banks at .25%, so that the banks can loan to the middle class at 5%?

If that's not enriching the rich I'm not sure what is.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, if there is one institution that has historically been dominated by right-wing economic thought, it is Sweden's central bank.

So the prize has been discredited for being given to people that you disagree with? I suppose that the Nobel Peace Prize is also a load of bunk for being given to people such as Yasser Arafat and Barrack Obama. Plenty of left-wing economists have won the prize as well. When Hayek was awarded it in 1974, he shared the prize with Gunnar Myrdal, a social democrat. Also, Hayek might have lost popularity in the 1950's and 1960's, but stagflation threw a monkey-wrench into classical Keynesian thought, and Hayek's work was being revisited at the time. He also did not win for the totality of his work. It was for his work on the importance of prices in allocating resources, a widely accepted theory in economics today. As for Lindbecker, yeah he might have been on the right of things, but most economists, from all over the spectrum think that rent controls and other price controls are stupid and are only good for creating shortages.

Also, Friedman did not develop his theories under Pinochet. He went on a trip there in the 1970's and had a chance to advocate for certain policies during a brief meeting. Friedman did the same exact thing with numerous left-wing dictatorships, but I suppose that since the Chilean government actually listened to the man, he is to blame for the repression that had nothing to do with his advocacy for liberalization.

Yes, several right-wing and Austrian economists have won the prize, but the large majority have been from the mainstream school of economics, either center-left Keynesians or center-right neo-classicists. The notion of the the prize committee being in the pocket of some non-mainstream school of thought, let alone that of the Austrians is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, if there is one institution that has historically been dominated by right-wing economic thought, it is Sweden's central bank.

So the prize has been discredited for being given to people that you disagree with? I suppose that the Nobel Peace Prize is also a load of bunk for being given to people such as Yasser Arafat and Barrack Obama. Plenty of left-wing economists have won the prize as well. When Hayek was awarded it in 1974, he shared the prize with Gunnar Myrdal, a social democrat. Also, Hayek might have lost popularity in the 1950's and 1960's, but stagflation threw a monkey-wrench into classical Keynesian thought, and Hayek's work was being revisited at the time. He also did not win for the totality of his work. It was for his work on the importance of prices in allocating resources, a widely accepted theory in economics today. As for Lindbecker, yeah he might have been on the right of things, but most economists, from all over the spectrum think that rent controls and other price controls are stupid and are only good for creating shortages.

Also, Friedman did not develop his theories under Pinochet. He went on a trip there in the 1970's and had a chance to advocate for certain policies during a brief meeting. Friedman did the same exact thing with numerous left-wing dictatorships, but I suppose that since the Chilean government actually listened to the man, he is to blame for the repression that had nothing to do with his advocacy for liberalization.

Yes, several right-wing and Austrian economists have won the prize, but the large majority have been from the mainstream school of economics, either center-left Keynesians or center-right neo-classicists. The notion of the the prize committee being in the pocket of some non-mainstream school of thought, let alone that of the Austrians is ridiculous.

You pretty much hit it here. It was stagnation giving rise to Austrian economics and the Nobel giving them the credibility.

The reason I say it was a farce is because they were never passed through the academcis area and tested for their models. People simply accept it as truth with little evidence to back up its models work in the real worlds.
 
You pretty much hit it here. It was stagnation giving rise to Austrian economics and the Nobel giving them the credibility.

The reason I say it was a farce is because they were never passed through the academcis area and tested for their models. People simply accept it as truth with little evidence to back up its models work in the real worlds.

Hayek's work on the importance of prices has been widely accepted by academia. The notion that Hayek was given the prize due to the committee's bias is ludicrous. Only two economists identifying with the Austrian school have won the prize.
 
i look forward to seeing the annual award of the hochbaum prize for economics
which by virtue of careful selection of deserving candidates, is certain to over-shadow the nobel given to the foremost economists of our time [/s]
 
The Nobel Prize in Economics? There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics - By Yasha Levine - The eXiled

By all means, don't post the link. I read this article today. What an idiotic writer.

"Both Hayek and Friedman were huge supporters of the political independence of central banks."

So much that they both wanted central banks abolished? Hayek supported free banking, completely opposite to central banking. Friedman wanted a computer to control the money supply, which is not what the central bankers would want.

"No democratic control over banking policies needed, just let the free-market do its thing!"
For that reason apparently....
"The Swedish central bankers couldn’t get better spokesmen for their cause."

She goes on to say that "Even today, Cato Institute pays homage to the Swedish Central Bank Prize’s marketing role in the mainstreaming of Hayek’s ideas and Hayek’s influence on the outfit"

And yet, it makes no mention of it: Nobel Laureates at Cato

I like how the article fails to mention why Krugman and Stiglitz get the prize in modern times, who are strong supporters of central banking. They are likely favorites of the writer, and the website, judging by the rest of the sites articles.
 
well when people like Gore and Obama get Nobel prizes why would anyone think the award was NOT A JOKE
 
Back
Top Bottom