Henry Leveson-Gower of The Mint magazine has asked me to promote an idea I am more than happy to share. It's this:
What Henry's asking is summarised as follows:
Our economic system is driving us towards a perfect storm. We are facing ecological breakdown. Rising debt is threatening a new financial crash. Inequality is pulling societies apart.
For 50 years, the scientific prestige of the Nobel Prize has given authority to economic ideas at the heart of this system. And even though the stark consequences of the 2008 financial crisis are still felt today, these out-dated ideas remain dominant.
We urgently need to reroute society away from this catastrophic path. That starts with fresh economic thinking.
Who are the thinkers and doers finding the economic solutions we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century? Help us find them and celebrate them.
And join the discussion about whether economics, as it stands today, is worthy of a Nobel Prize.
HOW?
You can now go to our online platform here where you can nominate, discuss and vote on who you think are providing the thinking and action we need for the 21st century.
Read articles on Nobel Economics Prize winners here in our magazine, The Mint. Join the discussion on social media #NotTheNobel.
Voting for the three finalists for the Not the Nobel Prize will open on 23rd September.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I had a look why are your ideas not publicised on there?
No one has nominated me
And I am certainly not asking anyone to do so
Perhaps IgNobels should be awarded to those who have made the most economically illiterate contribution.
Please no. At least the science within works awarded the IgNobel is good, if perhaps not immediately applicable.
Levitating frogs and the rheology of cats — what’s not to like.
Instead of reinventing the wheel, why not join forces with the well established Right Livelihood Award Foundation (https://www.rightlivelihoodaward.org) aka the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’? It seems to me there would be some natural synergy. Back in 1983 the renowned Chilean ‘bare-foot’ economist Manfred Max-Neef was its laureate for economics. Just a passing thought.
I have been rereading the work of Martin Weitzman who sadly died recently. Weitzman was a highly respected economist who wrote that we need to act immediately to insure our lives against the threat of global warming. The fact that Nordhaus (who wrote that global warming is not going to be that bad) was awarded the Economics ‘Nobel’ and not Weitzman reminds me that this prize is less than worthless, it is evil. While not all economists are bad, the core is rotten.
The point that Weitzman understood that Nordhaus ignored is the fat tail risk and nonlinearity. It was convenient for politicians to listen to Nordhaus rather than Weitzman and as a consequence, the fat tails are growing fast.
History will be kind to Weitzman and proponents of the Green New Deal like you Richard.
I can only hope so
That’s if there’s anyone left to write a history.
Sorry to sound like a stuck record but Aldred’s book ‘License to be Bad’ has some interesting points to make about this too.
Noble prize in economics has become completely obsolete as it has not only American bias but also given to economists of particular racial origin mainly Caucasian. Many great economists and staticians have been left out. Even selectively a couple of staticians were inducted but CR Rao was ignored who is now 99. More the Nobel Prize is limited to the contributions within the neoclassical market economics which even the recipients of Noble like Paul Krugman has criticised for being failed.
Joseph Stiglitz is a worthy recipient is he not?
dare I suggest:
Dr Tim Morgan, formerly Global Head of Research for Tullett Prebon, author of the final report: Perfect Storm.
https://www.tullettprebon.com/Documents/strategyinsights/TPSI_009_Perfect_Storm_009.pdf
he has subsequently published a book expanding on his final report and also developed his:
Surplus Energy Economic Data System S.E.E.D.S.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/surplus-energy-economics-interpreting-the-post-growth-economy2.pdf
he uses SEEDS to illustrate how prosperity has peaked and is dropping even whilst claimed GDP is rising,
Lately almost all growth in GDP has been achieved by the spending of ever increasing sums of borrowed money and he strips out the growth generated by debt spending to give a revised Real GDP & Growth figure,
his view of the economy is that it is energy based, money merely being a token of exchange, whilst global demand for energy rises the energy return on energy invested is falling,
we have reached a crunch point where energy availability and rising cost has stalled growth and, although masked by the spending of ultimately unrepayable borrowing, growth and prosperity has started to decline, short of some scientific or technical energy generating miracle this decline can only continue and accelerate,
in 2013 the orthodox financial media world dubbed him ‘Terrifying Tim’ for pointing out the inconvenient truths that they preferred to ignore,
https://www.economist.com/buttonwoods-notebook/2013/01/24/terrifying-tim-from-tullett
I believe hear wears this title as a badge of pride!
The link is there to use…..
… it’s not even a “Nobel” prize… ” it was established in 1968 by a donation from Sweden’s central bank Sveriges Riksbank to the Nobel Foundation to commemorate the bank’s 300th anniversary. As it is not one of the prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will in 1895, it is not technically a Nobel Prize”… Wikipedia
Agreed
But it’s described as such