There is a Facebook "Causes" for "Candidacy of Jesus Huerta de Soto to the Nobel Prize in Economic Science."
Positions:
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
The only reason I do not take part in it is because I have sworn never to put a (virtual) foot on Facebook in my life.
I really love Huerta de Soto and I believe pretty soon the Spanish government will be forced to turn to him.
Here is the process for nominating someone for a Nobel prize:
Each year the respective Nobel Committees send individual invitations to thousands of members of academies, university professors, scientists from numerous countries, previous Nobel Laureates, members of parliamentary assemblies and others, asking them to submit candidates for the Nobel Prizes for the coming year. These nominators are chosen in such a way that as many countries and universities as possible are represented over time.
What're the odds that one of these nominators will have heard of, let alone pick, De Soto??
I'm with Kakugo on the facebook thing.
In lieu of a Nobel Price nomination, I have been supporting de Soto by purchasing multiple copies of his book "Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles" and distributing them to receptive individuals - a banker, a banker who also teaches economics, and a financial planner....so far....
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
I would disagree with all points, the third maybe partially.
scineram: I would disagree with all points, the third maybe partially.
How edifying.
I wonder why Austrians don't create their own Nobel Prize.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Mainstream economics is a laughing stock, so I don't think the Austrians should worry much whether or not Huerta de Soto, or anyone else for that matter gets a prize from the Swedish central bank.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Yes, please award him a prize established/endowed by the Swedish central bank, he'd be thrilled to be sure.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Yeah, there needs to be a Fields Medal equivalent for economics. Something that stands by a good standard measure of the discipline.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Student: I wonder why Austrians don't create their own Nobel Prize.
The LvMI already gives many awards.
Daniel, how many come with a $1 million check?
Student: Daniel, how many come with a $1 million check?
Student, none. Why do you ask? What is important to you the most, the award or the money?
Get Rockefeller to finance it, the Marxoids will never shut up. Amusing though for many reasons.
Daniel,
I don't think it is a coincidence that the economics award with the biggest prize is also considered the most prestigious. The Clark Medal has often been said to be harder to earn than the Nobel Prize because it is awarded to only young economists and (until recently) only presented every 2 years. Yet, the Nobel still garners the most esteem.
Now, that isn't to say the money is the *only* thing that matters. But you can't pretend it doesn't matter at all.
PS* Think of it this way. Which prize comm sends a stronger signal about how much they appreciate a given researcher's work? The one that attaches a $1 million gift card to their prize or the one that buys you lunch at Denny's?
The only reason to accept the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is because of the money and possibly the fame, though I am not sure if it is the kind of fame I would want.
I think the Nobel Peace Prize is in the lead since the last award but it is tight run which is the biggest joke. How anyone could feel the prize is some kind of merit to there academic achievements is beyond me.
Escaping Leviathan - regardless of public opinion
"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx
Student: Daniel, I don't think it is a coincidence that the economics award with the biggest prize is also considered the most prestigious. The Clark Medal has often been said to be harder to earn than the Nobel Prize because it is awarded to only young economists and (until recently) only presented every 2 years. Yet, the Nobel still garners the most esteem. Now, that isn't to say the money is the *only* thing that matters. But you can't pretend it doesn't matter at all. PS* Think of it this way. Which prize comm sends a stronger signal about how much they appreciate a given researcher's work? The one that attaches a $1 million gift card to their prize or the one that buys you lunch at Denny's?
I'm not sure what exactly this debate is about.
Anyway, it would be nice to have LvMI give an award which has $1 million dollars attached to it.
You don't need the money if you have a LvMI award. When you're Austrian friends come over you make it the centerpiece of conversation, and fill your Facebook with pictures of it. That money will be spent or saved, no one will actually see it, but an actual physical award that you can place around your house so everyone can stare at it is worth it (plus I'm sure someone on this forum had it they would make it their avatar and brag about it).
Bert: You don't need the money if you have a LvMI award.
You don't need the money if you have a LvMI award.
We don't need the money cause the Austrian theories are actually useful in predicting markets so we can make them there instead
On the candidacy, Hayek already received a Nobel prize for the stated reasons (business cycle). There are certain positions that differ between Hayek and de Soto, but generally de Soto follows Hayek's lead (he, at least, heavily cites Hayek throughout the book, especially regarding capital theory). I generally agree with the facebook page commentators that de Soto has a lot of potential, but has yet to flower.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: On the candidacy, Hayek already received a Nobel prize for the stated reasons (business cycle).
On the candidacy, Hayek already received a Nobel prize for the stated reasons (business cycle).
Meh, Hayek received it because the committee wanted to give the prize to Keynes. Keynes was dead, but fortunately the Stockholm school of economics claimed to have developed Keynesianism independently of Keynes. Gunnar Myrdal claimed that the basic idea of adjusting national budgets to slow or speed an economy was first developed in Sweden by himself.To give some illusion of not being bias they threw in Hayek....
Though you have a point that prizes should be awarded for original thought and not just making others peoples ideas more understandable and readable. I am not familiar enough with de Soto's work to make any judgement about it's originality I am afraid.
those darn Keynesians, always winning the Nobel!!!
Student: those darn Keynesians, always winning the Nobel!!!
I like a lot of the things I've learned about Lucas, with his Islands model being especially interesting. To what extent is his approach still quite aggregated however, like that of Friedman and Keynes, investigating prices like one whole rising or falling, as opposed to what actually happens with a plethora of different changes and capital allocations in an interlocked chain of causation? Indeed, I feel like making my next paper an Austrian critique and rehabillitation of his model. Looking at DSGE would also be intriguing once I know enough mainstream econ.
Cheers.
I mean no disrespect to Dr Huerta de Soto in any of the following, but I can think of quite a few economists, amongst them Austrians, who are more deserving of the prize than he is, a few that I can think of would Kirzner, Selgin, Tullock, Demsetz and Alchian.
Why won't he win? Well I can think of a few reasons.
I actually think all of these (number four needs some qualifications) are pretty good reasons for him not winning.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
hayekianxyz:His work makes ABC theory very accessible to the layman, but there really isn't much there that would be considered original.
You haven't read the thing. Although he has written the book in great clarity, his exposition of capital theory and ABCT in this book is no way recommended to the layman or the Austrian beginner.
hayekianxyz:Huerta de Soto is way out of the mainstream in his most influential publication.
Yes, it is obvious that the Nobel committee is usually inclined to go with statist pseudo-economists, but you seem to imply that this somehow undermines the real value of his work. For crying out loud, Mises and Hayek were and are still out of mainstream economics. So who cares about mainstream pseudo-economics?
hayekianxyz:Rothbardians don't seem to comprehend how people don't see the fraudulent and destructive nature of FRB
Actually, de Soto departs from Rothbard (and Mises) in some very critical areas in his analysis of FRB.
hayekianxyz:Rothbardians don't seem to comprehend how people don't see the fraudulent and destructive nature of FRB,
So Rothbardians should abandoned their position because Keynesian economists don't see it that way either?
hayekianxyz:mainstream economists think that anybody who disputes the necessity of FRB is nuts (which I agree with, btw).
And they also think that anybody who disputes the modern interventionist policies and monetary central planning is nuts. Your point is?
I don't know what Selgin has done to deserve the award more than de Soto, but I agree that Kirzner deserves it over de Soto.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: I don't know what Selgin has done to deserve the award more than de Soto, but I agree that Kirzner deserves it over de Soto.
But why are we treating this prize as if it actually signified some meaningful achievement. Yes, every now and then, some worthy person gets the award. You could have a better record if they just picked names out of a hat. The award is nothing but a sham, no more then the Nobel peace prize.
He mentioned Krtzner just so his list sounds more credible.
DD5:You haven't read the thing.
I'm pretty sure he has, actually.
hayekianxyz:I mean no disrespect to Dr Huerta de Soto in any of the following
hayekianxyz:anybody who disputes the necessity of FRB is nuts (which I agree with, btw).
How can you mean no disrespect to Professor de Soto when you directly imply that you think he's nuts?
DD5: But why are we treating this prize as if it actually signified some meaningful achievement. Yes, every now and then, some worthy person gets the award. You could have a better record if they just picked names out of a hat. The award is nothing but a sham, no more then the Nobel peace prize. He mentioned Krtzner just so his list sounds more credible.
The only thing that doesn't make the prize meaningful is how the economists are chosen. We are implicitly assuming in this thread that Austrians would have a chance, meaning some type of change in the thought process of those in charge of voting. Obviously, I don't think anybody really thinks that de Soto has a chance.
Grayson Lilburne: DD5:You haven't read the thing. I'm pretty sure he has, actually.
If you know him, I can't argue with that.
In my opinion, his entire post is driven by this:
hayekianxyz: Rothbardians don't seem to comprehend how people don't see the fraudulent and destructive nature of FRB, conversely, mainstream economists think that anybody who disputes the necessity of FRB is nuts (which I agree with, btw).
Rothbardians don't seem to comprehend how people don't see the fraudulent and destructive nature of FRB, conversely, mainstream economists think that anybody who disputes the necessity of FRB is nuts (which I agree with, btw).
The rest was just a buildup so he can add that last remark.
It's a shame that no one here has mentioned either Leland Yeager or Axel Leijonhufvud., two slightly more plausible fellow travelers. Another economist that deserves mention is Mark Blaug. Every article he writes is full of novel analysis.
I didn't understand Rothbard's case against FRB first either. I think it is just the definitions that are vague though. "Why can't we pool our reserve funds in a bank? It is like a car-pool, they aren't fraudulent." This was problematic until I realized it has nothing what so ever to do with FRB. Once you make it clear that FRB can exist only for demand deposits and that a demand deposit is an unrestricted promise to deliver money on demand it becomes much more obvious where the problem is...
ziragt: It's a shame that no one here has mentioned either Leland Yeager or Axel Leijonhufvud., two slightly more plausible fellow travelers. Another economist that deserves mention is Mark Blaug. Every article he writes is full of novel analysis.
Mark Blaug? He is against Mises' work in all his histories. Why mention Mark Blaug, of all people? [See p. 81 of "Blaug's The Methodology of Economics"].
Nobel Prizes have been more about politics than anything else. Einstein got his Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work on the photoelectric effect. Rewarding him for his work on relativity would have meant rewarding Langevin too and Langevin was too much of a political "hot potato" to handle (he was a staunch Communist).
My bet is we'll probably see a slow shift towards laissez-faire and free market recipients as interventionist politics around the world fail to address problems and government will be forced to turn to the hated "free marketers" for a way out. This won't be quick and won't be easy but is bound to happen.
To most of those who posted after me, the Nobel prize has always been awarded to people based on a number of criteria that Jesus Huerta de Soto does not fit, no matter how intelligent he may or may not be. It's one thing to argue that he is a good, or even great economist, but this doesn't necessitate winning the prize. There are plenty of economists, including those named by ziragt and myself, who fit the criteria for the Nobel prize to a greater extent than does Huerta de Soto, all of whom do great work. If you disagree with the selection criteria of the committee, that's one thing and from some point of views that may be understandable, but the award isn't simply given to economists who are good or who you like but meet certain other requirements.
Now, if you want to debate whether or not the requirements are fair, efficient or whatever then we can start another topic and debate that, I think they are pretty fair and reasonable. But the question posed in the OP concerned whether or not Jesus Huerta de Soto deserved the Nobel prize, and I don't think he deserves it much more than he deserves an Olypmic gold medal for the 100 meters.
Concerning FRB, I don't want to get into this. Yes, I view the full reserve position as a bit nutty (and Lilburne, I don't believe that implies he is a nut or is in the least bit disrespectful). But the point I was trying to make is that full reserve banking isn't something that is often challenged by mainstream economists and anybody who pushes for that policy proposal as hard as Huerta de Soto does probably doesn't deserve the Nobel prize.
EDIT: Regarding Selgin, perhaps you agree with Huerta de Soto more but the fact remains that Selgin has done work within the mainstream developing free banking theory. It's probably too soon (same applies for Huerta de Soto, by the way) but he has worked on developing and elaborating upon a new research programme.
hayekianxyz: ... But the question posed in the OP concerned whether or not Jesus Huerta de Soto deserved the Nobel prize, and I don't think he deserves it much more than he deserves an Olypmic gold medal for the 100 meters...
... But the question posed in the OP concerned whether or not Jesus Huerta de Soto deserved the Nobel prize, and I don't think he deserves it much more than he deserves an Olypmic gold medal for the 100 meters...
I didn't pose any question in the OP.
hayekianxyz:Yes, I view the full reserve position as a bit nutty (and Lilburne, I don't believe that implies he is a nut or is in the least bit disrespectful)
You didn't say the position was a bit nutty, you said:
hayekianxyz:anybody who disputes the necessity of FRB is nuts
JH de Soto disputes the necessity of FRB. Ergo...
thelion:Mark Blaug? He is against Mises' work in all his histories. Why mention Mark Blaug, of all people?
I mentioned him because I enjoy his work and find it challenging. It would also be nice if those who do work in history of thought or methodology got a little respect, for once. Notice, I did not say he was a fellow traveler. (By the way, his recent articles in History of Political Economy have been brilliant; check out his piece on the three theorems of welfare economics)
As for Huerta de Soto, I have not read his "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles" in its entirety, but judging from his "Theory of Dynamic Efficiency," he does not seem to have done a great deal of original, pioneering work. His work is of a high academic standard, but it mainly retreads the same ground that Austrians have been writing on for years.
If I were to nominate an Austrian, I would probably pick someone working on the theory of organizations and firms, since it is there that real progress has been made by Austrians. For example, Nicolai Foss or Peter Lewin, two under appreciated Austrians.
Student's idea is brilliant. Tax people for $1m and award it to someone that agree with us. Why didn't I think of that?
The Bank of Sweden prize is so slimy that even Peter Nobel speaks out against it.
Kakugo: Nobel Prizes have been more about politics than anything else. Einstein got his Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work on the photoelectric effect. Rewarding him for his work on relativity would have meant rewarding Langevin too and Langevin was too much of a political "hot potato" to handle (he was a staunch Communist).
I don't really see this fitting the facts, I mean in 2008 Krugman wins the award and the next year Ostrom wins the award, in terms of political views there's a considerable distance between them, especially in comparison to the rest of the profession. List of winners includes people like Buchanan, Coase, Hayek, Becker, Stigler and Friedman all of whom are free markets guys. Perhaps more people who would be considered liberals win, but then, most economists are liberals.