Home | Community | Message Board


Phytoextractum
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,284
Loc: oakland
I've got a deal for Great_Satan...
    #3505947 - 12/15/04 09:52 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

(or anybody else who shares his political views, or really, anybody else on this forum) -

I'll read anything you want me to - it can be an article, a book (as long as I can find it full-text online or at my local library), a blog, whatever. I'll post detailed comments on it, so you can be sure that I've actually read it. But, in exchange, you have to read through an article that I post, and post your comments on it. And, we both have to agree to intelligently discuss the points raised in each other's articles. This means no making rash statements (from either of us) - it means having an open, rational dialogue discussing the issues raised by either article. And I don't want points to be just dismissed when one side feels that they are "cornered" - there are no winners or losers in dialogue (actually, we are all winners because our collective knowledge grows!). I mean, come on man, we are all a part of the same tribe - I don't see why we can't intelligently and sensibly discuss the issues that we disagree on - and thus learn more about ourselves and each other, and perhaps gain a deeper insight into important issues that matter to everyone...

If you (or anybody else) feels up to this article-exchange, feel free to post a link to whatever you want me to read. Depending on the length or the subject matter, it might take me a day or two to read through everything, but I'll give any and all ideas/articles/thoughts equal consideration (and I hope you'll do the same to mine!)

The articles/books that I want to share with you are relating to a participatory model of economics. I'm not sure what your educational background is, so I'll post a few different pieces - some are more technical, others are more allegorical, and others are more philosophical.

Participatory Economics and the Self-Emancipation of the Working Class by Tom Wetzel

Questions and Answers about Participatory Economics prepared by John Krumm

Parecon - Life After Capitalism by Michael Albert (full text of the book)

Looking Forward - Participatory Economics and the 21st Century by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel (full text of the book)

The Political Economy of Participatory Economics - by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel (full text of the book - just a warning, this book is very technical, and assumes that the reader has formal education in economic theory)

Participatory Economics - a short article by Michael Albert

Exploring Libertarian Municipalism and Parecon - a long debate about the two different visions (especially intended for SilverSoul7 and any other libertarians around these parts!)

Responses to Criticisms of ParEcon - by Robin Hahnel

Participatory Economics Interview - Michael Albert interviewed by Kate Redmond

Anyway, there's a bunch of articles and books that lay out the idea of participatory economics in varying degrees of detail.

So anybody who wants to join my idea, please post your own links - and as I read through your articles I'll post my analyis and commentary!


--------------------




Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Krishna]
    #3506119 - 12/15/04 10:20 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Great_Satan is nothing more than a figment of someone's
twisted imagination.

Don't feed the monkeys.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Krishna]
    #3506237 - 12/15/04 10:40 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I'm just going over the FAQ right now, and already this system is making me cringe. I notice this guy completely shrugs off the whole field of economics as "propaganda," so that his version of economics can stand on equal ground with established economics. This is similar to how creationists downplay evolution as "just a theory" so that their "theory" will be viewed as an equal alternative. Also, this guy has way too much faith in the will of the majority.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Krishna]
    #3506280 - 12/15/04 10:49 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I've read some of those articles already. Silversoul7 nails it.

The system described as "parecon" or whatever else they choose to call it is completely unworkable. Anyone who has ever had any experience running a business will reach the same conclusion.

It amazes me that so many people have put so much time and effort into designing something so useless. People with that amount of time and energy on their hands could actually do something with their lives.

Rather than post a dozen articles for you, I suggest you read "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman. Your library should have it.



pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,284
Loc: oakland
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: silversoul7]
    #3506355 - 12/15/04 11:03 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
I'm just going over the FAQ right now, and already this system is making me cringe.  I notice this guy completely shrugs off the whole field of economics as "propaganda," so that his version of economics can stand on equal ground with established economics.




Hmm where do you read him doing this? (certainly not saying he doesn't say it, I just want to know where you are reading so I am not commenting out-of-context).

In my reading of Albert's book Parecon (i posted the link to the full-text above), I don't think he shrugs off the field of economics. He seperates economics into a few key dynamics and institutions - namely "ownership relations", "allocation institutions", "division of labour", "remuneration", and "decision making". While the majority of the book is focused on an alternate vision (as that is the point of the book), the first third does explain very basically how these different dynamics and institutions function under market-capitalism, market-socialism, and centralised socialism... any "shrugging off" of the current acceptance of market-capitalism may stem from this phrase, "And finally, to judge a type of economy one should ask how its features and aspects impact on human outcomes and prospects and whether we like the impacts or not." (Parecon, pg 27). Albert expands on these "human outcomes and prospects" in defining 4 economic values that he sees as worthy of investigation - "equity (how much should  people get and why?), self-management (what kind of say over their condition should people have?), diversity (should paths to fulfillment be diversified or narrowed?), and solidarity (should people cooperate or compete?)". I think these are questions that are raised in "traditional" economics - and Albert gives a fairly decent summary of the way they are traditionally answered. :shrug: Let me know the exact FAQ you were referring to, and I'll see what I think...





Quote:

Also, this guy has way too much faith in the will of the majority.




Well, I don't think Parecon is a system based at all on a "majority rules" philosophy. One of the main propositions is that people, if properly educated and properly empowered (by their employment, societal role, etc), are capable of running their own lives. Something that (I believe) Parecon has in common with Libertarianism... Another quote from Parecon, "Participatory economics does not institutionally prejudge what procedures should be used for decisions made in workplace or consumer councils. It does not say you have to use majority rule or consensus or any other particular procedure. It could be that in a real parecon, workers and consumers opt for consensus decision-making all the time, much of the time, or rarely. That is a choice for them. What parecon prescribes is that people should ensure, as best they are able withut investing excessive time and energy, that each actor has an impact on outcomes in proportion to how much he or she is affected." (Parecon, pg 94-95)


--------------------




Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,284
Loc: oakland
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Phred]
    #3506404 - 12/15/04 11:16 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
The system described as "parecon" or whatever else they choose to call it is completely unworkable. Anyone who has ever had any experience running a business will reach the same conclusion.




There are numerous businesses already running under a Parecon vision. The difference, of course, is that such a business could and would never function "for profit" - and thus, when compared by a market-capitalistic measure, wouldn't be "sucessful." It's a question of values, though...

Quote:


Rather than post a dozen articles for you, I suggest you read "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman. Your library should have it.





:smile: actually my bookshelf has it. I have read it (actually twice), but I believe Friedman makes many, many errors in his reasoning. (:grin: i know it sounds crazy to hear a 20-year old student question a Nobel Laureate, but hear me out...). Firstly, what about the issue of inherited wealth? The basic model of remuneration in market-capitalism is remuneration according to the contribution of each person's physical and human assets - ie you get paid in accordance to how much work you put in, how much talent you have, and how the productive-assets you have contribute. Fine and dandy - but what about the fact that the grandson of a very rich person will, by this norm of remuneration, make much more than a hard-working daughter of a peasant? No matter how "free" the markets are, stratification of wealth will result in a class of people who, from day one, are in a position to "earn" by no input of their own - and, if one looks at the historical stratification of wealth - in a (maybe i overstate it, but i think not) vast majority of cases, by no input of any of their immediate lineage. In the words of Edward Bellamy, "You may set it down as a rule that the rich, the possessors of great wealth, had no moral right to it as based upon desert, for either their fortunes belonged to the class of inherited wealth, or else, when accumulated in a lifetime, necessarily rpresented chiefly the product of others, more or less forcibly or fraudulently obtained."


--------------------




Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Krishna]
    #3506540 - 12/15/04 11:48 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Krishna writes:

i know it sounds crazy to hear a 20-year old student question a Nobel Laureate, but hear me out...

It doesn't sound crazy to me and it certainly wouldn't sound crazy to Friedman. He'd be the first to assure you that you were doing the right thing.

Firstly, what about the issue of inherited wealth?

What about it? Whose money is it? It's the money of whoever earned it -- in this case the parent (or other relative). The guy who earned it has the right to decide where he spends it, no? If he doesn't, tell me whose rights trump his.

If I decide to give my money to my kid or to my friend or to my wife -- either before or after I die -- what am I doing wrong? Who have I harmed? Who has the recipient harmed?

Fine and dandy - but what about the fact that the grandson of a very rich person will, by this norm of remuneration, make much more than a hard-working daughter of a peasant?

What if that hard-working daughter of a peasant buys lottery tickets with her spare change and hits a $300 million jackpot? What has she done wrong? Who has been harmed? How does this differ from me inheriting a bunch of cash from some batty old aunt I never knew I had?

No matter how "free" the markets are, stratification of wealth will result in a class of people who, from day one, are in a position to "earn" by no input of their own....

So what? I ask again, who has been harmed? People who inherit wealth and are then able to live their lives without ever competing for a job harm no one and in fact it can be argued they help a hell of a lot of people. For one, there is one more job available which they would have filled had they not been economically self-sufficient. For another, such people tend to consume more than the average person, hence they provide demand for goods which otherwise would not be produced. How many people worldwide work for Rolls Royce, Ferrarri, Moet et Chandon, Givenchy, Tiffany's?

"Stratification" of wealth is inevitable in any society, free or not. It's just that in free societies, the common man has an excellent chance of moving from one stratum to another. In non-free societies it is only the political elite which occupy the top strata.

Finally, there is the old clich? "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". It became a clich? because it is seen so often. A man struggles all his life to amass a goodly sum to leave to his son. The son fritters it away and his son is left to start the process over again. Spending money is easy. Making it (and even in some cases just keeping it) is not.



pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Krishna]
    #3506544 - 12/15/04 11:50 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Edward Bellamy -- to be blunt -- was full of shit.


pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,284
Loc: oakland
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Krishna]
    #3506569 - 12/15/04 11:55 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Well, I'm off to bed - but just wanted to post a few more concerns I have with the society that Friedman envisions - firstly - stratification of human society into classes (or, i guess the historically accurate phrase would be "further stratification").

In Friedman's own words, "The greatest problem facing our country is the breaking down into two classes, those who have and those who have not. The growing differences between the incomes of the skilled and the less skilled, the educated and the uneducated, pose a very real danger. If that widening rift continues, we're goin to be in terrible trouble. The idea of having a class of people who never communicate with their neighbors - those very neighbors who assume the responsibility for providing their basic needs - is extremely unpleasant and discouraging. And it cannot last. We'll have a civil war. We really cannot remain a democratic, open society that is divided into two classes. In the long run, that's the greatest single danger."


A few more problems with a market-based system of allocation - (I'm stealing this from Albert's writings, so search through his works to find a more detailed explanation) Externalities - being the rule rather than the exception. Pigouvian taxes - policies to moniter and correct for external effects - are nearly impossible due to the biases on both sides - the "violater" will greatly underestimate the externalities and not want to pay anything, and the "special-interest" will overestimate the externalities and want them to pay out the ass. Also, even if estimation can be made, the task of actually carrying out these Pigouvian taxes are "daunting." And finally, because consumer preference are at least partially endogenous (effected by the economy itself), mis-allocation of resources will continually increase over-time (people adjust their preferences due to the market-conditions - ie "consumers will increase their preference and demand for goods whose production and/or consumption entails negative external effects but whose market prices fail to reflect these costs and are therefore too low; and will decrease their preference and demand for goods whose production and/or consumption entails positive external effecst but whose market prices fail to reflect these benefits and are therefore too high." This leads to greater demand for the goods that the market already wrongly over-produces, and lowers demand for goods that the market already under-produces.

OK i'm off - but I think I'll actually re-read some sections of Free To Choose before I go to sleep, to try to find some responses to the arguments I've raised here... in the meantime, if you have any good links to articles, essays, or whatever that might address some of these questions, I'd appreciate it!


--------------------




Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,284
Loc: oakland
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Phred]
    #3506669 - 12/16/04 12:17 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

:grin: i know, i'm supposed to go to sleep - but just a few comments...

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
What about it? Whose money is it? It's the money of whoever earned it -- in this case the parent (or other relative). The guy who earned it has the right to decide where he spends it, no? If he doesn't, tell me whose rights trump his.





firstly, we might ask - how was this money earned? i do think this is a relevant question to ask - and i do believe that a substantial portion of the fortunes ammased in the international free-market systems have been directly related to the exploitation of labour. a point that could be argued - but do you agree that this is a relavent question to ask?

Quote:

If I decide to give my money to my kid or to my friend or to my wife -- either before or after I die -- what am I doing wrong? Who have I harmed? Who has the recipient harmed?




The equal economic opportunities of the younger generation. If inheritence (of productive - or "private" - property) is permitted, then we get the situation where some members of a generation are advantaged, and some are disadvantaged - through no fault or failure of their own. Doesn't seem fair. But - if we outlaw inheritence of productive property, then the older generation doesn't have the freedom to choose what to do with their property. Also doesn't seem fair. What do we choose? In my mind, the rights of every generation to have equal economic opportunities vastly outweigh the rights of some members of the previous generation to pass on inheritence. Think about it like I discussed externalities. Every person this decision will effect should have a say in the decision equal to the amount it will effect them. So the inheritee (is that even a word?) should have a big say - because it is going to largely effect them. But, the entire rest of that generation who does not get such an inheritence should have their say as well - because starting off economically dis-advantaged by comparison is a major externality. I feel that these peoples minimal say will, in the end, be a "louder" say than that of the inheritee. If we want economic self-management ("having decision making influence in proportion to the degree that one is affected"), then I believe the right to equal economic opportunity vastly outweighs the right to inheritence.

Quote:

What if that hard-working daughter of a peasant buys lottery tickets with her spare change and hits a $300 million jackpot? What has she done wrong? Who has been harmed? How does this differ from me inheriting a bunch of cash from some batty old aunt I never knew I had?



She hasn't done anything wrong. But an economic system that places (and jesus this is cliche, but you get my point, i hope) "people over profits" cannot reward luck! (either genetic luck or material luck, but that's another topic to get into tomorrow!)

Quote:

I ask again, who has been harmed? People who inherit wealth and are then able to live their lives without ever competing for a job harm no one and in fact it can be argued they help a hell of a lot of people. For one, there is one more job available which they would have filled had they not been economically self-sufficient. For another, such people tend to consume more than the average person, hence they provide demand for goods which otherwise would not be produced. How many people worldwide work for Rolls Royce, Ferrarri, Moet et Chandon, Givenchy, Tiffany's?




Many people have been harmed, I believe. All the workers who do not have economic, structural, or social control over their own places of work! Reducing a vast percentage of society to "wage-slaves" is - in my mind - a major externality.

Quote:


"Stratification" of wealth is inevitable in any society, free or not. It's just that in free societies, the common man has an excellent chance of moving from one stratum to another. In non-free societies it is only the political elite which occupy the top strata.





And that is why I do not supported centralised-socialism. Instead of a financial elite, you have a "coordinater" elite. Same shit, different name. However there aren't just "free" and "non-free" societies (I'm assuming you mean free-markets versus centrally planned?) - there could also be a non-market society that is run through participatory self management.

Quote:


Finally, there is the old clich? "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". It became a clich? because it is seen so often. A man struggles all his life to amass a goodly sum to leave to his son. The son fritters it away and his son is left to start the process over again. Spending money is easy. Making it (and even in some cases just keeping it) is not.





I'd like to see statistics on this... maybe I'm horribly wrong, but I believe a vast percentage of "monied" people in the West come from "monied" families. Making money isn't "easy" ... but getting your money to reproduce itself seems to be.


--------------------




Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Krishna]
    #3506863 - 12/16/04 01:03 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Krishna writes:

firstly, we might ask - how was this money earned?

Honestly. Imagine Steven King or Steve Jobs giving their children great gobs of cash, for example.

i do believe that a substantial portion of the fortunes ammased in the international free-market systems have been directly related to the exploitation of labour.

You do? Define "exploitation". But for the sake of argument let's presume that some percentage of some fortunes are obtained through unethical methods. Would it not therefore make sense to confiscate only that percentage and only from those who obtained that percentage unethically? Why confiscate everyone's entire fortunes?

but do you agree that this is a relavent question to ask?

Sure it is. If the money is obtained illegally, it should be returned to its rightful owner. That's what courts are for. This is also why the DEA confiscates cars and boats and houses of people they suspect bought that stuff with money received from the sale of illegal drugs.

The equal economic opportunities of the younger generation. If inheritence (of productive - or "private" - property) is permitted, then we get the situation where some members of a generation are advantaged, and some are disadvantaged - through no fault or failure of their own. Doesn't seem fair.

I'm not following you. How does the fact that some trustfunder is able to buy a Ferrarri and a penthouse and take baths three times a day in a golden tub filled with Dom Perignon prevent you from succeeding at your chosen career? What opportunity has he stolen from you? What has he prevented you from doing? Is he not -- quite literally -- irrelevant to you?

In my mind, the rights of every generation to have equal economic opportunities vastly outweigh the rights of some members of the previous generation to pass on inheritence.

I ask again -- what opportunities has the existence of that wastrel trustfunder denied you? Or to reverse the question, if that trustfunder had never existed, what new opportunities would spring up?

But an economic system that places (and jesus this is cliche, but you get my point, i hope) "people over profits" cannot reward luck!

Luck exists, good and bad. Any kind of micromanaged exonomic system that tries to "compensate" for luck is doomed to failure. It can't be done.

Many people have been harmed, I believe.

How? I need some specifics here, not assertions.

All the workers who do not have economic, structural, or social control over their own places of work!

Who is stopping them from gathering together and creating their own? Didn't you say there are already many businesses running under parecon principals? Why don't those workers apply for work at one of those places? How does the existence of MacDonald's prevent a parecon "ParDonald's" from going into business?

Reducing a vast percentage of society to "wage-slaves" is - in my mind - a major externality.

Define "wage-slaves". You surely aren't suggesting that those who agree to exchange their labor for money are enslaved, are you? I have exchanged my labor for money my entire working life and I can assure you I was never enslaved by those with whom I conducted that exchange.

there could also be a non-market society that is run through participatory self management.

And as you pointed out, such organizations already exist. If they are in fact a superior method for people to provide for their needs, I have no doubt they will have an easy task attracting the people they need in order to grow. How does me leaving my life's savings to my wife prevent anyone from joining a parecon outfit? I must be missing something here.

maybe I'm horribly wrong, but I believe a vast percentage of "monied" people in the West come from "monied" families.

In the US at least, an increasingly small percentage of HWI's (high wealth individuals) are from "monied" families. There are more self-made millionaires in the US every year, and it is an accelerating trend. The uber-wealthy typically have small numbers of children, and the fact is that people are getting rich at a faster rate than the already rich are dying off and leaving their wealth to their one and a half children. Google "high wealth individuals" or "HWI" and poke around a bit.


pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Phred]
    #3507020 - 12/16/04 01:35 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Define "exploitation".



I asked this question in one of my classes(Sociology of the Third World, or as I like to call it, Collectivism 101), and they talked about how wealth is produced in a capitalist society. A capitalist starts out with capital and uses it to purchase raw materials, labor, and the means of production, and from that, profit is produced, so he winds up with more capital than he started with. The argument is that that extra capital is produced by the laborers, and thus the capitalist is exploiting them through that mark-up.

Quote:

Who is stopping them from gathering together and creating their own? Didn't you say there are already many businesses running under parecon principals? Why don't those workers apply for work at one of those places? How does the existence of MacDonald's prevent a parecon "ParDonald's" from going into business?



I was thinking the same thing. Collectivists talk about giving the means of production to the workers, but I don't see why this isn't already possible in a capitalist society. The workers could all chip in together to buy the machinery and raw materials, and divide the profits among themselves.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: silversoul7]
    #3507043 - 12/16/04 01:41 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

"I don't see why this isn't already possible in a capitalist society. The workers could all chip in together to buy the machinery and raw materials, and divide the profits among themselves."
This already happens with stock options and profit sharing. Many employers have found that it makes good business sense to give their workers a vested interest in the well being of the company. I had one employer that (depending on the dividends) purchased as much as $4 for every $1 the employee contributed into the profit sharing/stock plan. The minimum was a matching of $1 for $1 but the ratio went up with company profits.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Krishna]
    #3507425 - 12/16/04 04:13 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

sounds crazy to hear a 20-year old student question a Nobel Laureate, but hear me out

Don't feel too bad about it, he isn't actually a Nobel Laureate and was never awarded the Nobel prize.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,796373,00.html


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Xlea321]
    #3508019 - 12/16/04 11:18 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

"Don't feel too bad about it, he isn't actually a Nobel Laureate and was never awarded the Nobel prize. "
Milton Friedman was awarded the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy. If you don't believe me, check out this link.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Autonomous]
    #3508193 - 12/16/04 12:09 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Milton Friedman was awarded the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics

No, as your link shows, he was awarded "The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". That isn't the Nobel prize.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Xlea321]
    #3508371 - 12/16/04 01:05 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Yes, that is the more correct term. Though the economics prize was not part of Alfred Nobel's original will, it was added in 1969 with the support of the Bank of Sweden, and has since been judged and administered by the Nobel Foundation in the same way as the five original Nobel prizes. This prize is commonly referred to and recognized as "The Nobel Prize for Economics." The persons awarded this prize are called "Nobel Laureates."


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Autonomous]
    #3508410 - 12/16/04 01:12 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

The same group who decides who will receive the Nobel Prize in chemistry and physics also decides who will receive the award in economics. That organization is The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. If the award is for either chemistry or physics, it is called a "Nobel Prize". If it is for economics, it is called "The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".

The confusion probably arises from the fact that the same group of people award both prizes. In actual fact, there are four different awarding institutions under a single overarching Nobel umbrella:

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awards three prizes -- chemistry, physics, economics.
The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Insitutet awards one prize -- medicine
The Swedish Academy awards one prize -- literature
The Norwegian Nobel Committee awards one prize -- peace

Technically speaking, Alex's source is correct. Friedman was never awarded a "Nobel Prize" for economics. Of course, no one else has ever been awarded a Nobel Prize for economics either.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Autonomous]
    #3508421 - 12/16/04 01:15 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

So he's a Nobel Laureate even tho he hasn't won a Nobel prize? Go figure.

Peter Nobel, the great-grandson of Alfred's brother Ludwig, along with three of his cousins, have questioned the legitimacy of the economics prize and demanded that the Nobel name be dropped from the award. They claim it was "never in Alfred Nobel's will and is not in the spirit of his prizes". Their stance has angered the Nobel Foundation, which administers the prizes, and threatens to overshadow the festivities.

The economics award has always been separate from the other five, which are given for outstanding contributions in the fields of literature, peace, physics, chemistry and medicine. Unlike these, economics was never mentioned specifically in Nobel's will; that prize was established in 1968 to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Riksbank, the Swedish central bank. Peter Nobel and his cousins are now arguing that it should be named the Riksbank Prize to reflect its heritage.

They claim that Alfred Nobel, an idealist and inventor who has no direct descendants of his own, was highly sceptical of economics, and the existence of this award is an insult to his legacy.

The Nobel Foundation has sided with the Riksbank. "This is a non-issue," said Michael Sohlman, executive director of the foundation. "It is surprising because Peter Nobel is claiming that the family never agreed to this award, but I have very clear documentary evidence from 1968 showing that they did."

Mr Nobel said: "I am going to ask Mr Sohlman to produce these documents. I have never heard of their existence before and I would like to see the wording before I make any decision. The most important thing is to make a distinction between this economics award and the Nobel prizes."





--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
Re: I've got a deal for Great_Satan... [Re: Xlea321]
    #3508434 - 12/16/04 01:20 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

That article is three years old. I would imagine the question has probably been settled by now. Any news on what the final resolution was?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Should minimum wage be raised?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
RebelSteve33 7,403 94 08/03/12 02:52 AM
by vladtepes
* Target threatens to leave if wage rule OK'd
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
lonestar2004 5,062 82 07/17/06 01:56 PM
by Alex213
* welfare/poverty
( 1 2 all )
JonnyOnTheSpot 2,048 21 06/13/03 04:21 AM
by Xlea321
* Minimum wage rises, sky does not fall
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Alex213 8,259 106 02/06/07 03:23 AM
by Economist
* john edwards for a min. wage increase to 9.50$
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
snoot 7,876 136 08/10/08 10:43 AM
by Prisoner#1
* Minimum wage: A rich complaint
( 1 2 all )
Alex213 2,835 23 10/04/06 07:41 AM
by Seuss
* Thoughts On Poverty And its Absence. lonestar2004 2,270 12 06/28/05 05:06 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Minimum Wage Revisited
( 1 2 all )
Evolving 3,309 33 04/15/04 02:49 PM
by Tao

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
1,689 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
High Mountain Compost
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.078 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 21 queries.