Prix Nobel D'économie 2013

[Bastiat]

Moi je paris tjr sur Hernando de Soto je suis sur qu'il l'aura !

[Orval]

Oh, je pense que les étudiants s'en foutent.

 

Possible pour les étudiants de psycho, mais je traînais dans le Cercle des Science, et selon mon envoyé spécial sur place, les physiciens sont devenu insupportable avec "leur" prix Nobel.

[Rincevent]

Englert aujourd'hui, Rothman et Schekman hier... Bon début.
 

[fryer]

ça va encore jaser dans les coins les plus sombres de l'internet tsss

[Bastiat]

Le mari de Janet Yellen, la nouvelle patronne de la Fed est Georges Akerlof Nobel d'économie 2001 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Akerlof consacré aux "imperfections de marché".

[poney]

Possible pour les étudiants de psycho, mais je traînais dans le Cercle des Science, et selon mon envoyé spécial sur place, les physiciens sont devenu insupportable avec "leur" prix Nobel.

 

Ah oui, mais le CDS est insupportable de suffisance, donc... (du moins "à mon époque" : "oh, vous, les faux scientifiques")

[Drake]

Englert aujourd'hui, Rothman et Schekman hier... Bon début.

 

Bah, aux prix Nobel, tout le monde le sait qu'il y a des quotas de diversitude.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pour les gentils.

[Tramp]

Le mari de Janet Yellen, la nouvelle patronne de la Fed est Georges Akerlof Nobel d'économie 2001 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Akerlof consacré aux "imperfections de marché".

 

Ah oui, the market of lemons... Je trouve ça un peu éloigné de la réalité.

 

 

 

Akerlof a mis en évidence une autre exception à la loi de la demande, aujourd'hui portant son nom, l’« effet d'Akerlof » ou « effet de marque ». Les acheteurs ont parfois tendance à acheter, parmi un ensemble de biens parfaitement substituables, des biens qui ont un prix supérieur au prix moyen en croyant que celui qu’ils achètent est de meilleure qualité.

 

Ben là, je croyais que c'était la subjectivité de la valeur tout simplement.

[Cthulhu]

Sur le sujet : http://mises.org/daily/801

[tout38]

Le mari de Janet Yellen, la nouvelle patronne de la Fed est Georges Akerlof Nobel d'économie 2001 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Akerlof consacré aux "imperfections de marché".

La nouvelle patronne de la FED est une socialiste fanatique mariée à un taliban du keynésianisme. CQFD, les Etats-Unis vont continuer, vorie amplifier leur politique économique suicidaire à base de QE et d'étatisme, embauche de fonctionnaires pour faire baisser les chiffres du chômage, mise en place de l'Obamacare...

 

Allez le Tea Party, il ne reste que vous pour empêcher Obama et toute sa clique d'achever la collectivisation de l'économie américaine

[Jeff Van Planet]

Par pure second degré je propose Bernanke et Krugman

[Cthulhu]

Déjà fait pour Krugman.

[Loi]

Allez le Tea Party, il ne reste que vous pour empêcher Obama et toute sa clique d'achever la collectivisation de l'économie américaine

 

Au fait, qu'est-ce qu'il devient Ron Paul?

[Astha]

Sur le sujet : http://mises.org/daily/801

 

Et sur le Nobel, le discours d'Hayek en 74:

 

 

The Pretence of Knowledge

 

The particular occasion of this lecture, combined with the chief practical problem which economists have to face today, have made the choice of its topic almost inevitable. On the one hand the still recent establishment of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science marks a significant step in the process by which, in the opinion of the general public, economics has been conceded some of the dignity and prestige of the physical sciences. On the other hand, the economists are at this moment called upon to say how to extricate the free world from the serious threat of accelerating inflation which, it must be admitted, has been brought about by policies which the majority of economists recommended and even urged governments to pursue. We have indeed at the moment little cause for pride: as a profession we have made a mess of things.

 

It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences - an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the "scientistic" attitude - an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, "is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed."1 I want today to begin by explaining how some of the gravest errors of recent economic policy are a direct consequence of this scientistic error.

 

The theory which has been guiding monetary and financial policy during the last thirty years, and which I contend is largely the product of such a mistaken conception of the proper scientific procedure, consists in the assertion that there exists a simple positive correlation between total employment and the size of the aggregate demand for goods and services; it leads to the belief that we can permanently assure full employment by maintaining total money expenditure at an appropriate level. Among the various theories advanced to account for extensive unemployment, this is probably the only one in support of which strong quantitative evidence can be adduced. I nevertheless regard it as fundamentally false, and to act upon it, as we now experience, as very harmful.

 

This brings me to the crucial issue. Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.

 

It can hardly be denied that such a demand quite arbitrarily limits the facts which are to be admitted as possible causes of the events which occur in the real world. This view, which is often quite naively accepted as required by scientific procedure, has some rather paradoxical consequences. We know: of course, with regard to the market and similar social structures, a great many facts which we cannot measure and on which indeed we have only some very imprecise and general information. And because the effects of these facts in any particular instance cannot be confirmed by quantitative evidence, they are simply disregarded by those sworn to admit only what they regard as scientific evidence: they thereupon happily proceed on the fiction that the factors which they can measure are the only ones that are relevant.

 

The correlation between aggregate demand and total employment, for instance, may only be approximate, but as it is the only one on which we have quantitative data, it is accepted as the only causal connection that counts. On this standard there may thus well exist better "scientific" evidence for a false theory, which will be accepted because it is more "scientific", than for a valid explanation, which is rejected because there is no sufficient quantitative evidence for it.

 

Let me illustrate this by a brief sketch of what I regard as the chief actual cause of extensive unemployment - an account which will also explain why such unemployment cannot be lastingly cured by the inflationary policies recommended by the now fashionable theory. This correct explanation appears to me to be the existence of discrepancies between the distribution of demand among the different goods and services and the allocation of labour and other resources among the production of those outputs. We possess a fairly good "qualitative" knowledge of the forces by which a correspondence between demand and supply in the different sectors of the economic system is brought about, of the conditions under which it will be achieved, and of the factors likely to prevent such an adjustment. The separate steps in the account of this process rely on facts of everyday experience, and few who take the trouble to follow the argument will question the validity of the factual assumptions, or the logical correctness of the conclusions drawn from them. We have indeed good reason to believe that unemployment indicates that the structure of relative prices and wages has been distorted (usually by monopolistic or governmental price fixing), and that to restore equality between the demand and the supply of labour in all sectors changes of relative prices and some transfers of labour will be necessary.

 

But when we are asked for quantitative evidence for the particular structure of prices and wages that would be required in order to assure a smooth continuous sale of the products and services offered, we must admit that we have no such information. We know, in other words, the general conditions in which what we call, somewhat misleadingly, an equilibrium will establish itself: but we never know what the particular prices or wages are which would exist if the market were to bring about such an equilibrium. We can merely say what the conditions are in which we can expect the market to establish prices and wages at which demand will equal supply. But we can never produce statistical information which would show how much the prevailing prices and wages deviate from those which would secure a continuous sale of the current supply of labour. Though this account of the causes of unemployment is an empirical theory, in the sense that it might be proved false, e.g. if, with a constant money supply, a general increase of wages did not lead to unemployment, it is certainly not the kind of theory which we could use to obtain specific numerical predictions concerning the rates of wages, or the distribution of labour, to be expected.

 

[...]

 

 

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html

[Tramp]

Au fait, qu'est-ce qu'il devient Ron Paul?

 

Il a lancé le Ron Paul Institute et le Ron Paul Channel.

[Kevinz]

Au fait, qu'est-ce qu'il devient Ron Paul?

Il vient de sortir un livre aussi:

http://www.amazon.com/The-School-Revolution-Answer-Education/dp/1455577170/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381354129&sr=8-1&keywords=the+school+revolution

 

D'ailleurs j'ai presque pouffé de rire dans le métro ce soir en lisant cette phrase:

 

Parents are asked to pay up to a quarter million dollars to send the student to a major private university whose teaching method became obsolete sometime around 1450

 

Bon c'est quoté hors contexte, mais ce type maitrise clairement les sujets qu'il aborde.

 

[Rincevent]

Bah, aux prix Nobel, tout le monde le sait qu'il y a des quotas de diversitude.

Pour les gentils.

Même pas. Cette année, en chimie, ils en sont tous. Mouahahaha.

[Bastiat]

Même pas. Cette année, en chimie, ils en sont tous. Mouahahaha.

 

Normal, c'est parce qu'ils sont tous supérieurement géniaux. Ou qu'ils s'entraident un peu trop au dépend d'autres talents...

[Rincevent]

Meuh non. On laisse juste les Gentils se partager les prix qui ne servent à rien. La littérature, pas exemple. Ou la Paix. Lol.

[Hayek's plosive]

Bizarrement, personne n'en a rien a branler de la PN de litterature... Comprends pas...

[Rincevent]

Bizarrement, personne n'en a rien a branler de la PN de litterature... Comprends pas...

Je viens de le dire : c'est un prix qui ne sert à rien.

[Miss Liberty]

Peut-être parce que la notion d'"écrivain ayant rendu de grands services à l'humanité" est vraiment étrange?

[Ray]

J'aurais bien aimé qu'ils le donnent Kundera. Il va finir par mourir sans l'avoir eu au rythme où vont les choses.

[Bastiat]

Meuh non. On laisse juste les Gentils se partager les prix qui ne servent à rien. La littérature, pas exemple. Ou la Paix. Lol.

 

Ha ben voilà, c'est pour ça que Rothbard ou Mises n'ont rien eu !

[Rincevent]

Ha ben voilà, c'est pour ça que Rothbard ou Mises n'ont rien eu !

Mises était sans doute trop vieux (au moment de la création du prix, il frisait les 90 ans) ; et Rothbard n'a jamais eu de reconnaissance universitaire (il ne l'a jamais vraiment cherché, ceci étant. Ca lui a permis d'être radical, mais ça a pas mal plombé ses successeurs).

Et puis Rothbard n'a pas inventé grand chose en économie qui n'était pas déjà dans Mises. Trololol...

[Hayek's plosive]

Le PN de la Paix, c'est vraiment parce qu'ils pouvaient pas le filer a Poutine qu'ils le filent a une agence parfaitement inconnue...

[Nirvana]

Manning, Snowden et Malala se sont fait voler le prix

[Hayek's plosive]

C'est ca. Une organisation dont je suis pret a parier que 90% des gens n'avaient jamais entendu parler.

 

Edit - ah bin c'est malin, si tu changes aussi.

[Elphyr]

Si ce sont les mêmes qui décernent les PN eco, je vote Lagarde ou DSK.

[Malky]

Si ce sont les mêmes qui décernent les PN eco, je vote Lagarde ou DSK.

 

Si c'est les mêmes : je parie sur Bernanke.