
Nobel Economist: Now Is No Time to Give Up on Markets - jwb119
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759849467801485.html
======
awt
I think you couldn't give up on markets even if you wanted to. You can pretend
there are no markets, ala communism, but you can not eliminate markets unless
you invent a limitless supply of energy.

~~~
anamax
> you can not eliminate markets unless you invent a limitless supply of
> energy.

Even inventing a limitless supply of free energy would not eliminate markets
because limitless free energy would not eliminate all scarcity.

~~~
smanek
Wouldn't it? Given limitless energy, you can literally create matter out of
thin air (E=mc^2) ...

You could create new planets, replicas of anything, etc. Hell, you could even
distort time to fit your needs.

Granted, it would take more energy than exists in the universe - and a little
technology that we haven't tried outside the lab yet. But we already have the
fundamental tech to make that happen - it would just take a bit more scaling
up and fine tuning.

Hey, he did say _limitless_

~~~
bd
Non-material things like status or reputation can be still scarce even with
limitless energy:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity#Unavoidable_scarc...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity#Unavoidable_scarcity)

------
tptacek
That's nice. It was Merton and Scholes --- _two_ Nobel economists --- who
convinced LTCM and its customers that it was safe to place 15-30:1 leveraged
bets on market volatility; that time, we only lost single-digit billions.

------
HSO
the economics "nobel" is not a real Nobel. it's a bogus prize. just saying.
see here ->
[http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/nobel_by_association_be...](http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/nobel_by_association_beautiful_mind_non_existent_prize)

~~~
katz
The correct name is Nobel Memorial Prize.

It is not a "bogus" prize - I can assure you that you have to be pretty smart
to earn one.

~~~
HSO
you don't have to be "smart", you have to fit in. economics is a self-
referential discipline. there is no real standard of truth or verity or
validity of a theory and hence a lot of bickering even about fundamental
questions. and so, there are "schools" of thought. whichever is the current
flavor of the month (or rather decade) will carry one of its own to the
"highest prize". in terms of hard to get, i'd argue the so-called clark medal
is harder. anyway, economists try to act all "science-y" and serious but the
fact is, those who arguably understand economics very well (say a soros) and
those who win fake nobels are not the same people...

~~~
katz
> you don't have to be "smart", you have to fit in. economics is a self-
> referential discipline. there is no real standard of truth or verity or
> validity of a theory and hence a lot of bickering even about fundamental
> questions.

The closer a theory fit to practice (e.g. economic modelling) the better it
is.

> those who arguably understand economics very well (say a soros)

There is a difference between understanding macro economics and a person doing
dubious and unethical things to get money (e.g. Soros). Soros was involved in
many dubious financial transactions and was found guilty of insider trading in
France. What he did in Hong Kong may not be entirely illegal but it certainly
is completely unethical.

Also - their is a difference between macro-economics and things such as stock
trading or currency speculation.

On the other hand - most people have a problem with a lot of economists
because of what their results are (i.e. not progressive).

------
aswanson
How could Nobel set a prize for every field that depends on mathematics but
not mathematics itself?

------
kiba
Meh. The Nobel prize for economics is bogus when they rewarded people from
different school of economics with opposite view on how the economy work in
many respect.

Hayek got rewarded for his work on ABCT theory and the recent nobel prize
winner Paul Kugman basically disagree with ABCT.

~~~
quizbiz
Some of what Einstein said goes completely against what Newton said. They were
both geniuses.

~~~
ellyagg
If Newton were to meet Einstein, he'd accept Einstein's adjustments after a
few hours (days?). If Hayek were to meet Krugman, they'd be ruthlessly arguing
months later.

------
davidw
Agreed, now let's go back to hacker news, not economics/politics.

~~~
drewr
Agreed, head over to <http://newmogul.com> if you're interested in this stuff.

~~~
jwb119
Did you guys read the article? I thought there were quite a few things hacker-
ish about the subject and his views.

~~~
xenophanes
Did you read the title? It sounded like politics!

------
raintrees
I think there was an intriguing question towards the end: How DO you shrink
special interest groups?

