5 Nobel economists, 5 essays: what must change

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,590038,00.html

[FIREWALL]

And who's gonna listen to them ? :p

[SteamWake]

I lost all respect for the nobel commission when they awarded the likes of Al Gore and Jimmy Carter.

Hell even Rush Limbaugh was a nominee.

As was said "Who is going to listen".

[AVGWarhawk]

I lost all respect for the nobel commission when they awarded the likes of Al Gore and Jimmy Carter.

Hell even Rush Limbaugh was a nominee.

As was said "Who is going to listen".

I second that Steamwake. :up:

[Skybird]

I take from the comments so far that nobody has seen the need to even read them before opening fire. I assume that part of my headline reading "what must change" already was enough to trigger autonomous hostile reflexes, especially the aversive word "change". It overrides any usual neural barriers, impacts with a red alert flashing right in the cnetre of the brain and commands the whole neocortex for emergency shutdown and hands basic cognitive functions over to automatic patriot-mode that ensures survival by scanning for and killing of any liberal and lefty stimulus found within intellectual scanning range, usual half an armslength, plus 10% range reserve for emergencies.

Tja.

[August]

Personally I think it has more to do with the threads author than the subject matter. But that's just me...

[AVGWarhawk]

I take from the comments so far that nobody has seen the need to even read them before opening fire. I assume that part of my headline reading "what must change" already was enough to trigger autonomous hostile reflexes, especially the aversive word "change". It overrides any usual neural barriers, impacts with a red alert flashing right in the cnetre of the brain and commands the whole neocortex for emergency shutdown and hands basic cognitive functions over to automatic patriot-mode that ensures survival by scanning for and killing of any liberal and lefty stimulus found within intellectual scanning range, usual half an armslength, plus 10% range reserve for emergencies.

Tja.

Well, no, thus far with "change", that is all we have been left with, change. The paper money has been taken to bailout failed management and these individual took a sebatical at the most costly resort they can find. So the mantra of "change" is just that, a mantra. There is no substance to it. For a guy who likes change... the backward racism of Europe, when is Germany going to elect a Turk or someone other than German desent? When is a Muslim going to be elected in the UK? I find it funny when America is pointed at with a racial finger only to find the uproar of Muslims living in the UK. At least we recognize our backward racist views. So, before you start scanning for righty racist conservatives who are recalcitrant to change, how about making a study of your country and the surrounding countries and see how they faired in the "change" market. Steamwake is right, the likes of Al Gore who's book is found with little to no factual evidence, so much so, it was pulled from classrooms in the UK. However, he still collected a check and that is all that matters in the end. After that little ditty, I do not care who wins the Nobel. It could be Suzie from the girl scouts and a biology experiment for all I care. After Al Gore, the Nobel lost any credibility in my book. Al Gore, the guy who invented the internet...oh brother..........


Note: not written in anger Skybird!

[Skybird]

You're aware that the word "to change" already existed before God sent Obama down to Earth - and that I meant it in that archaic, pre-obamic meaning? ;)

Also, Nobel awards should not be compared like peace Nobel versus hard science Nobel, hard science Nobel versus pseudo science Nobel (like economics). I just gave five essay by economists who have some name in their field. The point is not them being Nobel prize winners, but the content of their essays, which mybe were written not by the most incompetent.

Al Gore...?

[MothBalls]

Back to the original topic now......

I actually read through them and these seem like a bunch of smart guys. It gave me a different perspective and some things to think about. You have to put things like this out there so people can help themselves to become more informed and make better decisions.

One interesting note. All of them didn't point to the same things, and all of them didn't come up with the same conclusions. Just goes to show there isn't any one right answer.

To solve the problem(s), you'll need to get a bunch of smart people all working on it. (Just make sure they are "The Smartest Guys in the Room (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1016268/)")

[CaptainHaplo]

I actually read all 5 - and 3 of them make sense. Phelps, Lucas and Samuelson all have valid points. They are correct that that there should be some regulation of the banking sector when it comes to them loaning money they don't actually have. However, notice all three promote LIMITED regulation. I concur. The other two - especially Stiglitz, was to concerned about laying blame (all on the US btw) and pulling emotional heartstrings with his talk of the human fact to actually talk about fixes.

However, one thing that I do think that the three above mentioned missed is that going forward - regardless of regulation or oversight, these banks and other institutions have to accept the RISK that they have passed forward. In essence - no bailing them out.

Right now there is talk of letting the "Big 3" automakers in the US simply fail. The liberals - who garner support from the unions - won't allow it. They will continue to subsidize the 3 - who will continue to do business the same old way - failing to modernize so they could truly compete.

This is WHY a true deregulated market has never happened - because deregulation creates a risk/reward structure where low risk is low reward, high risk is high reward - and each investor or company decides how much risk they want. They are allowed to fail. Yet in today's business climate - if your part of a certain structure, your not going to fail - because you will be subsidized or "bailed out". Thats not a true deregulated market. Until change is enacted that allows failure for those who choose to run their businesses badly, you will never get a self-correcting market.

The Automotive Industry is just one here in the US - another is the Airline Industry. If they didn't have their yearly subsidies, neither would be in business today due to the way they choose to operate. I say stop funding their stupidity....

[FIREWALL]

I wasn't mad either. :D

[Onkel Neal]

I just want to know, how much real business experience do these economists have? What companies have the run? Theory is abstract, practical experience speaks much louder, IMO.

[FIREWALL]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5810/250pxmadhk1zz5.jpg