Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

SheikBen wrote:If creating embryoes to destroy them is so wonderful, let the private market spend the money and reap the rewards. Saying such a thing is not being anti-science, but rather anti-socialism. Private groups can have success without the government, ya know?

Are you out of your mind, Mike?

Puhleaze......you and I both know nothing of any value has ever been discovered or developed without the benevolence of Big Brother so generously taxing the crap out of everything in order to pay for ingenuity.

Why, without government funds we would not have the wheel, or have discovered fire, much less inventions like the light bulb, telephone, radio. Sheeesh, do I have to tell you everything?

sodbuster wrote:Well just like science has to be rejected by the right, I guess economics does too.

Both disciplines need to clear their work through the RNC I guess....

Now that was cute, ..... coming from someone that doesn't know one damn thing of importance about science or economics.

Sherm, me thinks your knowledge of economics is limited to ....... the re-distribution of other people's hard earned money to you, your family and all your friends.



.

bmd wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Congratulations. The looney libs have found a wingnut they can use to validate their utter disregard for the standard principles of economics.

Which "standard principles" are those?

If you have to ask, .... it would actually be silly and asinine to tell you, ...... because you are apparently not able to understand or comprehend "standards", ...... let alone "principles".

,

bmd wrote:And exactly WHAT legislation has Congress passed since Jan 2007 that contributed to the current situation? The Democratic party is marginally in charge of Congress. However, the GOP is running the Executive branch, remember? It has been W and his appointees who have been in charge of "administering" (and I use the term advisedly) the Treasury, the SEC, the FDIC, etc., etc., etc.

You're right, Americans have no faith in the do nothing Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who were at the helm when the ship went down. And you're lauding their gross inactions as a reason for no responsibility on their part.

Yeah, that sounds about right coming from the left.

It's not our fault becasue we didn't do anything at all!!!

I'll ask again, what legislation have the Democrats passed since Jan 2007 that contributed to the current situation? The assertion was made that the current congress is responsible for this situation. However, ALL of the Federal departments and agencies responsible for administering various aspects of the economy and banking and financial systems are headed by W's appointees, and have been for almost eight years now. How on earth can the GOP possibly hope to duck responsibility for this melt-down? Oh, that's right, the wacko fringe is in charge of the GOP now. Double-speak is the party line; how else could the Palin-etts hope to characterize the report on the investigation of Palin's abuse of power, issued by Alaska's legislature, as a "vindication" of her actions and policies?

SamCogar wrote:

bmd wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Congratulations. The looney libs have found a wingnut they can use to validate their utter disregard for the standard principles of economics.

Which "standard principles" are those?

If you have to ask, .... it would actually be silly and asinine to tell you, ...

In other words, you don't have any more of a clue than Stephanie about what she means.

bmd wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

bmd wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Congratulations. The looney libs have found a wingnut they can use to validate their utter disregard for the standard principles of economics.

Which "standard principles" are those?

If you have to ask, .... it would actually be silly and asinine to tell you, ...

In other words, you don't have any more of a clue than Stephanie about what she means.

GIMME A BREAK, ...... I haven't spent my whole life trying to flim-flam my way along trying to beat, connive and steal from everyone just to get along, hold a job or whatever.

here bmd, read up on them yourself, ....... but I know damn well you won't. Highly partisan Democrats are not interested in learning anything, ..... their only interest is to badmouth, criticize and defame anyone that does not support Democrats or their Party.

What are the Essential Principles of Economics?

Here are the Essential Principles of Economics I have tried to explain, illustrate and apply in this book. There are ten major principles.

http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/whatare.html

Or, if you can’t read, click on this, it promises to tell you all about them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4

bmd wrote:The assertion was made that the current congress is responsible for this situation.

No Billy, you are wrong. And I believe purposefully so. I never made the assertion that THIS congress is responsible for this situation. In fact, I've been one of the more outspoken individuals of this being a bi-partisan problem and that BOTH parties are at fault.

If you would take the time and do a little reading, you would know that. But then, I have a feeling the truth is not what you're looking for, is it Billy. You want to place ALL of the blame on Republicans and in that, once again, you're wrong Billy.

My ONLY statement about this congress is that this was the Congress in charge when everything went south. As it is, while other sessions of Congress hold some responsibility for this mess, Sister Nan’s and Dingy Harry’s Congress is the ONLY Congress that had the ability to anything. That is a fact.

They did nothing. You not only acknowledge that, you trumpet it as proof of their innocence. I say the do-nothing Congress's doing nothing contributed to this mess. There is plenty the could have done, but like you've pointed out, they did nothing.

Had Frank and Dodd simply told the truth instead of covering up for the FM boys or demanded changes in accounting rules such as the mark to market rules, perhaps this could have been avoided.

But as you've pointed out, twice, Nan and Harry DID NOTHING.

Tell the left thanks Billy.

Is it my imagination, or do these two quotes seem to contradict one another? At least in so far as their assignment of blame.

Aaron wrote:Really. Seems that if I recall correctly, in January, 2007, the market was over 12,000.

Now what was that event that took place in late January, 2007???

Oh, I know. That was when democrats took over Washington. Seems the price of gas was low and the stocks were high and then liberals came in and completely reversed that trend.

Gee, thanks.

Aaron wrote: I never made the assertion that THIS congress is responsible for this situation. In fact, I've been one of the more outspoken individuals of this being a bi-partisan problem and that BOTH parties are at fault.

BTW, who is Billy?

bmd wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

bmd wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Congratulations. The looney libs have found a wingnut they can use to validate their utter disregard for the standard principles of economics.

Which "standard principles" are those?

If you have to ask, .... it would actually be silly and asinine to tell you, ...

In other words, you don't have any more of a clue than Stephanie about what she means.

I won't speak for Sam, but Stephanie knows exactly what she means and what she's speaking about.

Now, if you're a gentleman, conduct yourself in a civilized manner and introduce yourself to the group in the thread provided for that purpose, I'll be happy to give you a crash course in economics. Obviously, if you've been listening to Barney "There are no troubles at Freddie Mac" Frank or Maxine "..under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines" Waters, you need far more assistance than I can provide in our little online forum. However, you have to start somewhere.

Stephanie wrote:
I won't speak for Sam, but Stephanie knows exactly what she means and what she's speaking about.

Well then, enlighten us. How has Krugman shown "utter disregard for the standard principles of economics"??? Go ahead, give us your best analysis of how Krugmans theses on scaling and international trade don't jive with the rest of economics. Apparently, you think yourself to be smarter than the Nobel Economics Prize Committee in this, so you should be able to enlighten us all on how they "poked the pooch" this time around. (BTW - Isn't showing "utter disregard for the standard principles" the way real paradigm shifts often, perhaps even usually, come about? I'll have to see if I can find pertinent passages in my copies of "The Origin of Species" or "Mode and Tempo in Evolution".)

Stephanie wrote:Now, if you're a gentleman...

As my wife might say,"He's no gentleman; he's just the guy who forgets to put the damned toilet seat down!"

Stephanie wrote:... conduct yourself in a civilized manner and introduce yourself to the group in the thread provided for that purpose...

Don't worry, most of the crew from the original Gazette Forums know me. I was causing a few of them to become periodically apoplectic back when Danno was our fearless leader (just ask Terry and Sam).

Well, I'll give you a couple of examples. Seeing how you think you're up for the discussion and all.

For example, Krugman calls for and applauds the government injecting capital into a financial system that has made a tremendous number of bad loans, thus crippling it. First of all, in order to inject capital, you have to have capital to inject. This nation is up to its eyeballs in red and has no capital to invest. So what are they going to do? They're going to borrow more and print more increasing both our national debt and inflation in order to "rescue" insolvent financial institutions all the while insisting they continue on in the same direction that landed them in the hopper to begin with. It defies logic and the laws of economics.

Now you can talk all you like about paradigm shifts, but this isn't the history of life on the planet, economics is some pretty concrete stuff. What this dolt is advocating, is the nationalization of the banking system. That is socialism. Like all good little socialists, Krugman believes the state to be all knowing and all powerful and can solve all of our problems. He blames the "free market system" for the crisis we currently face when the very root causes of the problems facing our financial institutions have nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with socialism.

The simple fact of the matter is that Krugman believes the government can force, through the use of fiat currency, some sort of economic utopia or at least equilibrium on society. This has been tried before in recent history and has failed miserably. It's an experiment that cannot work becaue it defies the laws of economics as well as common sense.

So the Nobel committee has made another disasterous pick. After AlGore nothing they do would surprise me. The end result will surely be winning a Nobel prize will no longer carry the prestige it once did. They've dumbed it down. Whoopie!

You're a little out of your field of expertise aren't you, bio-mechanical dude? I should have known when you published Krugman's resume. Of course, you're nearly as adept as Krugman at political discourse.

Stephanie wrote:Congratulations. The looney libs have found a wingnut they can use to validate their utter disregard for the standard principles of economics.

Well I certainly have been called worse than a wingnut on here.

But I have learned to consider the source and just let it go like water rolls off a duck's back, turn the other cheek, etc.

(and then look for a chance to get even... )

What I was trying to allude to is that whatever your discipline or area of expertise, the rightwing true believers will challenge your credentials if you dont first check and make sure your research comports with republican dogma.

Just like science, astronomy, etc in the middle ages had to comport with Catholic doctrine and beliefs.

Yall cant look at things objectively and would never accept the fact your dogma might be wrong.

Whereas we on the left do believe in science even above politics.

If some rightwing demagogue would argue that down was up it wouldnt be long before yall tried to repeal the law of gravity.

Maybe you could see the log in your own eye before you comment on my mote...

Well I might have a log but if there is a conflict between what my political dogma says and what science proves then I will go with science.

Sure, if you stamp a "D" on it...

bmd wrote:Is it my imagination,

With you, it normally is Billy.

bmd wrote:BTW, who is Billy?

Would you prefer William?

bmd wrote:

About par the course, isn't it!!!

I wondered why you didn't come over when the forum started. What took you so long?

Aaron wrote:
With you, it normally is Billy.

bmd wrote:BTW, who is Billy?

Would you prefer William?

I still don't get it. Maybe if I drank a six-pack and smoked a couple of joints we could get on the same wavelength.

Aaron wrote:
I wondered why you didn't come over when the forum started. What took you so long?

More pressing commitments, both personal and professional , have left me little time for rattling electronic cages of late (not to mention the fact that I can only take so much of the characters on this board before I have to spend some quality time with grown-ups).

Then who will watch the nursery?

I find it fascinating that you would suggest that we are not grown-ups here. Must we agree with you to get the label "mature?" How about if I became pro-choice, would that do it? Would I become "reasonable" like Specter and Snowe?

You remind me of the story of the preacher who had in his notes "point weak here, pound pulpit loudly."

It appears I was wrong.

Seems you’re another truth distorting educated liberal that thinks he's better then everyone on the right, not the one I was thinking of.

My apologies.

At any rate, you're now Bill unless you give me another name to call you by. If you don't want to do real names, then make up one. I don't do nick names.

Say, BM, I think you forgot to cite one of Krugman's professional affiliations:

OTHER AFFILIATIONS

National Bureau of Economic Research, Research Associate, 1979 -
Institute of International Economics, Board of Advisors, 1986 -
Econometric Society, Fellow, 1987 -
Group of Thirty, Member, 1988 -
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow, 1992 -
Columnist, Slate, 1996-1999.
Columnist, Fortune, 1997-1999
Columnist, The New York Times, 2000-
Advisor, ENRON, 1990-implosion

ohio county wrote:Say, BM, I think you forgot to cite one of Krugman's professional affiliations:

OTHER AFFILIATIONS

National Bureau of Economic Research, Research Associate, 1979 -
Institute of International Economics, Board of Advisors, 1986 -
Econometric Society, Fellow, 1987 -
Group of Thirty, Member, 1988 -
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow, 1992 -
Columnist, Slate, 1996-1999.
Columnist, Fortune, 1997-1999
Columnist, The New York Times, 2000-
Advisor, ENRON, 1990-implosion

See that? This is precisely why the gentleman from Ohio County is THE MAN!!!

Krugman's political rants got so bad that the Times was forced to employ a fact checker to censor some of his more malodorous claims. Since that time Krugman has not been heard from. It pains me greatly to say that before 1990 Krugman studied and wrote about free trade. It is generally accepted that the quality and thoroughness of his work merited awarding him the Nobel Prize in Economics.

When, back in the '80's. Is that what you're saying, Jimmy? That 30 years ago he was a sane and rational economist and deserved the prize?

It's been a really long couple of days over here and I want to make sure I'm "getting" you.