is economics losing its religion status?

2 American Professors Awarded Nobel in Economic ScienceBack to Article »
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Thomas J. Sargent and Christopher A. Sims, two Americans, won the Nobel economics prize on Monday “for their empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy.”




7.
Nerd
New York, NY
October 10th, 2011
9:07 am
It's not a Nobel Prize. It's a Nobel Memorial Prize, and it is not one of the real Nobel Prizes as created by Alfred himself. It's just a prize created by economists to try to legitimatize their "science."
Recommend Recommended by 64 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
3.
Jim Tavegia
Atlanta
October 10th, 2011
8:30 am
How could any American win any award concerning this economy, or their take on macroeconomics. There is not a academic or politician who knows anything about fixing this economy. And to think they are going to make money off of their award is almost ludicrous.

The world economy is spiraling into the toilet and it is clear that what is being taught in Universities around the globe is wrong-headed. but, go ahead and pat your selves on the back. That is the way the system works.
Recommend Recommended by 55 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
6.
gonzobaires
Buenos Aires
October 10th, 2011
9:07 am
The prize is given to people who creates theoretical models for some specific issue, not to people who "solves" problems. They can predict things, for example, that if you get robbed you end up broke, but they cannot stop a bunch of criminals to rob your money.
Recommend Recommended by 49 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
10.
joena lopez
Manila
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
Economists have no clue how the world works . And they have no idea how to cure some of the economic maladies that besiege the world. They keep on churning out useless models and quantitative methods. The guy who heads the Federal Reserve was supposed to know everything about depression and recession and was supposed to be the greatest authority in the world about economic crises. See his performance . You know what? They have no clues--these people keep on patting each other for useless models and call each others' works breakthrough. It is time to call spade a spade: the emperor has no clothes. It is time to stop this charade called Nobel Prize in economics!
Recommend Recommended by 45 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
1.
Paul
New Jersey
October 10th, 2011
8:30 am
How refreshing and timely in this age of political spin: an attempt to enforce methodical analysis on macroeconomics and to identify cause and effect.
Recommend Recommended by 44 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
4.
J.Lee
Seoul, Korea
October 10th, 2011
8:34 am
Is fine math the substitute of the explanatory power? The world is in danger of possible depression created by the casino capitalism. These economists have nothing to say about that. They are saying people are unemployed out of their choice. Math cannot mask nonsense.
Recommend Recommended by 41 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
13.
waynehs
norwalk, ct.
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
It's fascinating that so many Americans over the years have won the Nobel Prize in economics. Yet the US economy (along with much of the rest of world) is a horrible mess.
Is there a positive correlation between the more Nobel Prize winning economists a country has and the worse its economy is?
Recommend Recommended by 37 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
5.
Steve Bolger
New York, NY
October 10th, 2011
9:07 am
So, will they be able to explain to us why zero percent interest rates don't work as advertized to stimulate anything?
Recommend Recommended by 34 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
22.
Zoku
NJ
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
The two important economists illustrate through there brilliant work, the difference between Supply Side(Trickle Down)Economics -vs- The New Keynesian(Demand Side)Economics. Clearly it is time for Demand Side economics to be given a chance. The rich do not like this idea because it would stop them from having many taxpayer subsidies given to them for simply supplying goods and only as many jobs as demands for those goods will allow. As can be seen plainly by the average person, demand is down, so supply is not being bought because, there is no money for the average josephine/joe to spend!
Therefore, people who manufacture those goods, those who outsourced for cheap labor overseas, are now laying off their cheap labor..Because DEMAND IS DOWN. The ECONOMY IS CRASHING WORLD WIDE. This must be stopped! It can be halted by supplying workers with jobs and therefore money to purchase goods. Government investment to infrastructure and education and green jobs is the quickest way to get the engines of the economy turning again. When will our Nobel Prize winning president begin to really tough actions to get people back to work and at a living wage?
Recommend Recommended by 31 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
16.
Kurnewal
Carmel, New York
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
How anyone can call economics a science or even a useful enterpise is beyond me when the sorry cycle of boom and bust that has always plagued capitalism continues unabated, making millions suffer. Might as well be giving Nobel prizes for religion.
Recommend Recommended by 31 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
19.
Katie
Montana
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
The good news: the commenters above aren't on the Nobel committee.
Recommend Recommended by 27 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
15.
me
NYC
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
Now that was my best laugh of the day. Really? An award - for both of these geniuses? Really?
So why are they not able to apply their knowledge to our economy?
And Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and we are in too many wars to count and we drone kill as a sport - oh yes, we kill them so they don't have to go to Gitmo. Makes perfect sense.
Got to love those awards.
Recommend Recommended by 25 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
28.
Ken
New York, NY
October 10th, 2011
10:11 am
Frankly I cannot believe some of the comments so far which indicate a complete ignorance of the value of economic science. These two economoists are working to try and explain what is happening and find a way forward. They are neigher villans nor magicians, but clear thinkers who are working to understand how modern, global economies function in order to guide sensible policy, something that has certainly been lacking in American political discourse lately.
Recommend Recommended by 22 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
42.HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
Martin
Vermont
October 10th, 2011
11:59 am
As many of the previous comments point out, the mathematical models that these people build have little use in the real world. In fact they are dangerous. This is the work that enabled the practitioners of "economic science", which is no science at all, to drive our economy over the cliff while stuffing their pockets with money.

For examples see Robert Rubin's Citibank, or Long Term Capital Management, or Harvard's endowment with Larry Summers at the school's helm (El-Erian had to abandon ship). All of these people helped to lose billions but were very richly rewarded.

If you have any doubt that these people are dangerous to your financial well-being, it is time to re-read Nassim Taleb's book "The Black Swan".

It will be a brighter day when the Bank of Sweden awards the prize to Taleb himself in a final gesture before disbanding their committee.
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
31.
Mike
Southern California
October 10th, 2011
10:11 am
This award is nothing but a popularity contest among self-important academics. Its quite obvious given today's economic mess that Economics has become the lost science. But hey, that's an elegant equation gentlemen.
Recommend Recommended by 19 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
2.
Kevin
Washington, DC
October 10th, 2011
8:30 am
Great, maybe they can figure out how to get out of this economic mess we're in.
Recommend Recommended by 19 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
8.HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
Ignacio Vera
New York
October 10th, 2011
10:09 am
Recognizing the work of Sargent and Sims was due for a long, long time. Two thumbs up to the Noble Committee.
Recommend Recommended by 18 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
14.
thomas vesely
australia
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
obama deploys predator drones, gets the peace prize.
american economists deploy global poverty, get an economic prize.
Recommend Recommended by 16 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
9.
Lizbethem
Massachusetts
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
Oh the irony!
Recommend Recommended by 16 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
25.
K Henderson
NYC
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
sorry but 'academic economists' = bunk.

Let's just call them Math professors, which is closer to the truth and closer to the academic work that they are actually doing.
Recommend Recommended by 15 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
69.HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
Robert Campos
Princeton, NJ
October 10th, 2011
12:21 pm
I'm taking a class with Professor Sims right now and he is very knowledgeable about what's happening in today's economic climate. He is not a politician, so while he may know what the cause and effect is for macro-level economic prosperity, it is politicians and their distributive (or not so distributive) fiscal policies that governs who benefits from our economy and the Fed's monetary changes. Zero interest rates do not work the same way as they used to because we now pay interest on reserves. There is no more money multiplier anymore. Can you imagine? There's your answer, Steve Bolger. Overall, Ignacio Vera is right - Sims and Sargent were long overdue for this prize. Congrats to these brilliant scholars. Ignore other commenters jaded and bitter trolling due to their short-comings and failures as human beings. These professors deserve it.
Recommend Recommended by 14 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
18.
JD
Ohio
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
I really am not qualified to comment on the quality of the winner's work. However, the fact that they received the Nobel prize does not give them any extra credibility to me. They join such "worthy" Nobel winners as Obama and Al Gore. Additionally, the award of the prize to Paul Krugman in retrospect seems to be mistaken based on extremist attacks on those who oppose his ideology. (For instance, he has claimed that those who opposed drastic CO2 limitations are traitors.)

JD
Recommend Recommended by 14 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
12.
Shiela
The Woodlands, TX
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
Mr. Sims, who has won a prize for his excellent research on the subject, will not proffer an opinion on how to get us out of this economic mess (he says he doesn't have an answer!) Shall we then consider the opinions of those in the Obama administration-- or anywhere else-- who are patently less expert on the subject?
Recommend Recommended by 14 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
23.
DB
NYC
October 10th, 2011
10:10 am
This is like a bad Saturday Night Live skit. This is for "empirical" research done 30 or 40 years ago? What this really tells me is that 1)we have no actual research economists anymore as they are all political shills like Krugman and 2)that the Nobel Prize is a joke. I guess we all knew that when Obama won for saying "Hope and Change" with just the right timbre.
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
32.HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)
Bert Gold
Frederick, Maryland
October 10th, 2011
10:15 am
No offense intended to the two honorable academics selected, but I think this is a poor choice at this time. Macroeconomics is akin to weather forecasting (but without the radar). It is reasoning based on 'natural experiments'. One can't do a macroeconomic experiment without full government cooperation (when does that ever happen?). One of the theories of Sims is a staunch government-must-balance-budgets at all costs, theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_theory_of_the_price_level
So, this is a political prize. A reward for capitalists in an arcane area where no objective predictions are possible except in the case of a serendipitous natural experiment that emulates our current state.

I was hopeful that the rumors were true and that Paul Romer would be rewarded for helping us to understand the role of Technology in economies. But, such a wise choice this committee did not make.
Recommend Recommended by 12 Readers