No one in the economics profession cares.
Another contradiction by a member of the economics profession. It seems to me they care very much. By linking the prize to Alfred Nobel’s name (and to the Nobel institutions), the Riksbank ensured the prize would immediately carry great symbolic prestige. The Nobel brand was already well established internationally, so adopting the name helped the economics prize gain recognition, gravitas, and legitimacy.
I mean, i hear people call the Turing prize the "nobel" of computer science, and the fields medal the nobel of math. Sports that arent in the olympics usually have some competition people refer to as the "olympics" of that sport.
Who really cares, its the top prize in the field, that is all that matters.
I stand by my statement.
I’d love an estimate from you (or anyone) about the marginal effect on the profession’s “legitimacy” (which is what? and how’s it measured?) from having the prize include Nobel’s name vs. not including it.
Really we don’t care.
I’d love an estimate from you (or anyone) about the marginal effect on the profession’s “care” (which is what? and how’s it measured?) from having the prize include Nobel’s name vs. not including it.
Since you stand by your statement so strongly, you should have it already, correct?
Really we don’t care.
My point was speak for yourself, the history does not suggest you are correct. Evidence economists do care[1][2][3]. Economics was still a relatively newer niche discipline[4].
[1] https://developingeconomics.org/2024/10/22/the-nobel-illusio...
[2] https://ideas.repec.org/b/pup/pbooks/10841.html
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/nobel-priz...
[4] https://cooperative-individualism.org/parrish-john_rise-of-e...
You care so little you spent time to claim you don't care twice in a row.
> I’d love an estimate from you (or anyone) about the marginal effect on the profession’s “legitimacy” (which is what? and how’s it measured?) from having the prize include Nobel’s name vs. not including it.
I don't have an estimate for that, but we have an estimate on how much money the Sverige Riskbank bankers were ready to spend in that effort. Maybe it didn't pan out but some people definitely had a multimillion dollar interest in making that happen. As an economist you must wonder what their incentives could have been …
> You care so little you spent time to claim you don't care twice in a row.
I've seen this style of argument before and I think it's a non sequitur and total BS. The fact that he may care about feeling his opinion is being misrepresented is totally different from what his original "we don't care" statement referred to.
Are you sure though? I don’t have an opinion on this specific case, but I have been in situations where someone claims to have no interest at all in a topic and then doesn’t stop talking about it.
Imo the economics profession very much suffers from inferiority complex known as "physics envy".
> economics profession very much suffers from inferiority complex known as "physics envy"
You’re mixing up quantitative finance and economics.
Excuse me? Quant finance doesn't claim to be devising grand theories about how the world operates (is more akin to engineering). And when it does, any delineation from economics is moot.
> Quant finance doesn't claim to be devising grand theories about how the world operates
What do you base this on?
What's quintessential quant finance? Black-Scholes and no-arbitrage pricing. Don't you agree it's much more of a tool than a theory of how the world works.
> What's quintessential quant finance? Black-Scholes and no-arbitrage pricing
This is a bad model to pick to exemplify physics envy given it’s based on thermodynamic dispersion.
The term “physics envy” broadly applies to all social sciences lacking a mathematical basis. It’s a criticism of using math where it doesn’t belong. That hasn’t really fit (until very recently) with economics. It’s been a classic complaint about quantitative finance’s loftier visions of universality.
I think OP meant that economists do consider the prize highly despite the distinction between its particular situation vs. the "core Nobels"
> It seems to me they care very much
I’d actually argue that the only people who love this piece of trivia are economists, financiers and a particular vein of Reddit.
What the other poster meant was that economists don’t care that it is not an original Nobel prize.
Source: also an economist