This is a prize given by the Central Bank of Sweden, not really an unbiased source. They have a clear agenda to propagate, and it is more about how to get more money for them for central planning than about economy.
It is indeed sponsored by Riksbanken but the ones who actually choose the 'winners' are The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
>They have a clear agenda to propagate, and it is more about how to get more money for them for central planning than about economy.
Everyone has an agenda. And I don't think you understand how the Swedish Central Bank operates. Central planning has nothing to do about it. Last I checked their primary task was to maintain the inflation at ~2%.
The only people who care about the title of the prize are elitists who clearly miss the point of discussion. This is a prestigious prize in the field of economic research. I don't see it as more or less relevant because it's called "Nobel". But thanks for pointing this out in every Economic Nobel thread.
Now, please, explain to everyone here the biases of the Central Bank of Sweden. Is it because it's run by economists? Who else should be choosing the prize? Clearly unbiased people with minimal economic knowledge?
Maybe you could provide us with a refutation of the works of Messrs. Fama, Shiller and Hansen, rather than just waving your hand and dismissing the work of men, far more accomplished than yourself in the field, as the "propagation of an agenda".
Everything I've come across suggest that Alfred Nobel detested their ilk, and wouldn't want his name associated with the prize in any way, shape or form. That's why the title matters.
Economists, generally, don't use their models in the real world. And when they do, they lose billions of dollars.
See Myron Scholes. He did it twice.
Because his "science" was flawed.
It drives me crazy that these guys not only get awards, but influence government financial policy.
The current people who are the "top economists" in the world, are, generally, ill-fit to their jobs.
Their abilities to assess risk are horrible.
They are making the world a more dangerous place, not safer.
Economics is very complicated, much more complicated than most leading economists think.
I am talking about people heading the leading economic and financial institutions today.
They are dangerous because they are overly confident of their horrible "predictions".