But to end the topic, I have to say it is a tempest in a teapot. The only real importance of "Nobels" is that it gives wrong incentives to young economists. Otherwise, it matters not one whiff. After 2 years no one remembers who got it except when you speak at a conferences.
-
-
I'd never read Wislawa Szymborska b4 her Nobel. Also rediscovered William Vickery (whom I knew as the old man at Columbia who always asked the same q at lectures) 'cause of his Nobel. I'd already read Inequality Reexamined when Sen won his Nobel, but read more after...
-
But note that in those cases (literature) there is an additional role: to make smaller literatures better known. If you give 99% of econ prizes to economists in America, what does that achieve?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Think the same for Alexeevich: "nobody" knew of her. So there is also a didactic function (for young writers) that unfortunately a prize granted by the Central Bank does not care about.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.