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.
-
Show this thread
-
Nobody reads an author *because* he got a Nobel. You do not go to your library and say "forget about Anna Karenina, I really want to read Sully Prudhomme". It is irrelevant. And it is a good news.
3 replies 3 retweets 60 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @BrankoMilan
I think that's basically right but would add a qualification: on occasion the prize can go to a great but relatively under-rated writer and give them a new audience. The Nobel for Faulkner really gave him a global audience he didn't have before.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @BrankoMilan
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...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BobMaruca @HeerJeet
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Agree. Economics Nobel should be a broader social science prize and it should be genuinely international.
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.