So the recipient are half of it to David Card for his 1994 study with the late Alan Krueger, who committed suicide not too long ago, on minimum wages, and how raising them might actually sometimes increase employment. The other half was split between Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens for developing econometric techniques for studying natural experiments, such as differences in differences, with a 1992 paper on compulsory education by them cited. Card and Krueger also used this.
Anyway, I learned of the award on the radio this morning at 9 AM, CBS News, not a cockamamie outfit usually. The report stated (roughly) "Three American labor economists received the Nobel Prize for studies of immigration and its effects." That was it, their names were not provided. As it is, Card has done some such studies, and when I began guessing who it might be, his name was on my list. But the others were David Autor and George Borjas, even though the latter's studies on the subject disagree with the former's such studies. But they committee has given contradictory awards before, e.g. Mydal and Hayek, not to mention Fama and Shiller. So, it was not out of the question.
But clearly they were way off on several counts. I know immigration is a hot issue, so any mention of that in the awards apparently got the attention, even though, heck, the minimum wage is also a pretty big and current issue. What can I say, but more evidence of further decline in the quality of media in general, not just the increasing insanity happening on a lot of social media. When the regular media cannot get simple things right, what hope is there for the social media?
Barkley Rosser
Krueger should have lived to finally receive the prize. Smart guy, great person. So sad.
ReplyDeleteYes. I suspect there is a subtle guilt trip going on here with the committee, given that their failure to award it to Weitzman two years ago with Nordhaus getting it was mentioned in Weitzman's suicide note. Of course, too late for Krueger, who also committed suicide and if he left a note It was never publicized. But I suspect this was on their minds.
ReplyDeleteThe paper is clearly very important, and I see conservatives on some blogs, such as Marginal Revolution, charging the committee with political bias because, of course, they have never liked that paper.
Timely reminder
ReplyDeleteThe history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. Economics is cargo cult science. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT are axiomatically false. Economists are NOT scientists. The EconNobel is a deception of the general public. Because economics is not “sciences” but brain-dead political agenda pushing, what we actually have is one of the biggest frauds in the history of modern sciences.
→ links
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/08/links-on-economics-nobel.html
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
It is a must-read post about bad reporting
ReplyDeleteSo let's dish. A number of news reports (e.g., PBS) mention that were he alive, Krueger would no doubt have been one of the recipients. I have not noticed that any of the stories that say this mention the 3 person limit on the number of recipients. Who of these three would not have received it if Kreuger were still alive?
ReplyDeleteI have my own, not entirely well founded, thoughts.
Good question, marcel, but we shall never know.
ReplyDeleteBut surely we can speculate... It would be less than responsible not to!
ReplyDelete