Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck The 2000 Beanies

Committee Lowers Nobel Prize Award 178

Posted by samzenpus
from the economics-of-the-prize dept.
Snirt writes "The Nobel Committee has chosen to lower this year's Nobel prize winnings by two million kronor ($283,030) due to turbulence in the current economic climate. The prize now stands at 8 million kronor, down from the 10 million of 2011. 'The reason behind this decision is that the financial markets are really unstable and there are reasons to suspect that this turbulence will continue for a while still,' said Lars Heikensten, head of the Nobel Committee, to the TT news agency. 'Long term, we aim to raise the figure, even though we think that the Nobel Prize's value should lie in the prize itself and not the prize money,' he said. While Heikensten admits that it was a 'tough decision' to cut the prize money, he told the news agency that it's not the first time the prize sum has been altered, adding that it has been lowered and raised several times over the past few years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Committee Lowers Nobel Prize Award

Comments Filter:
  • Forget it (Score:5, Funny)

    by ewg (158266) on Monday June 11, 2012 @03:55PM (#40287965)

    I was going to try winning one, but now? Forget it!

    • Maybe if you win a Nobel Prize in Economics, you can receive a higher prize.

      • Personally, I'm very concerned about the Chocolates that are also awarded. The only reason I got involved with my dissertation, "Gaming the Euro to a Zero Sum Value" was because of the Chocolates that came with the award. Now, I just don't know.
      • Re:Forget it (Score:5, Insightful)

        by siddesu (698447) on Monday June 11, 2012 @06:31PM (#40289761)
        There is no Nobel Prize in Economics, there is a similarly named award that is presented alongside the real Nobel Prizes. Also, there should not be one, as economics hardly qualifies as a science, and there is already a Nobel Prize for literature.
        • by identity0 (77976)

          You forgot Peace. There is no strict requirement that the award be for science, and in the past they've awarded the scientific prizes for social policy stuff like wiping out smallpox.

          Also, the other awards are given out by different groups as well, according to wiki:

          "The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awards the Nobel Prize in Physics, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet awards the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medici

          • Re:Forget it (Score:5, Insightful)

            by siddesu (698447) on Monday June 11, 2012 @08:08PM (#40290527)

            The "Peace Nobel" is such a joke that it does not deserve any consideration. It has been awarded to terrorists, to heads of states that use terror as a matter of course and to organizations that ought to be protecting the peace, but fail or promote less honorable agendas.

            It turned into a particularly sad joke after it was awarded in advance of any actual achievement.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Go for the Nobel peace prize. It's got a lower bar.

    • This throws my entire FY 2012 planning out the window!
  • by jbuk (1581659) on Monday June 11, 2012 @03:55PM (#40287975)
    Yes, they've cut it down to 80% of what it was before -- but the prize money will continue to fund the same scale of project as before, and people are not going to stop aiming for the award. It's still serving its purpose.
  • by million_monkeys (2480792) on Monday June 11, 2012 @03:55PM (#40287979)
    Good thing I didn't get selected for a Nobel Prize this year. I think I'll wait til they raise the prize back up before unleashing my brilliance upon the world. I do feel sorry for those suckers winning one now. They're getting screwed over. Just another data point that shows hard work is never the fastest way to riches.
    • I think I'll wait til they raise the prize back up before unleashing my brilliance upon the world.

      Sorry to break it to you, but removing your wig doesn't count, no matter how dazzling you think your head is.

  • by roman_mir (125474) on Monday June 11, 2012 @03:56PM (#40287995) Homepage Journal

    They are completely irrelevant, at least to people who understand that this is all politics and nothing else. Obama has gotten his for 'peace' and Krugman has gotten his for 'economics'. More so called 'economists' have gotten theirs, with their only contributions being that they support the status quo. They insist that counterfeiting fiat currency supports the bubble economies (of-course that's not what they call it), and they see this as a positive and give governments the green light justifications to print and spend more money when in fact counterfeiting must stop and governments must shrink to fix the economies. You will never hear this from the 'economists' who get their Nobel prizes, not since Hayek has gotten his. Nobel prize is irrelevant, it's a political tool and nothing else.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:05PM (#40288137)

      Agreed. Ever since Obama got his for Peace-In-Advance I've been skeptical. After 4 years of not doing shit and the Nobel Committee saying nothing of note they must condone his warlike actions as peace prize worthy.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:07PM (#40288167)

      The economics "Nobel" is separately administrated, and not funded by the Nobel estate.

      • by roman_mir (125474)

        Yeah, well, if they want to somehow redeem themselves, they should revoke all of the economics awards since Hayek and then they should immediately nominate Schiff and others, like Rogers [youtube.com] - now that right there is 56 seconds worth a Nobel prize in economics and peace.

        • by camperslo (704715)

          Maybe those in economics should be given reward futures instead?

          • by roman_mir (125474)

            Yeah well, the real economists just make money based on their own understanding of economics. They shorted the banking sector before the 2008 and they have gold and silver for at least 10 years now.

    • Care to explain how Krugman's predictions on how the crisis would pan out have been so accurate if he doesn't understand any economics? Care also to explain where the inflation, long predicted by the likes of senator Paul and other epigones of Hayek, has been hiding?

      As for the nobel peace prize awarded to Obama: that was political indeed, but how could the peace prize not be?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Care also to explain where the inflation, long predicted by the likes of senator Paul and other epigones of Hayek, has been hiding?

        Education, Gas, Corn... It's where the government puts the money after it prints it.

      • by Sir_Sri (199544) on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:19PM (#40288313)

        besides that, the Nobel is awarded for a specific piece of work in science or economics. It's not supposed to reward a long illustrious career, it's about a specific piece of work with lasting impact. Granted in physics especially it tends towards people with long illustrious careers.

        Krugman happens to have had a good track record on economic theory. But just as easily he could be a complete trainwreck on macroeconomic theory but have very correctly described one specific phenomena. That would still warrant a nobel prize. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/krugman.html specifically lists what his prize is for.

        I remember a few years ago UBC was looking to hire a nobel in physics. I don't know if they got him, but that's immaterial. His nobel was in some actual physics research, but everything he was doing at that point was about innovation in teaching physics.

        You can write one ground breaking science paper, and then be a complete loon for the rest of your career, as long as that specific paper is sound you can still theoretically be considered.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by roman_mir (125474)

        how Krugman's predictions on how the crisis would pan out have been so accurate if he doesn't understand any economics?

        - Krugman couldn't see the crisis coming until he was already IN it, near the collapse, there (2005 and 2006) [youtube.com] are people (2002) [youtube.com] who predicted (2006) [youtube.com] it and explained why it would happen in advance.

        Krugman in fact WANTED a housing bubble [businessinsider.com], same as him wanting a fucking war with aliens actually [youtube.com], he believes destroying assets, counterfeiting money and creating bubbles is good for economics, he is a charlatan, not an economist. He is one of those 'economists' used to justify the policies of the gov't, regardle

        • Ok, so there were people who predicted a crisis. This doesn't take away from the fact that during the crisis Krugman was right on most counts, whereas the hyper-inflation Paul has been obsessing over hasn't come to take place.

          As for the war with aliens quotes that's not what he said, not even in your link.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by roman_mir (125474)

            I just watched his stupid remarks in that clip: "it's very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy" - fucking retard.

            Depressed economy with his recipe - counterfeit as much currency as possible and finance gov't spending that way (and taxes and borrowing, but print print print) - that's how you get inflation, that's what inflation is.

            In the 70s USA was exactly in that situation for 10 years - huge inflation (gold going from 35 to 800 etc.) and a recession or depression, whatever the official definition

            • So where is this inflation that you are seeing right now? Consumer Price Index certainly doesn't show it. According to the St Louis fed the monetary base nearly tripled in late 2008 while inflation remained unchanged [stlouisfed.org] (I plotted change in CPI times 100 in order to fit both plots on the same graph. So where's the 1970ies-like inflation to go along with it?

              Maybe your view of the world is a tiny bit too simplistic.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by roman_mir (125474)

                CPI? You are serious, aren't you? CPI?

                It's been a long time since 1970s, and they have redrawn the way they measure that pathetic index in so many ways, it is absolutely irrelevant. They are going to pass more measures this year to make it smaller, they are saying even now it 'overstates inflation'.

                If inflation is measured the way they used to during Nixon, it would be anywhere between 11 and 15% [shadowstats.com], and it's been there for a couple of decades.

                Of-course there are plenty of my comments, where I show simple exam

                • Well, I'm too lazy to do the math for all the cases you give, but where I did it the average annual change needed for the change over the period given falls into the ballpark of CPI. It would have been a lot more useful if you had taken you table an given the exponential of (the logarithm of (the ratio of prices) divided by number of years elapsed). And come on, rubber?

                  Anyway, how do these numbers show me the hyperinflation of Ron Paul escapes me.

                  • Besides, I forgot to say this. There's a lot of value added after the raw materials are imported. You should really use consumer prices when you try to measure inflation. It simply doesn't matter how much wheat costs, if it's only a small fraction of what one pays for a cake. That aside from the prices of agricultural products being highly volatile, choose +- 1 year and you can get a factor two in price in both directions.

                  • by roman_mir (125474)

                    Hyperinflation is the worst case scenario, and as long as USA can keep EXPORTING its inflation (by other countries printing too and buying up US dollars fast and debasing their own currencies and thus subsidising the USA, thus the trade deficits of 54 Billion USD / month) the inflation will be hurting the people who PRODUCE first, and in USA the prices are rising slower.

                    USA has gotten very lucky after the WWII, when it didn't have any destruction of its infrastructure, so it had about 15 years of head start

                    • Now the gold price is a measure of inflation? A metal with no inherent value whose price can be easily influenced by a few people buying it? Anyway, 1600 from 19 in 100 years that's an inflation of exp(log(1600/19.) / 100) - 100% = 4.5% -- doesn't sound like hyperinflation to me, especially compared to the growth in disposable income per capita http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=7Wt [stlouisfed.org] which grew from 10000$ to 30000$ over the past 30 years which gives me 3.7% annual growth (which for the record

                    • by roman_mir (125474)

                      Gold is the measure of inflation, it is money. Just because you don't understand the meaning of the words "inherent value", doesn't change the fact that gold is money and it is pieces of paper that have no value. All fiat currencies in history have been destroyed, the once that are in existence today will also be destroyed, that is how it goes.

                      Yet for 20 ounces of gold in 1913 it was possible to buy Model T Ford and today it's possible to buy a car with even fewer ounces (productivity drives prices down in

                    • Gold has a value when you don't have the ovens needed to process other metals. An unlikely proposition for the near future. The gold price is totally artificial, just like the price for diamonds. Small market, lots of people going in -> high prices.

                      But let's leave the academic discussion at the side. Everytime the gold price fluctuates you would claim that we have rapid increases in the rate of inflation? Why did the gold price peak in 1980 when inflation took place in the 70ies as you said earlier?

                    • by roman_mir (125474)

                      The gold price is totally artificial, just like the price for diamonds

                      - the value of gold is stable, and the goods priced in gold are either keeping their price or their prices are falling, as I said, Model T Ford cost 20 ounces of gold in 1913 and it is possible to buy a car today with less than 20 ounces (that would be 32000 dollars approximately, and it's possible to buy cars cheaper than that), thus I am proving the point (and I can do this with every good that existed and exists today, oil for example, food items, etc.etc.), what is artificial is the dollar that is not

                    • by roman_mir (125474)

                      Oh, I didn't notice a question:

                      Why did the gold price peak in 1980 when inflation took place in the 70ies as you said earlier?

                      - well, you don't understand money, markets or interest rates it looks like from this question, or are you just ignorant on history?

                      Paul Volcker took interest rates up from single digits to 21.5% and that was the only way for the inflation to stop and so the rate of return on bonds became positive again and it became more profitable to park in bonds and not in gold.

                      You see, it's difficult to have a 'discussion' with somebody who thinks he knows something, while I know that th

                    • Well the gold price didn't buy you the same thing at different times as you can see from the different evolution of the gold price and inflation (BTW why is a car a good measure of value? a modern car is something quite different from a model T). Maybe I'm ignorant of economicas, you're ignorant of facts, in that you choose to ignore them when they contradict what you're saying.

                • Can you show me any index that responded to the huge increase in the monetary base in 2008 with large inflation? You seem to have missed that part of my reply, focusing on my mention of CPI. If the CPI measures anything related to inflation, shouldn't it have shown an uptick in response?

        • Many of the people who take credit for predicting the crises predict a crises every year.

          Predictably they are right once in a while.

          • by roman_mir (125474)

            Yeah, well, predicting something by only paying a LIP SERVICE to it is not predicting at all.

            Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Mark Faber, Jim Rogers, etc.etc. are not just predicting this, they are making money on their predictions by following their own advice and owning inflation hedges and playing against the market, that's the REAL prediction.

            Krugman isn't predicting shit, because he isn't putting his money where his mouth is (very tightly wrapped around the politicians' collective cock).

      • by PaddyM (45763)

        Where have you been? Why is Netflix double what it was a few years ago? Why are soda prices up? Why are all bottled beverages / ice creams sold in smaller sizes? Why is it called a McDouble and not a Double Cheeseburger.

        In 2007-2010 lost 40000 of the median income: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/business/economy/family-net-worth-drops-to-level-of-early-90s-fed-says.html [nytimes.com]

        Care to explain where inflation isn't? I'm not sure whether Ron Paul has any real solutions to this mess, and maybe Krugman's right

    • by arth1 (260657) on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:10PM (#40288209) Homepage Journal

      They are completely irrelevant, at least to people who understand that this is all politics and nothing else. Obama has gotten his for 'peace' and Krugman has gotten his for 'economics'.

      Unlike the other prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by the Swedish Nobel institute, but by Norway.
      In general, the Swedish prizes are awarded as a recognition for past work, while the Peace Price is just as often meant as an incentive.
      So very different politics are at play.

    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      But Obama is ENDING the wars. S-l-o-w-l-y. He deserves the peace price for ending the wars in 4 years instead of Bush's 8 year schedule, and thereby "only" killing half as many people.

      • by roman_mir (125474)

        Well yeah, he is 'ending them' in the same way that we are all eventually going to die - it's political and economic entropy that is ending them.

      • by Nidi62 (1525137)

        But Obama is ENDING the wars. S-l-o-w-l-y. He deserves the peace price for ending the wars in 4 years instead of Bush's 8 year schedule,

        He ended Iraq war by following the timeline laid out and agreed upon by the US and Iraqi governments while Bush was still in office. He didn't end the Iraq War, the Iraq War ended on him.

    • The Peace Prize is hit or miss. I just about gave up on it after they blew one on the worthless UN, but then they sucked me back in a little by giving it to Muhammad Yunus, someone who's actually praiseworthy. (Unlike Barack Obama, who's launched more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined, although I realize that even among the committee that made the decision it was a controversial decision.)

      • by million_monkeys (2480792) on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:21PM (#40288337)

        The Peace Prize is hit or miss. I just about gave up on it after they blew one on the worthless UN, but then they sucked me back in a little by giving it to Muhammad Yunus, someone who's actually praiseworthy. (Unlike Barack Obama, who's launched more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined, although I realize that even among the committee that made the decision it was a controversial decision.)

        Those were Cruise Missiles for Peace. So that's completely different. It's like that old saying goes, "you got to spend money to make money". In this case you've got to kill people to save people.

    • by guises (2423402)

      They are completely irrelevant, at least to people who understand that this is all politics and nothing else. [Spewing political flamebait] Nobel prize is irrelevant, it's a political tool and nothing else.

      The nobel peace prize has been given both as a prize for previous efforts at promoting peace and as a tool in itself - the committee has given the prize to people who they hope will use whatever status it confers to promote peace in the future. This is not inconsistent with the intention of the prize, but rubs some people the wrong way since it's not what they feel a prize is supposed to be.

      I see the same phenomenon with Chicago-style pizza - some people dislike it simply because it's not what they expect

    • Ahh yes, mock the Nobels by picking on the two most controversial. So original. (Literature's not that great either, IMO, but whatever...)

      The peace prize, by its nature, is controversial. Oh, sure, you have your occasional Lech Walesa or Martin Luther King Jr., but just exactly HOW many have gone to "easing hostility in the Middle East"? (Don't answer that.)

      Economics isn't a real Nobel anyway, made by a BANK and piggybacking off the more anointed brethren.

      But no complaints over chemistry, physics, medic

    • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:42PM (#40288639)

      The so-called Nobel Prize in economics isn't really a Nobel prize like the one say in Chemistry. It's a prize started by the banksters running the Nobel foundation much later. The complete name is something like "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".

      It's shenanigans.

    • by Chris Burke (6130)

      They are completely irrelevant, at least to people who understand that this is all politics and nothing else. Obama has gotten his for 'peace' and Krugman has gotten his for 'economics'.

      Excellent usage of "understand" to mean "make up in a vacuum of ignorance". Here's what's irrelevant: The opinions on the Nobel of people who don't understand the difference between various prizes with the name "Nobel" attached.

      • by roman_mir (125474)

        Looks like YOU are the one who can't even understand the written word. The 2 freaking Nobel prizes are mentioned in my comment: peace and economics.

        There should be another one just for you, in using straw to make arguments.

        • by Chris Burke (6130)

          I understood perfectly well that you're claiming the Nobels are irrelevant using as your examples two that are not awarded by the same committee as the natural science prizes. So you're either ignorant of the distinction, or were just choosing to ignore it. Which either way is ignorant and stupid. A point your reply does not address. So I guess it's clear who doesn't understand the written word: The same one who doesn't understand (whether by ignorance or willful stupidity) the nature of the various thi

          • by Marcika (1003625)

            using as your examples two that are not awarded by the same committee as the natural science prizes

            The Economic Sciences price is awarded by the same institution as the science prices. Maybe you thought of the Literature price?

            • by Zironic (1112127)

              What? No,

              The Economics prize isn't even a Nobel Prize in the first place, its proper name is:
              Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

    • by Alomex (148003)

      Krugman did a lot of revolutionary work in Economics, much before the great recession was an interest of his. From your posting it is clear you do not know much economics, since you speak of "fiat currencies" as if they were a relatively recent development, when in fact currencies were already being debased 2000 years ago, in effect making them fiat. Indeed the very term "debasing" comes from diluting the metal alloy.

      Economics has the problem that people feel they are experts on it simply because they spend

      • by roman_mir (125474)

        The solution to your body losing blood because of a wound is to lose more blood. See how that works out for you.

        Maybe the solution for your body having cancer is to add more cancer cells to it, maybe that will work.

        Maybe the solution to you getting fat is to eat more sugar and chicken, who knows, you may just slim down.

        The solution to your back aching is to put more stress on it.

        The solution to your house being flooded is to add more water.

        When your house is on fire, just add more kerosene, yeah, that's the

    • BTW I find it funny to see how the scores of both your post and my first post jump up and down all the time. It appears there are a number of libertarians modding out of political motivation being barely held in check by more intelligent moderators. Just kidding with the interpretation, but the observation is funny nonetheless.

  • If you're a Nobel laureate at Berkeley, you know the Nobel parking permit [berkeleyside.com] is worth at least 2 million kronor.

  • it would be less economically volatile to just give out a brick of gold with the award... or better yet, just make the medal out of gold, it would only weigh about 44 pounds

    • If it's not gold-pressed Latinum, then it's worthless.

    • it would be less economically volatile to just give out a brick of gold with the award... or better yet, just make the medal out of gold, it would only weigh about 44 pounds

      All medals made before 1980 were struck in 23 carat gold. Since then they have been struck in 18 carat green gold plated with 24 carat gold. The weight of each medal varies with the value of gold, but averages about 175 grams (0.39 lb) for each medal.

  • Already tainted (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vuke69 (450194) on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:07PM (#40288159)

    It's value was lowered by a lot more than that when Obama won it.

  • by sdguero (1112795) on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:10PM (#40288211)
    Obama got one for being elected President. Nobel hipsters can suck my balls.
    • they became political far too long ago making a mockery of the prize.

      The areas of hard science are still doing well, time will tell if they become as corrupted.

      and yes, I too shook my head when President elect Obama received one, if anything it probably had the complete opposite effect those who rewarded wanted it too. As in, they are as connected to the opinion of the world as Washington DC is to the rest of America

    • But what are your thoughts on the Nobel winners for Chemistry, Physics and Medicine/Physiology?

      Any complaints there? Cause there's 4* other Nobels besides Peace. (*Fuck economics.)

      • by sdguero (1112795)
        Same committee right? If so, I don't trust any of them...
    • Yasser Arafat won one. The man was a terrorist, who wanted Israel gone. Now while one can argue about the legitimacy and necessity of his cause and tactics, a man of peace he was not.

      It was again a political BS thing of "Oh lets hand out a peace prize to those engaged in the superficial mid East peace talks because that'll totally convince them to be serious and stop killing each other."

  • by argStyopa (232550) on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:10PM (#40288215) Journal

    They've lowered the standards over the last years, why not lower the award as well?

    Of course, I think about $1 is where it's worth today.

    • Re:Seems appropriate (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sir_Sri (199544) on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:37PM (#40288563)

      So you could have done for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/ and think it's only worth a dollar?

      or:
      for palladium-catalyzed cross couplings in organic synthesis http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2010/

      How about "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work" http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/

      maybe "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China"." (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2010/)

      Maybe something so fundamentally pointless as "for the development of in vitro fertilization" http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2010/

      or how about something that no one would ever use like ", one half awarded to Charles Kuen Kao "for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication", the other half jointly to Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith "for the invention of an imaging semiconductor circuit – the CCD sensor"." http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2009/

      Because you know.. those achievements are low standards. Cutting the prize money is unlikely to matter much. By the time people get it they are either young enough that the real money is in speaking fees and in the huge salary boost they get, or old enough their estate planning is already done and adding more to it is giving money to their kids or charity.

      When you develop a cure for aids, develop a quantum computer that can actually solve a meaningful problem, find a way to replace the government in north korea and china with ones that respect human rights, or lift a couple of billion people out of poverty, then you get to claim the nobel prize is worthless. Until then, you're talking out of your ass.

  • by icensnow (932196) on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:30PM (#40288473)
    They lowered it to 80% of its former value? A sure sign that they're planning to give them to women this year.
  • by istartedi (132515) on Monday June 11, 2012 @04:31PM (#40288489) Journal

    They cut the current awards to fund a comedy prize. Sorry none of you guys joking about getting the other prizes made the cut. It's all mine, baby.

  • Nobel Committee Awards itself the Nobel Prize in Economics for their keen insight into the current world economic situation.
  • The value of the Nobel prize has been deflating for several decades, which has resulted in (correlates with) an increase in wars and conflict. This latest cut could trigger a new set of skirmishes.
  • This absolutely kills the comeback that I used to use to the question: "if you're so smart, how come you ain't rich", to which I would say "when I win my Nobel, I will be". Now I can win a Nobel and not be rich. Very sad.
  • Ummm... how about instead of pegging the prize money at a set purse, they just set it to a simple formula such as "Amount of money we expect the principal to earn between now and the next time we award the prize." ?

    Couldn't they just phone up one of the many Nobel Prize-winning mathematicians of the last couple of decades and ask them for help?

  • The Nobel Prize has lost all it's gravitas, since it gave one to Obama for NOTHING!

  • Decide that nobody really deserves the prize for economics this year.

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries

Working...