Committee Lowers Nobel Prize Award

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Committee Lowers Nobel Prize Award

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Monday June 11, 2012 @07:48AM 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."

178 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Forget it by ewg · 2012-06-11 07:55 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
1. Re:Forget it by gameboyhippo · 2012-06-11 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe if you win a Nobel Prize in Economics, you can receive a higher prize.
2. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  A wooden spoon?
3. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Go for the Nobel peace prize. It's got a lower bar.
4. Re:Forget it by LifesABeach · 2012-06-11 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:Forget it by Luckyo · 2012-06-11 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  +1 "sad but true"
6. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  I learned that you can't nominate yourself, so I too am out.
7. Re:Forget it by MisterSquid · 2012-06-11 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  This throws my entire FY 2012 planning out the window!
  
  --
  blog
8. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Typical Liberals, punishing the job creators and innovators by decreasing the incentive to do, um, stuff. Ah, screw it, I can't melt my brain enough to do this, just find someone who is serious about this us-vs-them mentality and read it as a joke.
9. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  Why sad? Surely the lower bar reflects the difference between economic achievements and real ones. :P
10. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  Monopoly (fake) money for a fake prize?
11. Re:Forget it by siddesu · 2012-06-11 10:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
12. Re:Forget it by identity0 · 2012-06-11 10:47 · Score: 2
  
  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 Medicine. The Swedish Academy grants the Nobel Prize in Literature. The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by a Swedish organisation but by the Norwegian Nobel Committee."
13. Re:Forget it by FatdogHaiku · 2012-06-11 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  A wooden spoon?
  Due to budget issues, this year it's just a stick...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
14. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  When you get right down to it, it's all fake money really.
15. Re:Forget it by siddesu · 2012-06-11 12:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
16. Re:Forget it by Sulphur · 2012-06-11 12:48 · Score: 2
  
  A wooden spoon?
  Due to budget issues, this year it's just a stick...
  It started as a boomerang, but it failed its initial tests.
17. Re:Forget it by Sulphur · 2012-06-11 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  I was going to try winning one, but now? Forget it!
  Especially with all the hard work required to win this prize. I mean, Obama went and ............
  Well, he did absolutely nothing. Maybe there's hope for me yet.
  And some change.
18. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 17:17 · Score: 0
  
  The committee already lowered the seriousness of the award, they might as well lower the payout too.
19. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 20:15 · Score: 0
  
  Which lawless evil bastard? It has been awarded to a lot of them.
20. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 20:45 · Score: 0
  
  That's a knee jerk reaction.
  Obama and Arafat, and probably a few others, were poor choices. But the large majority of the peace prize laureates have been worthy winners with important causes. The prize has also been able to gather focus and attention to important issus.
21. Re:Forget it by siddesu · 2012-06-11 21:37 · Score: 2
  
  Yours is a knee-jerk reaction to a sound and factual criticism. The "Peace Nobel" is a worthless PR exercise which only lowers the value of the original prizes. The "few others" make a pretty large group on the list, and the rest of the "right" people with the "important causes" have, at least since WWII, been mostly connected to whatever political fad was current the West at the time of the award.
22. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  Ever since Obama won the prize, I've been hearing the same refrain. Don't think I don't know where it's coming from. I first heard it on talk radio, then on every single Nobel Prize article here on Slashdot. After watching George W Bush mess up the peace process in Ireland and then with Israel/Palestine for no obvious reason beyond the fact that a Democrat started them. Then he went on to start two major wars. All the time, you conservatives beat the drum and held pro-war rallies claiming to support the troops. When it comes to peace, anyone who's not a Republican deserved the prize.
23. Re:Forget it by siddesu · 2012-06-12 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I am neither a conservative nor an American, nor have I ever said or implied that GW deserved a Nobel Prize. I don't follow us talk radio either, and I only have two neocon authors in my library, both of them university professors. And I still think that your criteria as to who deserves a peace prize are a tad low. Good job fighting the strawman you put up in my place though.
24. Re:Forget it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe with a Nobel prize, they won't look across the desk at you, see the gray around your temples and the obvious 20+ years of resume experience you're trying desperately to hide and say "We're sorry, You're overage -er- OVERQUALIFIED.
  Or maybe they will anyway.
25. Re:Forget it by RockDoctor · 2012-06-12 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  A wooden spoon?
  Due to budget issues, this year it's just a stick...
  In future years you'll need to cover the costs of the award by publishing video of the stick being inserted.
  No, you don't get to choose where.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
26. Re:Forget it by FatdogHaiku · 2012-06-12 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  A wooden spoon?
  Due to budget issues, this year it's just a stick...
  In future years you'll need to cover the costs of the award by publishing video of the stick being inserted.
  No, you don't get to choose where.
  Now I'm happy that it is no longer a spoon...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Much of a difference? by jbuk · 2012-06-11 07:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Much of a difference? by sam_handelman · 2012-06-11 09:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Nobel prizes aren't grants, they don't fund projects. The prize is cash money you get to keep yourself; although I think most people donate it to charity. Unfortunately, google is swamped with discussion of what Obama did with his, but Smoot donated his(http://phys.org/news93885786.html), which I understand to be typical.
  
  --
  The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
2. Re:Much of a difference? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  Did they get the kronors worth with Obama?
3. Re:Much of a difference? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  The prize money is just there as an incentive, I think it's been ages though since it's been necessary. At this point it's there because that's how the foundation was set up. These days just having a Nobel opens up new avenues for fund raising your next research project.
  The money is nice, but ultimately the prestige is much more useful as a catalyst for future innovations.
I lucked out by million_monkeys · 2012-06-11 07:55 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
1. Re:I lucked out by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  Would not hurt to start now to unleash your brilliance, because often takes decades before they award someone for their impact on science.
2. Re:I lucked out by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-06-11 10:29 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
Well, that's it, count me *OUT* Nobel Committee!! by crazyjj · 2012-06-11 07:56 · Score: 0

I'm not doing a bunch of groundbreaking work in physics to be treated like a bitch.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
They are irrelevant by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 07:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The economics "Nobel" is separately administrated, and not funded by the Nobel estate.
3. Re:They are irrelevant by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  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 - now that right there is 56 seconds worth a Nobel prize in economics and peace.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
4. Re:They are irrelevant by arth1 · 2012-06-11 08:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
5. Re:They are irrelevant by cpu6502 · 2012-06-11 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
6. Re:They are irrelevant by SteveFoerster · 2012-06-11 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  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.)
  
  --
  Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
7. Re:They are irrelevant by guises · 2012-06-11 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  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 pizza to be. They derisively call it "pizza casserole" or some such and refuse to eat it, even though they're only depriving themselves.
  
  To the best of my knowledge, the other nobel prizes have been given exclusively for previous accomplishments and contributions to their fields.
8. Re:They are irrelevant by million_monkeys · 2012-06-11 08:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
9. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  Bush had a schedule for that? That's news to me.
10. Re:They are irrelevant by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
11. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  The Iraq withdrawal was agreed to prior to Obama taking office, and Obama wanted to EXTEND that withdrawal deadline.
12. Re:They are irrelevant by camperslo · 2012-06-11 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe those in economics should be given reward futures instead?
13. Re:They are irrelevant by Volante3192 · 2012-06-11 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  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, medicine / physiology?
14. Re:They are irrelevant by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-11 08:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
15. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  Poor examples.
  The "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" is not actually a "real" Nobel prize, as established in the will of Alfred Nobel.
  The Nobel peace prize is a real Nobel prize, but is awarded by a Norwegian committee independently of the other prizes. Unfortunately they have a bad habit of occasionally selecting completely absurd awardees, like Obama, which I'll agree cheapens it.
  They do have they redeeming moments though. The 2010 Nobel Peace Price springs to mind. It was awarded to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese human rights activist, sparking a diplomatic incident between Norway and China.
  Liu Xiaobo himself was promptly placed under house-arrest by the Chinese government and prevented from accepting the award. Which just goes to show what a freedom-loving and tolerant government they are, of course.
  That's the kind of balls I wish the Norwegian Nobel Committee would display more often.
16. Re:They are irrelevant by operagost · 2012-06-11 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Which time? They must have awarded the UN or arms of the UN six times! I gave up when they awarded Yasser Arafat.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
17. Re:They are irrelevant by Chris+Burke · 2012-06-11 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
18. Re:They are irrelevant by Kergan · 2012-06-11 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up!
19. Re:They are irrelevant by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
20. Re:They are irrelevant by SteveFoerster · 2012-06-11 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  I was referring to 2001, but obviously your point is excellent.
  
  --
  Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
21. Re:They are irrelevant by Alomex · 2012-06-11 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  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 money. To make things even more complicated it is full of counter-intuitive results.
  For example suppose you have a company whose fixed costs are making it lose money, so the natural thing is to lower expenditures right? Well it turns out that if your company has a successful wealth-producing idea, then actually the best thing to do is to spend more money. I kid you not. Read on.
  You can model your product/idea/merchandise as a black box that takes $1 dollar as input and produces (after manufacturing, advertisement, sales, wages, etc) $1.40 in return. Your $0.40 is your profit margin. Problem is your fixed costs are eating into the profits. So either you can work really hard at reducing fixed costs (hint: they are fixed, so how low do can they go?) or you can invest money, up your production of thingamajigs, and cover the fixed costs from increased sales.
  The solution to your company's money losing woes in this case is to spend more money. There are many more like it. So every simpleton and their brother (including high up politicians) thinks they have a grasp of the problem when they don't.
  So far during the great recession things have evolved pretty much the way Krugman called them, when conventional wisdom was pointing in a different direction.
  So forgive me if I give more credence to the Memorial Nobel Prize of Economics opinion than yours.
22. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  The Peace Nobel is given by a different organization. The only thing it shares with the other Nobels is the name.
23. Re:They are irrelevant by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
24. Re:They are irrelevant by Nidi62 · 2012-06-11 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  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 only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
25. Re:They are irrelevant by Chris+Burke · 2012-06-11 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  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 things called "Nobel prizes".
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
26. Re:They are irrelevant by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  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 ticket.
  The solution to you being in debt is to add more debt indefinitely, in fact you should get one credit card after another and just move your debt from one to another, no problem, right? Because it's totally up to you and not up to your lender when to cut you off.
  The solution to you being poor is to get into gov't subsidised housing debt, never mind the extra expenses that come with that - taxes, maintenance, etc., you'll be rich, because you'll have this asset.... oh, and if you have no downpayment - no problem. Just get FHA to finance your downpayment for you at 0%, who needs equity? The banks certainly shouldn't care, right? They are "insured by the gov't".
  ---
  Saying that spending more money by GOVERNMENT is equivalent of INVESTING into something useful is about as smart as all of the above, given the fact that gov't has spent plenty of the borrowed and taxed and printed money over the decades, this should have created a golden age in USA if your ideas actually worked.
  But your ideas are as dumb as they get, the gov't spends and all that it means is that the credit is unavailable to the private sector, the investments are destroyed, because investments come from savings, and nobody saves in this inflation, and whoever had investments in production capacity moved out already.
  USA isn't producing and no amount of spending by gov't will change that hard fact. FACT: the trade deficit is greater than ever and it's growing, and it's 54 Billion USD/month, this means USA is consuming 54 billion USD / month more than it produces.
  Fact: inflation is here, that's what all the commodity prices are showing. Gov't is pretending that speculators are to blame, but speculators are only the discoverers of real prices, they don't set them, they don't make the rules, they discover prices AND they stand on BOTH sides of the trade. So if they are wrong, some of them lose money and those who are right make money, but they can't move the market, they can only tell us what the prices are.
  Fact: gov't spending is growing all the time and you are still NOT getting what you are proposing - some sort of 'investment'. It's not an investment - stealing money and spending on gov't projects. If it was a legitimate investment the trade deficit would shrink.
  Fact: USA cannot afford this government and it is already bankrupt. USA is bankrupt today, if people stop lending USA money, it cannot make even interest payments on what it has, because that would be the consequence - huge spike in rates, never mind spending on anything else, USA would spend all of its taxes on interest payments alone. Of-course it wouldn't actually do that, because foreigners don't vote in US elections, and no POTUS will say: we are raising taxes and stopping SS and Medicare payments because Chinese and the rest must be paid.
  USA is bankrupt, the sooner the world understands it and stops the credit line, the better for everybody, including the USA. Collapse is inevitable, the only question is: will it be a normal bankruptcy or an insane type of inflation?
  Fact: Krugman is a politician, not an economist.
  --
  You can go argue with him if that's your preference.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
27. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 09:34 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think that whole "We shot Bin Laden" speech would have been more effective if he'd delivered it with his peace-prize medal draped around his neck.
28. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent off topic!
  Starting at +1 is enough to get noticed by the mods.
29. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Okay, can I have the 8 million Kroner then, if you ever receive one, since you say they're irrelevant?
  I'll agree in terms of prestige, if you can "earn" a Nobel prize for being born half-black/half-white and managing to become President of the United States... inasmuch as someone got one for that "achievement" in "the advancement of peace" without doing anything more than that, following it up with having at least as much blood on his hands as his blood-covered predecessor...
  Can we safely assume that every US President elected who is not both white, and male will ALSO get a Nobel prize?
  The fact that there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics made it irrelevant right off the bat, actually. Whatever the actual reason, whether it was because someone got jilted, or they just didn't think math was important... (What kind of a fucktarded sonofabitch would think such things as physics, chemistry and economics are important, but that MATH, underpinning ALL three of those AND lots more, is NOT IMPORTANT? Duhhhhh...)
  Then they give "Peace" prizes to the likes of Carter and Obama...
  Yeah, basically it's more like a game-show, Who Wants To Be Awarded Ten Million Kronor For Nothing, without the actual "show" part.
30. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Waaah, Nobel prize committee are idiots because they don't agree with everything I believe in! waaaaah!
  For a libertarian, you sure whine a lot. Why'd you care about Nobel prize, anyway? It's their money to spend as they see fit. Your geniuses of Austrian economics should be able to earn their own dime quite easily if everything they say is true.
31. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  Yea, they've become a meaningless political shitshow. Unfortunately this happens with everything that reaches a certain size or level of publicity. No matter the original goals or usefulness, once anything gets mainstream attention, politicians, marketers and lobbyists hijack and corrupt it.
32. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, you are angry..
  I'd think degrees from Yale and MIT and a Professorship at Princeton would make someone an economist.. but I guess some random angry guy with a half baked knowledge of economics is probably right.
33. Re:They are irrelevant by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'd think degrees from Yale and MIT and a Professorship at Princeton would make someone an economist
  - yeah, sure you'd think, but you'd be wrong. Degrees don't make somebody an economist, too many people have these degrees who have no two working brain cells they could rub together.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
34. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  How to successfully navigate Slashdot without wasting a bunch of time reading mindless drivel:
  See "roman_mir" post. Type "roman_mir" into browser search box. Skip to last occurrence of "roman_mir" on page. Continue reading.
  Also works well for other annoying Slashdotters that just can't say their whole piece in one, or five, or fifty posts.
  The more you know!
35. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  Saying that spending more money by GOVERNMENT is equivalent of INVESTING into something useful is about as smart as all of the above, given the fact that gov't has spent plenty of the borrowed and taxed and printed money over the decades, this should have created a golden age in USA if your ideas actually worked.
  Last time I checked, the USA is the most powerful country on earth with the largest economy. So guess what? It did create a golden age. You are just too angry to notice.
  USA is bankrupt,
  A country whose debt is owed in its own currency is, nearly by definition, never bankrupt.
  Fact: Krugman is a politician, not an economist.
  Just because you place the word "fact" in front of your random statement does not make it any more true. Clearly you don't agree with Krugman's reasoned (though not necessarily correct) arguments. And what is your refutation? some basic incorrect economic "facts" and calling a Nobel prize in economics and spent his entire life making economic breakthroughs (and winning accolades for them) much before the took to the OpEd pages of a newspaper a politician.
  Whatever dude...
36. Re:They are irrelevant by aliquis · 2012-06-11 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Others have already answered and pointed it out.
  But Alfred Nobel prizes (first 1901):
  * Physics
  * Chemistry
  * Physiology or Medicine
  * Literature
  And finally:
  * Peace
  But this later one is handled by a Norwegian committee. As I have understand it the purpose for that is that they was viewed as more independent than Swedish politicians at the moment. I tried Wikipedia for more information about that but I couldn't find it.
  The price in economics isn't a Nobel prize, it's:
  * The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.
  And was first given out in 1969.
  Anyway, I think this subject is funny but rather disturbing because I've also read that the wealth from the will was supposed to be saved in Swedish government bonds or something such but later they have decided to put it into the stock market and well.. That's that. :D
  Swedish 10 year government bond is doing just fine .. :D
37. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 14:13 · Score: 0
  
  The solution to your body losing blood because of a wound is to lose more blood. See how that works out for you.
  [and a lot of other examples where cutting makes sense]
  You don't understand what the word counter-intuitive means do you?
  Precisely because cutting works in most cases just like the ones you listed above, the intuitive thing would be to cut government expenditures right now. But it turns out its the wrong thing to do in this specific instance hence it's counter-intuitive.
38. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  Fact: inflation is here, that's what all the commodity prices are showing.
  No they are not. Commodity prices today are 16% lower than they were at their peak in 2008 and 12% than they were in April of last year.
  Fact: gov't spending is growing all the time
  Again you are wrong. Combined government expenditure is lower today than at most years of the Bush administration.
39. Re:They are irrelevant by Marcika · 2012-06-11 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  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?
40. Re:They are irrelevant by Zironic · 2012-06-11 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  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
41. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  The peace prize is decided and awarded in Norway, by a different committee. It's sad, because the reason Nobel set it up that way is because he thought a Swedish peace prize might be used for political purposes.
42. Re:They are irrelevant by Shotgun · 2012-06-12 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Obama ended the Iraq war on the timetable set by Bush. The only reason that Obama pulled our troops out when he did was because the Iraqi government would not agree to extending the immunity period for our troops. He was negotiating to keep our troops there longer. Please, this is not ancient history. I know MSNBC doesn't like to show you anything but "Hope and Change" speeches, but there are other places that you can visit to get actual information.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
No biggie by pegasustonans · 2012-06-11 07:56 · Score: 1

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

--
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Nobel prize lowered by $283,030 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:00 · Score: 1, Funny

Or vagina.
Should switch to the gold standard by DSS11Q13 · 2012-06-11 08:04 · Score: 2

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
1. Re:Should switch to the gold standard by war4peace · 2012-06-11 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  If it's not gold-pressed Latinum, then it's worthless.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
2. Re:Should switch to the gold standard by DaleSwanson · 2012-06-11 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  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 by vuke69 · 2012-06-11 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
1. Re:Already tainted by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:38 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  It's always easy to spot the ignorant little kiddies. They're the ones who bitch about Obama's prize and never seem to mention Kissinger's.
2. Re:Already tainted by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's always easy to spot the ignorant little kiddies. They're the ones who bitch about Obama's prize and never seem to mention Kissinger's.
  It was also awarded to Arafat and Carter. No need to go back to Kissinger to see the award make a mockery of itself.
3. Re:Already tainted by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  The peace prize is handed out by the norwegian government.
  The sciency things are handed out by the nobel foundation.
  The economics is not a nobel prize, it's handled by the swedish FED.
To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?
1. Re:To republicans maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:To republicans maybe by Sir_Sri · 2012-06-11 08:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
3. Re:To republicans maybe by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 08:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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) are people (2002) who predicted (2006) it and explained why it would happen in advance.
  Krugman in fact WANTED a housing bubble, same as him wanting a fucking war with aliens actually, 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, regardless of the administration, they use him - he is 'main stream'.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
4. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:To republicans maybe by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-11 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Many of the people who take credit for predicting the crises predict a crises every year.
  Predictably they are right once in a while.
6. Re:To republicans maybe by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 08:53 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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 spin is - the production capacity is falling so fast that people are losing jobs and even all the printing doesn't lower the wages fast enough to make it worthwhile keeping them employed.
  What do you think 0 or negative interest rates are in relation to the employment? How do you think Federal reserve (with Krugman's ideology) is supposed to 'increase employment'? Do you KNOW HOW? Inflation - it means that the REAL WAGES ARE FALLING.
  So the fucking gov't is printing money so that the real wages are falling, and that is what its fucking solution is - lower the wages of employees.
  Well fuck me sideways, first they implement fucking retarded minimum wage laws and various welfare programs (and years of EI is also welfare) and then they want to keep people employed by lowering their real wages.
  The people are not good at understanding that it's not the number on the dollar bill that counts, it is what it can buy, the equivalent purchasing power of that dollar is NOT stable, it depends on various things, but when gov't prints, it depends heavily on all that inflation, the purchasing power is destroyed by gov't.
  Now, Krugman will tell you that gov't must hire and keep all sorts of people hired with all that FAKE money and taxes, and what does that do?
  It doesn't allow the economy to restructure the debts it is in, that's first.
  Second, it doesn't allow the economy to reduce the amount it's spending on gov't, and that amount has to be reduced. Gov't is a luxury, not an essential of some sort. The bigger the gov't the bigger the luxury, and somebody is PAYING for that luxury, and it's the productivity of the economy that is suffering.
  Third, it steals purchasing power from the private sector, misallocates the resources to the public sector, and look at the trade deficits - record high trade deficits for 15 or 20 years now, right? What is it, 54 billion USD a month? That means that US economy is that unproductive, it consumes 54 Billion USD / month MORE than it produces. Why is that? Because:
  Fourth, inflation destroys savings and savings are investment capital. Investment capital is destroyed by the inflation and investment capital leaves.
  That's why the US is in this crisis today, it's because the dollar is fake, it's because in 1971 the dollar was defaulted on completely and since then everybody who had any savings and investment in production capacity moved their savings and investment in production capacity out of the country.
  Krugman's solution? MORE OF THAT SAME THING THAT CAUSED THE DESTRUCTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
  Yeah, and if the bail out didn't work, in Krugman's world it means it wasn't big enough.
  The 800 Billion USD of bail outs? Not big enough by Krugman. He wanted it to be another 2 or 3 hundred billion. As if that would have done the trick - fixing economy with fake money doesn't work, because fake money does not equal real investments.
  Real investments cannot happen with fake money, because fake money is only good for gambling and not for productive capacity, because inflation is faster than any return on any real business. That's why the bubbles are inflated and burst, the next one is in dollars and bonds.
  You won't hear that from Krugman. But if you listen to that clip, you'll hear that an alien invasion would be good, because it would create fake demand. He is for a war like spending.
  Krugman believes that WWII was the key to ending the Great Depression, as if all that employment making bombs a
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
7. Re:To republicans maybe by operagost · 2012-06-11 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that the federal government has been sandbagging inflation rates since 1990? In what most of us would call a "bad" economy, necessities are often the worst hit (and hurt the poor the most), yet those are exactly the items that the feds do not count.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
8. Re:To republicans maybe by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  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).
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
9. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  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 (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.
10. Re:To republicans maybe by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 09:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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%, and it's been there for a couple of decades.
  Of-course there are plenty of my comments, where I show simple examples of inflation based on commodity prices, I don't need to redo that, I can just link to one of them.
  As to my world view - at least I have one and I base my decisions on my world view, that's how I do business, that's how I invest my money.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
11. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm averaging very roughly, forgive me. From the graph I read that their inflation rate since 1990 was on average 7% (per annum), whereas the CPI gave 3%. That's a price increase of 1.07^22 = 4.43 vs. 1.03^22 = 1.91 over the 22 years since. I picked a random price of the internet to see what comes closer. Of course the product is boxed so there is some fudge factor and I could have made a lucky choice of product -- I just picked the first product that came to mind where I could find prices both past and current. I find on this page that 36oz of Corn Flakes cost 3.98$ in 1990 while in 2012 they cost 11.40$, which is a factor of 2.86, which is significantly closer to 1.91 on a linear scale, and slightly closer to 1.91 on the more appropriate log scale. Color me unconvinced.
12. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  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.
13. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  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.
14. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  well, Peter Schiff's clients appear to have lost money during the crisis, e.g. , and the hyperinflation he has predicted didn't come to place. According to your logic, everybody who invested into housing during the bubble was the wisest man on earth -- and suddenly stopped being so when the bubble collapsed. But maybe I fail to see your logic.
  Anyway, if Krugman is independent of the market's movements by not investing based on his predictions, it appears to me that he is in a much better position to give neutral advice than somebody who depends on their bets turning out successful.
15. Re:To republicans maybe by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  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 on all sorts of production and that's why USA had the very well paid working class (not middle class, that's business owners and professional, no, just working class).
  But as the US economy was growing, so was the gov't, and all the excesses of the fifties and sixties lead to the stagflation of the seventies, when USA defaulted on the dollar.
  Today the gold priced in US dollars is 1600, that's up from 19 per ounce dollars in 1913, are you too lazy to figure out the percentage of value of the dollar that was lost?
  It doesn't have to be 'hyper' inflation to be bad, and it doesn't have to translate to USA not being able to afford eating as long as the rest of the world is willing to buy the inflated dollar.
  The rest of the world is on the same path as USA in terms of money destruction because the rest of the world has the same type of 'economists' telling them what's what.
  Well, this will end. One good thing about the coming collapse, the real collapse, when the US dollar and bond bubbles collapse, is that it will bring down this type of "economics".
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
16. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  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 which grew from 10000$ to 30000$ over the past 30 years which gives me 3.7% annual growth (which for the record is above CPI growth). People are being robbed sloooooooowly it seems.
17. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  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?
18. Re:To republicans maybe by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  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 real money, see?)
  As I said - hyper inflation is the worst case scenario and it probably is going to happen, the USA cannot pay its debts back if true interest rates are set (not by gov't, the market sets true interest rates), and so USA will default the way it knows how - not through an honest bankruptcy and restructuring, but by printing USD, just like all other failed economies and governments did, and plenty have done so even in the last 100 years, USA is most likely going the same road.
  As to gold being 1600 today while it was 19 USD in 1913, it means the dollar lost almost 99% of its value in 100 years, that's what it means.
  By the way, inflation of 4.5% (just for the hell of it), means that value of money halves every 15 years. Nixon implemented price and wage controls when inflation hit 4%, of-course wage and price controls are the wrong thing to do and they never work and they create unemployment and black markets, but at least it shows that during Nixon's time they were concerned about 4% inflation.
  Today real inflation is 3 to 4 times higher than that and nobody cares. Even the inflation that is stated to be the Fed's goal is 4% and they think it's just peachy.
  Krugman is on board with that of-course, so what changed in this 'science' of economics since the times of Nixon? Well, in physics the laws didn't change, did they change in economics?
  No, the politics changed, and this is the point - Krugman is a politician, not an economist.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
19. Re:To republicans maybe by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  , Peter Schiff's clients appear to have lost money during the crisis,
  -
  1. That's misrepresentation. His clients lost money in 2008 and regained EVERYTHING back by the beginning of 2009. However they were making money from late nineties all the way to 2008 and since 2009 till today, so clearly taking a year when EVERYBODY lost money and saying that Schiff didn't make correct ECONOMIC predictions based on the way his INVESTMENT advice performed in ONE YEAR is disingenuous, so find another fact, because this one is nonsense.
  2. Schiff's prediction on hyperinflation, just like everybody else's prediction on hyperinflation is the WORST CASE SCENARIO. The prediction is that if the Fed keeps printing money eventually there will be hyperinflation and that is absolutely correct, anybody who doesn't understand that doesn't understand what hyperinflation means. Given the lowest interest rates and yields on bonds in decades, which is all created artificially by the Fed printing and buying up Treasuries, the PROBABILITY of hyper inflation is growing all the time, while the reality is that the actual inflation that exists today is already bad.
  Inflation doesn't have to enter the 'hyper' zone to be bad for the economy, seems you don't understand that, but hey, you believe that Krugman is an economist.
  As to people investing - putting their money where their mouths are, that's the only true prediction, all other predictions are just running mouths off.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
20. Re:To republicans maybe by repapetilto · 2012-06-11 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Why did you compare "price increase" to "factor"? Your "model" also assumes an initial price of $1.00. That makes no sense. It should have been
  Actual Price Difference = 11.37 - 3.98
  = $7.39
  7% estimate of price difference = 3.98 * 1.07^22 - 3.98
  = $13.65
  3% estimate of price difference = 3.98 * 1.03^22 - 3.98
  = $3.64
  Here, I made a chart from that data that shows the story pretty well:
  http://oi45.tinypic.com/30iul36.jpg
  Something will happen to stop this exponential growth.
21. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  Inflation rate is the factor with which to multiply prices. Hence we have to compare ratios of prices not differences. Not that hard to understand, really. I have no idea why you think it makes sense to compare the particular difference you chose to calculate.
  Anyway, as long as interest rates are comparable to the inflation rate, there is no way this exponential growth is somethign to worry about -- unless you keep your money under your mattress where the interest rate is zero.
22. Re:To republicans maybe by repapetilto · 2012-06-11 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  That's a price increase of 1.07^22 = 4.43 vs. 1.03^22 = 1.91 over the 22 years since.
  What exactly did you mean to calculate here? The ratio of cornflake price after 22 years of inflation to the starting price?
  That is not what you calculated, you calculated the "price increase" of something 22 years after it cost $1 under two different inflation scenarios (3% and 7%).
23. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  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?
24. Re:To republicans maybe by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  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 tethered to any actual anchor - Nixon defaulted on the dollar and thus dollar is given an arbitrary value that is not real, it's not gold that rose in price, it's the dollar that fell.
  20 ounces of gold was 380 DOLLARS in 1913, to buy a car for 380 today.... well, you can get something I suppose from a junk yard, I don't know that it is a car, but it may have a general shape of one.
  As to fluctuations of prices - well, not only do you not understand money, you also don't understand market, so yes, let's leave it at that.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
25. Re:To republicans maybe by roman_mir · 2012-06-11 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  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 this person is absolutely 100% ignorant on all issues surrounding economics, so yes, let's leave it.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
26. Re:To republicans maybe by PaddyM · 2012-06-11 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  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
  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 about what we should do, but there definitely has been inflation in recent times despite Krugman's so-called statements that there hasn't been any.
27. Re:To republicans maybe by repapetilto · 2012-06-11 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  nevermind, I'm dumb.
28. Re:To republicans maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  You can't have an argument with an Austrian on economics, they subscribe to axiomatic fucking ideology in one field, it will come out on something where their economics don't make any predictions (which is to say anywhere, Mises claims you can't disprove his shit, hence his brain-dead followers shouldn't be even making predictions), like golbuggery.
29. Re:To republicans maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  - well, you don't understand money, markets or interest rates it looks like from this question, or are you just ignorant on history?
  - well, you don't understand clarity, coherence or sentence structure it looks like from this question, or are you just ignorant on communication?
30. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
31. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  Can you give me a link showing how well his clients were doing? Taking into account those that jumped off in late 2008 preferably.
  So you're saying hyperinflation will happen one day. The monetary base was tripled in 2008. Where's the inflation? How long does it take for this inevitable hyperinflation to manifest itself? I mean, it's nice that every person as smart as you knows that this hyperinflation has to come some day. That's a prediction like "the earth will be hit by a huge meteor someday" -- even if it's true it's of no value, as something that is going to happen 100000000 years down the line simply isn't relevant.
  It seems that all central banks around the world agree that some inflation is good and necessary for the economy. Say all you want, prosperity has increased worldwide for a long time, it seems that they aren't completely wrong. Yet to you they obviously are.
  Lastly you missed my point on why I would trust more the public statements of people who don't depend financially on their statements being right.
  Oh well, I'll have to work now. Don't bother replying.
32. Re:To republicans maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 21:26 · Score: 0
  
  That all depends upon how you measure it. There definitely is major inflation, it's just that it's mostly masked by the banks hoarding most of the extra money in case there's a run on the banks and to comply with newer reserve requirements.
  The CPI itself is what they're using and it ignores things like the cost of food, rent and gas IIRC, which means that it's a very poor measure of how people are actually doing as most people actually have to pay those things. Just because in the long term they tend to rise at the rate of inflation doesn't mean that it's OK to ignore them.
33. Re:To republicans maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 23:38 · Score: 0
  
  It should be noted that the Nobel economics prize is not an actual nobel prize.
  It is awarded by the swedish riksbank, think FED, not the nobel foundation.
34. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-12 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Here is CPI with and without food and gas included. It's not like the people providing the data didn't think about that. You can also plot the rate of change or whatever, but this plot shows that except for short-term fluctuations the CPI all items and the CPI less food and energy agree, something that is hard to read from a rate of change alone.
35. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-12 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I meant to link to this page where you can actually modify the plot :-)
36. Re:To republicans maybe by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-12 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, who isn't?
37. Re:To republicans maybe by repapetilto · 2012-06-12 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  haha, exactly
38. Re:To republicans maybe by Sir_Sri · 2012-06-12 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Why does that matter?
  No really. Why? It is the most prestigious prize in economics, given in honour of Alfred Nobel, rather than from the estate of Alfred Nobel. It's listed on the official Nobel prize website with the longwinded clarification as to what it is actually named. ( The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel). It's the recipients are chosen by the same organization as the physics and chemistry prizes.
  It's not like the people who decide the nobel in physics are the same people who decide the nobel in medicine. Hell in making my other post on this thread I linked a bunch of nobel prizes and I couldn't figure out what half of the prizes in medicine or chemistry actually meant (so I didn't link those). And I'm a physicist by training. The economics prizes seem to be either rewarding epic sized research, or people in economics use non specific names for their research areas and papers. If you were going to give a prize in economics you basically have to hire a bunch of economists to figure out who to give the prize to, and that means federal reserve types who gather and analyze data. What do you think the Royal swedish academy of sciences is? They're the meta organization of scientists strewn across universities and public bodies that have meetings about who to give prizes to. There's no great mystery here. I would go so far as to say the separate groups for literature, physics/chemistry/economics, medicine are all more of a matter of book keeping. Obviously the physics prize is different from the literature one, and it's not the same people deciding.
  The real caveat is would be that the Norwegian parliament elects a committee to give the peace prize. That's overtly more political, and less arms length and academically neutral than any of the others. But then politics is inherently less neutral and arms length than any of the others. An economist describes the suffering of millions, and tries to quantify it. A politician tries to do something about it, even if they have a monumentally stupid plan.
39. Re:To republicans maybe by Tim+the+Gecko · 2012-06-12 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  - the value of gold is stable, and the goods priced in gold are either keeping their price or their prices are falling
  You avoided the question about the 1980s. Someone who bought 1oz of gold for 850USD in 1980 and sold it for 300USD in 2000 could look at the cost of candy bars or Big Macs and would not ascribe gold's price decrease to massive dollar deflation in that period. There had been a speculative increase in the gold price prior to 1980 and this graph suggests that the same thing is happening again. Perhaps "irrational exuberance" on the part of gold buyers?
40. Re:To republicans maybe by Tim+the+Gecko · 2012-06-12 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Correction. I see that you did answer the question about the 1980s. Paul Volcker had more influence than "intrinsic value" for a couple of decades.
I stopped caring when... by sdguero · 2012-06-11 08:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Obama got one for being elected President. Nobel hipsters can suck my balls.
1. Re:I stopped caring when... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  I thought he did the "getting elected" part extraordinarily well the last time around. Definitely worth a price or two.
2. Re:I stopped caring when... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  In light of Obama's award for Peace, Goldman Sachs should get the Economics prize
3. Re:I stopped caring when... by Volante3192 · 2012-06-11 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  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.)
4. Re:I stopped caring when... by sdguero · 2012-06-11 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Same committee right? If so, I don't trust any of them...
5. Re:I stopped caring when... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong.
  Very wrong.
  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 Medicine. The Swedish Academy grants the Nobel Prize in Literature. The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by a Swedish organisation but by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
  Thanks for learning.
6. Re:I stopped caring when... by sdguero · 2012-06-11 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for teaching. :)
  
  Perhaps the Nobel Committee should reconsider who chooses the winner of the Nobel Peace prize (perhaps past winners, or a monkey with a gun? Anything is better than a committee appointed by left wing politicians), as it taints the organization for people like me that are too lazy to figure out how the different prizes are awarded...
7. Re:I stopped caring when... by dzelenka · 2012-06-11 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Where are the mod points when I need them ...
  
  --
  Bah!
8. Re:I stopped caring when... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 12:16 · Score: 0
  
  The Nobel committee sees the outrage and smiles as they get exactly what they wanted.
  Seriously, they knew they were trolling. Your reaction is the intended result.
9. Re:I stopped caring when... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 21:28 · Score: 0
  
  Same committee right? If so, I don't trust any of them...
  NOT the same committee! Nobel Peace Prize is handed out by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, and it's the only prize they hand out.
Seems appropriate by argStyopa · 2012-06-11 08:10 · Score: 2

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.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:Seems appropriate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  $1? Well there's my 2eurocents!
2. Re:Seems appropriate by Sir_Sri · 2012-06-11 08:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
Re:Nobel Faget Award by war4peace · 2012-06-11 08:11 · Score: 0

You mean this town right here?
https://maps.google.ro/maps?q=F%C4%83get+maps&ie=UTF8&ll=45.85463,22.174873&spn=0.024898,0.066047&hnear=F%C4%83get,+Timi%C8%99&gl=ro&t=h&z=15

--
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Yes, because the Nobel prize is only for... by swx2 · 2012-06-11 08:24 · Score: 1

... Peace, and Economics. Forget that what most people look for when they announce the prizes is to see who/what topic won the Physics and Chemistry prizes.
Gender equity by icensnow · 2012-06-11 08:30 · Score: 4, Funny

They lowered it to 80% of its former value? A sure sign that they're planning to give them to women this year.
Comedy prize by istartedi · 2012-06-11 08:31 · Score: 2

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.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Nobel Committee Awards Itself by Sez+Zero · 2012-06-11 08:31 · Score: 1

Nobel Committee Awards itself the Nobel Prize in Economics for their keen insight into the current world economic situation.
Don't judge all the awards by the peace group by Shivetya · 2012-06-11 08:37 · Score: 2

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

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You get what you pay for by retroworks · 2012-06-11 08:39 · Score: 1

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.

--
Gently reply
Re:Well, that's it, count me *OUT* Nobel Committee by Chris+Burke · 2012-06-11 08:48 · Score: 2

I'm totally doing that, but the new prize level isn't *nearly* low enough to count as being treated like a bitch, so I'm out.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
The prize wasn't for Obama. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 08:52 · Score: 0, Interesting

It was an attempt to reward the American people for belatedly rejecting the globally-loathed politics of Bush. You have no concept of how grateful the rest of the world was that the US wasn't completely batshit crazy. That there were moments of clarity. This prize was Norway's attempt at positive reinforcement. Forgive them their misguided enthusiasm. For it turned out you really are batshit crazy.
1. Re:The prize wasn't for Obama. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah.. we totally rejected Bush. As soon as he hit the term limit, he was out of there so fast. (we would have done it sooner, but kicking him out before the full 8 years would have hurt his feelings.)
2. Re:The prize wasn't for Obama. by sdguero · 2012-06-11 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  I like how non-Americans, living in privileged western countries, tend to think that the majority of Americans voted for Bush in the first place, and quickly rush to lump all Americans into a "batshit crazy" category over it.
  
  Bush got ~51% of the vote in 2000. That's out of a roughly 50% voter turn-out. Which equates to around 1 in 4 Americans actually voting for the guy.
  
  But we are the ignorant ones who don't understand how the world really works. And by works, I mean living in a society so buffered from the reality in poor countries that many deny the existence of limited resources, and do so with an air of moral superiority.
3. Re:The prize wasn't for Obama. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  Really? from this part of the rest of the world we did'nt and don't see any real differences. I know parts of Europe went all gooey inside, but parts of Europe pretty much crazy anyhow
4. Re:The prize wasn't for Obama. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  Actually Bush got 47.9% (50,456,002 votes) of the vote in 2000 and Gore got 48.4% (50,999,897 votes). Because of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court Bush was awarded the Presidency.
Kills the retort... by Obfuscant · 2012-06-11 09:00 · Score: 1

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.
Nobel Prize in Economics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 09:05 · Score: 0

Actually, Economics is not one of the Nobel Prizes. It is given out by a separate organisation in memory of Nobel. As such, this decision should not affect the "Nobel" Prize in Economics.
This is what happens when you forget math by Qubit · 2012-06-11 09:06 · Score: 1

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?

--

coding is life /* the rest is */
1. Re:This is what happens when you forget math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 13:09 · Score: 0
  
  There are no Nobel prize winning mathematicians because there is no Nobel prize in mathematics!
2. Re:This is what happens when you forget math by Qubit · 2012-06-11 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  There are no Nobel prize winning mathematicians because there is no Nobel prize in mathematics!
  what, what, WHAT? :P
  (yes, the title was a subtle clue...)
  
  --
  
  coding is life /* the rest is */
Non-Scientific Nobels are far less worthy. by cribera · 2012-06-11 09:18 · Score: 1

Peace, Economics and Literature, too many omissions and subjective criteria.
It can get lower? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 09:23 · Score: 0

I thought it had hit rock bottom when they gave obama the peace prize... for doing NOTHING!
Pretty damm low.
Meta: on moderation by Bananenrepublik · 2012-06-11 09:41 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Well, that's it, count me *OUT* Nobel Committee by newcastlejon · 2012-06-11 09:51 · Score: 1

I'm not doing a bunch of groundbreaking work in physics to be treated like a bitch.
Please, no! The world needs a versatile quark!

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Two? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 10:39 · Score: 0

From the summary:

"two million"...
"8 million"...
"10 million"....
Why is two special?
The Nobel Prize has lost all it's gravitas.. by Paracelcus · 2012-06-11 10:43 · Score: 1

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

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
1. Re:The Nobel Prize has lost all it's gravitas.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  The Nobel Prize has lost all it's gravitas, since it gave one to Obama for NOTHING!
  How did that devalue the prices for Physics, Medicine and Chemistry? Those are not even given out by the same committee!
2. Re:The Nobel Prize has lost all it's gravitas.. by Shotgun · 2012-06-12 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  If you'd been shopping lately, you'd have seen that the Obama Presidency has devalued prices everywhere.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
alternative by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-11 12:01 · Score: 1

Decide that nobody really deserves the prize for economics this year.
I didn't think they could get any lower by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 12:06 · Score: 0

After they gave the Peace Prize to Barack Hussein Obama for doing absolutely jack shit.
The way they've lowerd the standards... by aklinux · 2012-06-11 13:11 · Score: 1

... over the years, it's only fitting that they lower the amount of the prize as well.
Shouldn't be worth that much anyway! by InspectorGadget1964 · 2012-06-11 14:00 · Score: 0

Considering that the Nobel Peace Prize was given to perple like Jimmy Carter, Shimon Peres and Barak Obama, I would expect it to be worth about five cents by now!
Oh it happened long before that by Sycraft-fu · 2012-06-11 17:47 · Score: 1

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."
awwww by slashmydots · 2012-06-12 02:44 · Score: 1

Well screw it then, I'll go back to playing Starcraft II instead of curing cancer. Zerg kind of is a cancer anyway.
Oh wait, I already said the same thing when Obama won it.
Deaddot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:11 · Score: 0

Which lawless evil bastard? It has been awarded to a lot of them.
Like the OP, I didn't say who and I didn't say who on purpose.
Yet, you notice how some brainless lowlife who hasn't got shit for a life (and who, like you, couldn't possibly know whom I was referring to) STILL managed to mod it down? This is 100% proof that the Slashdot anonymous mod system is 100% pure unadulterated crap and that extremely pathetic garbage can get mod points, proving mod points aren't worth jack shit.
If you're going to mod something down, you should have the balls to stand up and name yourself and give a reason.
Without that fix, Slashdot remains a club for juveniles that shows arbitrarily censored crap as a sopor for the inane and unthinking, and is totally unworthy of my or your time or that of any other thinking being.
Forget it... by ABoerma · 2012-06-12 07:01 · Score: 1

... I'll just aim for an Ig Nobel Prize instead.