Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Committee Lowers Nobel Prize Award

Posted by ryuzaki0 on 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."

16 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Forget it by ewg · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
    1. Re:Forget it by siddesu · · 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.

    2. Re:Forget it by siddesu · · 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.

  2. Much of a difference? by jbuk · · 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 · · 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.
  3. I lucked out by million_monkeys · · 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.

  4. They are irrelevant by roman_mir · · 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 · · 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 · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    3. Re:They are irrelevant by arth1 · · 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.

    4. Re:They are irrelevant by million_monkeys · · 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.

    5. Re:They are irrelevant by the+eric+conspiracy · · 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.

    6. Re:They are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  5. Re:To republicans maybe by Sir_Sri · · 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.

  6. Gender equity by icensnow · · 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.

  7. Re:Seems appropriate by Sir_Sri · · 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.