Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics
Submitted by xntryk1 on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 19:29
Oct. 12, 2009, 8:47 a.m. EDT
Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics
Michael Moore, Timothy Geithner also passed over
By Tom Bemis, assistant managing editor
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday.
While few observers think Obama has done anything for world peace in the nearly nine months he's been in office, the same clearly can't be said for economics.
The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent bureaucrats.
From his $787 billion stimulus package, to the cap-and-trade bill, to the seizures of General Motors and Chrysler, to the undead health-care "reform" act, Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few figures have in recent years.
Yet the Nobel panel chose instead to award the prize to two obscure academics -- Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson -- one noted for her work on managing collective resources, and the other for his work on transaction costs.
Other surprise losers include celebrity noneconomist and filmmaker Michael Moore; U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Larry Summers, head of the U.S. national economic council.
It is unclear whether the president will now refuse his peace prize in protest against the obvious slight to his real achievements this year.
Wait a sec
"...of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent bureaucrats."
WTF, mate? Is the author being sarcastic or is he loony?
Sarcastic, but that line
Sarcastic, but that line needs a little work. The topic is funny.
I read short synopsis of the works
of the economists honored, and it seemed better than I expected. Ostrom's work seems to say that non=government management of resources works better than central top-down control; Williamson also seemed to indicate that unnecessary costs (such as government licensing) make it harder and more expensive to do business. (duh -- not nearly that simplistic of course. I hope we'll see better analyses from people who know more.