Quote
Nobel Prize goes to Al Roth!
#1
Posted 2012-October-15, 20:05
#2
Posted 2012-October-16, 03:44
James Mirrlees shared the Nobel Prize with William Vickrey in 1996. It required quite some stretch of the imagination to justify pairing them, and it is generally presumed that Vickrey was added in last minute because it was heard that he was dying, and he was on their virtual list of likely future winners. In practice he died a few days after the announcement and before he could collect, so the money went to his estate. Though I do know Mirrlees wouldn't begrudge the money, he was my tutor and was not very interested in accumulating money, he was much more interested in Being the Edgeworth Professor of Economics - he told me he'd be quite happy to do that for rather less than the stated salary, even though British professors are much worse paid than American ones.
We all know that Jean Tirole will be get the prize if he lives long enough. I don't know why we are waiting, the importance of his contribution was evident 20 years ago. Since he be run down by a bus, or get cancer, give it to him now. few are more deserving. He will of course share it with Jean-Jacques Laffont, except he won't because Laffont is dead. Unlike Shapley, Laffont died in his early 60s and didn't make it to 90 to be able to collect his well deserved prize. Doesn't this make it clear why they ought to give them out quicker?
John von Neumann made about three separate Nobel Prize worthy contributions to economics, in that he could justifiably have shared it with Arrow (1972), Debreu (1983) or Nash (1994). But JvN died in 1957, aged only 53. But he'd only have been a year older than Shapley if he'd shared it with Nash. Edit: Though of course the Nobel Prize of Economics didn't even exist in 1957.
The economics prize is occasionally given for really odd stuff. I think they could weed out the less obvious winners and give it to worthy winners before they die or get very old a bit more often. Doris Lessing, a literature winner a couple of years ago, said so quite publicly. What is the point, she asked, of giving it to her now, now she is nearly dead. I don't think she even felt she deserved it, rather she felt that there seemed to be more advantage to the Nobel Committee in associating themselves with her than the other way around.
#3
Posted 2012-October-16, 12:38
I can't find anything about bridge on his wikipedia page.
#4
Posted 2012-October-16, 12:50
bluecalm, on 2012-October-16, 12:38, said:
I can't find anything about bridge on his wikipedia page.
Nope. See the wikipedia page for our Al Roth.
#6
Posted 2012-October-16, 13:14
bluecalm, on 2012-October-16, 13:00, said:
Not sure. Maybe GreenMan mistook one for the other. Or maybe he's just a fan of the economist.
It seems like wikipedia might have to swap the naming for the pages, giving precedence to the nobel prize winner now for the name-without-a-middle-initial privilege.
#7
Posted 2012-October-16, 14:22
#8
Posted 2012-October-16, 15:26
#9
Posted 2012-October-16, 17:39
kenberg, on 2012-October-16, 15:26, said:
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#10
Posted 2012-October-16, 20:03
kenberg, on 2012-October-16, 15:26, said:
I knew it! I mean, how could a blind man write in Greek?
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#12
Posted 2012-October-17, 23:38
barmar, on 2012-October-16, 14:22, said:
This. Sorry I've been away and haven't replied. Not much of a joke, but ...