The Nobel Putsch

December 11th, 2005 at 18:26 Björn Hallberg

I’m speaking of the Nobel Prize for Economics of course which was awarded to Robert Aumann and Thomas Schelling in a lofty ceremony yesterday. The economics prize which was instituted in 1968 by the Bank of Sweden (The Central Bank of Sweden, also the oldest central bank in the world no less). The topic, “having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis,” is a euphemistic attempt at rationalizing some of the worst atrocities in recent years as trivial, even beneficial, and on top of that legitimizing their work with a “Nobel” Prize. Even if it is not a real prize by a strict definition. In fact the economics prize has exhibited a consistent political bias aimed at furthering the emerging trends in the field, as well as provide a sycophantic forum for in-group self-gratification.

Chalmers Johnson (Blowback) - Its propositions were now expressed less in words than in simultaneous equations, the old ideas of Adam Smith reappearing as fully mathematized axioms, increasingly divorced from empirical research. Its data were said to be “stylized facts,” and economists set out to demonstrate through deductive reasoning expressed in mathematical formulas that resources could be allocated efficiently only through an unfettered market. By now all these terms (”resources,” “efficiency,” “markets”) had been transformed into abstractions, not unlike the abstract formulations (”the proletariat,” “the bourgeoisie,” “class conflict”) of its Soviet opponents. English-speaking economics became such a “hard science” that in 1969 the central bank of Sweden started giving Nobel Prizes to its adepts, virtually all of them American academicians. This ensured that virtually all aspiring economists would in the future try to do so-called theoretical economics — that is, the algebraic modeling of markets — rather than old-fashioned empirical and inductive research into real-world economies.

This year’s prize however takes this argument to an entirely new dimension. Going from defending neo-liberalism to defending apartheid and ethnic cleansing isn’t exactly a step in the right direction. But the two stances are closely linked of course.

Guardian - Calls grow for withdrawal of Nobel prize - A group of Israeli intellectuals and activists has demanded that the Nobel prize committee withdraw the award for economics to be made today to an Israeli mathematician and his American colleague on the grounds that they are “warmongers”.

The economics prize is to be presented to Robert Aumann of Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Thomas Schelling of Maryland University in recognition of their “having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis”, a mathematical study of how individuals and governments react to other people’s actions including in war.

The critics accuse Professor Aumann - a member of the hawkish thinktank, Professors for a Strong Israel, which believes the Jewish state should retain the occupied territories - of using his mathematical theories to promote his political views. “Aumann uses his analysis to justify the Israeli occupation and the oppression of the Palestinians,” the petition says.

It describes Professor Schelling’s theories as directly inspiring the US military strategy in Vietnam, including the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. “This strategy resulted in 2 million civilian deaths and was a complete failure in realising its objectives,” the petition says.

Shraga Elam puts it succinctly and notes that politics can not be totally discounted, turns the question around: “Can a racist or a Holocaust denier receive the Nobel prize even if he is very talented in his scientific field?” I’m sure they could and probably should for the sake of fairness and focus on their scientific merits alone, but they never will. Israeli racists and American butchers however are always first on a short list of people eligible for the economics prize.

To be fair however, Aumann is such a sycophant that Schelling almost disappeared from the headlines. After showing up with 27 of his immediate kin, against regulations of course, then went on to praise himself and spout Zionist propaganda. But people are obviously falling over themselves to wish Aumann all the best. Read the story in the Jerusalem Post, together with the commentary and recoil. If you want to set the standards that low then fine. I’m down with that game, but it wont be pretty.

I’m sure some would say this is not so unlike the Pinter angle. He of course not being shy about using the event for political aims. But didn’t hear Pinter defend the death of millions, nor was he heard salivating over the current hegemony, defending abusive power structures that surreptitiously slaughter in the name of freedom. And he sure got his fair share of criticism, most of it baseless and derogatory though. Some like Niall Ferguson at least tried even though the flimsy attempt should be below any “professor” at “history” at Harvard “University.” If that is what they teach at Harvard there isn’t much hope for the world. Though of course Harvard remains a sludge pit that has created some of the most corrosive minds of the last century. And of course, in America, there is no such thing as a civilian body. One way or another you’re getting paid in blood money that has passed through the military-industrial complex. This is especially true for places of higher learning, which are tightly bound to the state. They may come out red and blue, even more blue than red, but they are all soldiers of empire.

But I digress. What criticism, besides a heavily underreported petition and a Guardian special report, will these war crimes economists receive? None at all I fear. By this time next week, it will all be forgotten. And most people will not even have known.

Entry 371 filed under: Economy. This entry was posted 2 years, 11 months ago. RSS feed for comments on this post.