Quick note on the continuing Nobel Prize in Economics Profile Series

Hey there.

Hi.

I'm sure that Dora the Explorer caught your attention. If not yours, then it certainly has mine - this cartoon has been thrown in my face ever since my daughter caught sight of her.

So - irregardless of Dora's current relationship with my family, she served her purpose well: she has made you keep on reading.

So, let's get back to the subject at hand: Economics. Pseudo-economics, in my world.

Step 1 when addressing a lack of continuance in posts: Acceptance.

I have not been very good at posting lately.

At first, I thought that my slowdown was a combination of writer's block and an overall lack of time.

Fortunately, my reason for not having posted the 1971 Nobel Prize in Economics Winner Profile (in effect, the last in line as of today) is not due to apathy. Nor for any reason related to anti-motivational factors, like procrastination - as visually exemplified by the picture below:

Why leave for tomorrow what you can do to...*Snooze*

My reason has been analysis paralysis.

To profile a Nobel Prize in Economics winner is as easy or as hard as you want to make it.

I've realized it is an insurmountable task when the goal is to cover everything the Nobel Prize Winner had accomplished, who he influence, who influenced him and the overall effect he or she had on the Economics realm (Academic and otherwise). 

I have a draft on the 1971 Nobel Prize in Economics winner (Simon Kuznets) that has yet to see the light of day (or the CyberWorld's version of what a "day" is). 

The reason? Simple: Kuznets not only helped revolutionize Modern Economics, as did the two Winners before him, he also contributed greatly. To mention him in passing would be a disservice to him, his legacy, and more selfishly, it would do me no good either. My journey to auto-didacticism and becoming economically literate would be in peril were I to half-ass (pardon my French) my attempt to cover the man's body of work and reason for having won the prize partially.

The solution?

Divide and conquer. Divide and rule. Partial (yet complete) posts. Irregardless of the time it takes to accomplish.

Stay tuned. 

Links of interest

Just do it.

A couple of my picks from Barry Ritholtz's weekly Sunday AM and Weekend reads list:

• The world put $4 billion on Starbucks Gift Cards last year 
• Indecision is sometimes the best way to decide

The article amongst the lists mentioned that most caught my attention:

Farnam Street's  - How to read a book

Farnam Street's raison d'etre and it's content (which exalts virtuous goals like: promoting mental stimulation and beneficial thought processes, to name a few) has resonated with me.

I'm sure it will with you too.  

Intellectual Spotlight: Roberto Mangabeira Unger

Today I wrote a few notes regarding the profile on Simon Kuznets, who won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in 1971 - but I've yet to synthethise my thoughts regarding Kuznets' win and flesh out a proper profile.

As I predicted, and as I originally intended - with this Nobel Prize in Economics Profile Series, I've gotten more than what I bargained for. In looking to understand more about what lies behind past and present economic theory, and how the different prizes represent (pardon the redundant use of terms to denote points in time) the past, present and future in mainstream and heterodox economics, I've found out about different Economists, Intellectuals, Politicians, Revolutionaries and all around influential people through the tangential topics that are related to the different schools of economic thought that have shaped the history of economic thought. 

One of the people I read about today that falls neatly into one of the aforementioned categories is  Roberto Mangabeira Unger, a professor at Harvard Law School and a Brazilian politician, who knows the topics I've only begun to learn about inside-out.

Roberto Mangabeira Unger

As an aside and complement to this series, I will make sure to mention these people, to effectively archive their significance as part of the whole that makes up the social science and politics-led world we all live in today.

References:

Roberto Mangabeira's website.

An interesting video in which Roberto Mangabeira speaks of what could be.

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1970

From nobelprize.org:

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1970 was won by Paul Samuelson:

Samuelson's work was so multi-faceted that even the reason for having given him the prize is general ("...actively contributed to raising the level of analysis in economic science.").

Paul Samuelson Quick Bio:

Paul Samuelson's Nobel Prize win was a relevant one in many regards:

1) He was the first American to win the Nobel Prize in Economics - paving the way for many fellow citizens to come.

2) As a mathematical economist, his contributions to economic analysis and its sophistication were pervasive and permanent - bringing in an era of applied economics, where economic theory was complemented and either validated or updated through rigorous examination. 

His contributions included (from Wikipedia): 

• Neoclassical Synthesis: Translating John Maynard Keyne's theory into the Economics Curriculum Core Studies we all know and love: Neoclassical Economics
• Mathematical Economics: further allowing Economists to back up claims made through clear and comprehensible economic models, that explain quantitative relationships between variables, that in turn, result in a set of significant assumptions and consequences
• Economic Methodology
• Revealed preference: a concept first introduced by Samuelson.  
• International Trade 
• Economic Growth
• Public Goods

After having checked out the nobelprize.org website, and read a little more about Samuelson, I realized how important it was to understand the whole picture before jumping to conclusions about the why and how regarding his prize. I took a look at his lecture and banquet speech - in order to get the full picture behind his nobel prize win. Having remembered my previous post, I quickly looked up the 1969 winners to take a quick peek at both Frisch's and Tinbergen's lectures as well. 

I was taken aback at their collective genius - not surprisingly, they all summarized their academic findings, the theory behind their reasoning, and the different applications of their methods, models and economic concepts in an all-encompassing way...subtly and very casually explaining their body of work and what led up to it. All these lectures are equally stupendous and very revealing, concerning the men that gave them and the greatness behind them.

Paul Samuelson's lecture starts by mentioning how Economics is more than an Academic afterthought - that its relevance in his lifetime was stronger than ever, and that its practical application (e.g. as "managerial economics") is a reality today, more so than ever before. Note that "today" then was 1970.

A tangent I will look to take soon is to delve deeper into the different economic concepts that can be linked to business, management, finance and other economic fields and subfields which have practical applications for those of us that look to go beyond the academic. I will leave that for a future post.

Two phrases in the lecture that struck me as interesting and relevant to the analytical path Economics was taking at the time...  

"A good explanation is a simple one that is easy to remember and one which fits a great variety of the observable facts." 

"The scientist who formulates laws of observed empirical phenomena is essentially an economist or economizer."

In other words, the observational empirical-led and data-driven analytical approach can lead to thorough economic analysis.

An Economist, in essence, to Samuelson was a Maximizer - a person or entity that made the most of what he was able to given the resources available to him.

In his Banquet Speech, he very eloquently gave advice on "how to get a Nobel Prize":

The requirements (in summary):

1) Have great teachers

2) Have been blessed with great colleagues, collaborators and fellow students

3) Have great students

4) Read the works of the great masters

5) Luck

Anyone can attest to the fact that these 5 points can certainly apply to what leads to success in realms outside of Economics. Learning to properly observe and analyze, as Samuelson certainly did, can only help.

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1969

Today marks the first entry that will form part of the Nobel Prize in Economics Profile series.

My purpose in forming this series is twofold:

1) To learn more about Economic History, Applied Economics and Economic Theory 

2) To continue my Autodidact-led journey - and to join (or try to join) the ranks of the famous self-learners

Accumulating these profiles, and providing, not only a summary, but an opinion on each, will hopefully provide various rewards: economic knowledge, true social science awareness and inspirational accounts to learn from. 

The premise herein: one has to study the events of the past, to live the active present, which ultimately leads to envisioning a future.

One of my greatest regrets was to have approached mathematics begrudgingly during my formative years. Had I gone beyond the usual dry learning approach and realized the philosophy behind the subject and how speaking it would serve me in multiple forms, I wouldn't have waited until college to take it seriously. Any mathematician, math teacher and math enthuthiast can attest to its beauty. 

Mathematics is usually an underestimated disciplines, yet anyone who decides to venture into the private sector can surely add value. When it comes to Economics - the following winners, were not only fluent in Mathematics; they used it to their advantage; revolutionizing economics from thereon.

So, without further ado: 

From www.nobelprize.org:

Ragnar Frisch

Jan Tinbergen

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1969 was awarded jointly to Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen "for having developed and applied dynamic models for the analysis of economic processes"

Ragnar Frisch Quick Bio:

Jan Tinbergen Quick Bio:

These two Economists revolutionized the field of Economics, having founded Econometrics - the discipline that gave way to the formal quantitative analysis that most economic concepts and theories lacked until that point. 

Jan Tinbergen also (assumedly - but surely not a mere factoid) promoted the terms "Macroeconomics" and "Microeconomics", before these two economic branches were in common use.

Nobel Prize in Economics Profile Series

Dear Reader:

I have decided to start a Nobel Prize in Economics Profile Series - starting this upcoming weekend.

I will be profiling, in chronological order, every Nobel Prize in Economics Winner dating from 1969 (when the first ever was awarded), up till this year's, and, every year after that.

The Reason?

The prizes that were awarded closely mirrored the changing facets that came with Economics through the years - profiling the winners is like peering through very interesting (and inspirational) windows. There is much to learn from them.

It will be a self-rewarding experience that I will thoroughly enjoy, and through this blog, have a chance to archive.

Cheers.

See you soon.

At what cost?

A rose blooming on its own.

I read a couple of articles this week that referred to the age-old question:

At what cost do people pursue their goals?

For the authentically ambitious person, who craves achievement above all else, unswerving dedication to the pursuit of personal dreams and goals can limit the amount of time that is spent on anything else. Personal relationships can suffer momentary lapses in undivided attention.

An article from The Atlantic explains how, in the end, people ultimately determine that "relationships are more important than ambition," and how "ambition drives people forward; relationships and community, by imposing limits, hold people back."

Well, that certainly depends.

Benjamin Franklin, said: “ What is best for people is what they do for themselves. ”

That he coined that phrase should come as no surprise, given how he handled his personal life. 

Franklin was often away from home, from one adventure to the next, leaving those close to him to fend for themselves. He was a doting husband in spirit, but was mostly absent from his wife's life. He was also intermittently estranged from his own son. Regardless, the man did contribute a lot to his country, and to the world. Walter Isaacson's account of Franklin's personal foibles paint an interesting picture; one that makes you realize, that personal ambition is not always a sinful passion, or at least not when the person in question contributes and adds value in some way.  

Most world leaders, artists, inventors, innovators and geniuses fit this mold.

And most had satisfying personal lives - in terms of the ardor, dedication and devotion that came in spurts of intensity to those around them.

The cost behind the pursuit of personal goals, must then, be regarded as a function of the results they render.

So, to complement the question, "at what cost do people pursue their goals", I would add, "at what price would people value other's contributions?"