Another contradiction by a member of the economics profession. It seems to me they care very much. By linking the prize to Alfred Nobel’s name (and to the Nobel institutions), the Riksbank ensured the prize would immediately carry great symbolic prestige. The Nobel brand was already well established internationally, so adopting the name helped the economics prize gain recognition, gravitas, and legitimacy.
I’d love an estimate from you (or anyone) about the marginal effect on the profession’s “legitimacy” (which is what? and how’s it measured?) from having the prize include Nobel’s name vs. not including it.
My point was speak for yourself, the history does not suggest you are correct. Evidence economists do care[1][2][3]. Economics was still a relatively newer niche discipline[4].
I’d love an estimate from you (or anyone) about the marginal effect on the profession’s “care” (which is what? and how’s it measured?) from having the prize include Nobel’s name vs. not including it.
Since you stand by your statement so strongly, you should have it already, correct?
You care so little you spent time to claim you don't care twice in a row.
> I’d love an estimate from you (or anyone) about the marginal effect on the profession’s “legitimacy” (which is what? and how’s it measured?) from having the prize include Nobel’s name vs. not including it.
I don't have an estimate for that, but we have an estimate on how much money the Sverige Riskbank bankers were ready to spend in that effort. Maybe it didn't pan out but some people definitely had a multimillion dollar interest in making that happen. As an economist you must wonder what their incentives could have been …
> You care so little you spent time to claim you don't care twice in a row.
I've seen this style of argument before and I think it's a non sequitur and total BS. The fact that he may care about feeling his opinion is being misrepresented is totally different from what his original "we don't care" statement referred to.
Are you sure though? I don’t have an opinion on this specific case, but I have been in situations where someone claims to have no interest at all in a topic and then doesn’t stop talking about it.
Excuse me? Quant finance doesn't claim to be devising grand theories about how the world operates (is more akin to engineering). And when it does, any delineation from economics is moot.
What's quintessential quant finance? Black-Scholes and no-arbitrage pricing. Don't you agree it's much more of a tool than a theory of how the world works.
> What's quintessential quant finance? Black-Scholes and no-arbitrage pricing
This is a bad model to pick to exemplify physics envy given it’s based on thermodynamic dispersion.
The term “physics envy” broadly applies to all social sciences lacking a mathematical basis. It’s a criticism of using math where it doesn’t belong. That hasn’t really fit (until very recently) with economics. It’s been a classic complaint about quantitative finance’s loftier visions of universality.
> This is a bad model to pick to exemplify physics envy given it’s based on thermodynamic dispersion.
Using a model derived from physics is not having physics envy.
> The term “physics envy” broadly applies to all social sciences lacking a mathematical basis
No, physics envy is about thinking you can have the same prediction power as physics using simple mathematical tools just because some branch of physics do (while not understanding physics at the same time, because all of physics definitely doesn't work like that).
> It’s a criticism of using math where it doesn’t belong. That hasn’t really fit (until very recently) with economics
Well, if you consider Ricardo to be recent, maybe…
I mean, i hear people call the Turing prize the "nobel" of computer science, and the fields medal the nobel of math. Sports that arent in the olympics usually have some competition people refer to as the "olympics" of that sport.
Who really cares, its the top prize in the field, that is all that matters.
Well, the needs are similar even if the reason is different. Parents want to know their kids will not go wandering, so yeah, it very much is a "detention" centre in the sense the kids will be detained there until pickup.
If you've ever been to a daycare centre... it pretty much is a prison. For little kids. With hopefully caring guardians and an exercise yard. :-P
And if you've ever known a 2 year old, some of them can be little sociopaths at times.
The proposed semiconductor fabs seem legitimately crazy. It's a desert state with 87% of the desert in extreme drought. The state is already planning on needing "mitigation" water. Don't fabs need water? I recall reading something about tsmc and water usage.
Why did you buy a lot zoned ag when you clearly wanted one zoned residential? A little due diligence before purchasing the lot and you would either know what you in for and still buy or decide it's too much of a hassle and walk.
I didn't buy it until I figured out the (very convoluted and possible) way to build on it while ag. Because rezoning is a long, expensive process that can trivially be blocked by a single neighbor that doesn't want to rezone with me. I wanted the parcel because it was in what I considered a desirable location for a reasonable price. In my region, finding property is getting very difficult - and unless you want to go super far away from civilization, you don't have so many options.
You are lucky that you can even abuse it that much. My home country seems a bit stricter. My grandparents split their farm between my uncle, aunt and mother, with the later two only inheriting a house. When my mother tried to pass it on to my brother someone noted that it handn't been part of a farm or used to house farmworkers for years and should be torn down. The plot it stood on had to be converted to residential to deal with that surprise.
They probably bought a lot smaller than 40 acres and assumed that logically, a single dwelling would be allowed since otherwise a dwelling would be impossible.
If "a dwelling would be impossible", the logical conclusion is that zero dwellings would be allowed.
This situation is the norm in US unincorporated zoning. I have never heard of any unincorporated jurisdiction with a "minimum residences per parcel regardless of parcel size" exception. If there is such a jurisdiction, it's the exception not the rule.
There is a limit to how many dwellings an area can support without major infrastructure upgrades (sewerage, water lines, new roads, additional sheriff's deputies). This limit has to be divided among the parcels. The fairest way to do it is by acreage. "Minimum acres per dwelling" is just the reciprocal expression of "maximum dwellings per acre" and more well-behaved since fractional acres make sense but fractional dwellings do not.
Giving tiny postage-stamp parcels the right to build one dwelling would be a windfall for all the kooky "sliver parcels" created by things like railroads and surveyors' errors. Those obnoxious error parcels are made undevelopable in order to encourage that they be merged into a neighboring parcel.
