Curious Choices For Nobel Prize in Economics

Well I guess these two folks are Tea Partiers.

Ostrom, 76, and Williamson, 77, shared the $1.4 million economics prize for work that "advanced economic governance research from the fringe to the forefront of scientific attention," the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said.

Ostrom, a political scientist at Indiana University, showed how common resources — forests, fisheries, oil fields or grazing lands — can be managed successfully by the people who use them, rather than by governments or private companies.

Even more puzzling is that one of the receptients, Williamson, works at University of California at Berkeley.

Still somehow the writer of the article spins this as somehow an endorsement of government regulations.

The academy did not specifically cite the global financial crisis, but many of the problems at the heart of the current upheaval — bonuses, executive compensation, risky and poorly understood securities — involve a perceived lack of regulatory oversight by government officials or by corporate boards. The Nobel awards on Monday were clearly a nod to the role of rules, institutions and regulations in making markets work.

You see it is all about the eeeevil corporations. Do these people even read what they write? I guess he took it upon himself to say what the academy didn't. Kind of like giving an award to somebody for giving a good pep talk but not actually accomplishing anything.

These economists stated that the individual or the lowest level at which the resource is being used is best suited to manage that resource and doesn't say anything about corporate bonuses, compensation, or monetary risks.

For those keeping count that makes 11 out of the 13 Nobel prizes awarded that have gone to the most evil, war mongering, and racist Americans. And only one of them has been awarded for nothing more then winning an election. In fact most of them have been awarded to folks who have spent a lifetime working in the field for which they won the award.