Posted on 10/30/2009 10:44:41 AM PDT by Military family member
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Indiana University professor Elinor Ostrom has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced Oct. 12.
Ostrom is the Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences and a professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Bloomington. She is co-founder and senior research director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at IU.
(Excerpt) Read more at wabashvalleyjournalonline.com ...
So, she wins the prize in economics? More Nobel irrelevance.
I was a Poli-Sci major at IU from 1977 to 1981; never heard of her, but back then I was a beer-drinking conservative. Now I’m just a conservative.
IU’s College of Arts and Sciences faculty was full of communists when I was there. None of them spent a day in their lives earning a living in the private sector. I’m convinced the very thought frightened them greatly. I doubt things have improved much.
I knew it was crap at the time but wanted to get into law school. However, I’m afraid that many of my fellow students drank the Kool-Ade, and now have their hands on the levers of power in this country.
Her liberal contribution only garnered half a prize. The other half went to Oliver Williamson for his conservative contribution.
Oh my, that’s pretty much the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Thanks!
Your welcome.
I read this today. It’s not funny. Kinda sad really. But it’s true. Oh So True.
“As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials.” - - Newt Gingrich
__________________________________________________
Newt is not well liked lately. But this quote - Priceless.
You confuse scientists with politicians. What would a physicist gain by working in private sector?
And, where in the private sector does one do theoretical physics or pure mathematics, Mr. Beer Drinking Conservative? It appears you don't know what the faculty does at your university, and you judge their political affiliations on the basis of social science and humanities faculty members.
Why do you judge his contribution to be conservative?
Why do you judge his contribution to be conservative?Good question. Short answer: Williamson favors private enterprise.
Williamson, in the BBC's paraphrase of the academy's reasoning, "developed a theory where business firms served as structures for conflict resolution."
Did you attend there? I did. I know damn well what the faculty there was about.
Her economics award was for POLICY not for science.
You confuse science with garbage, sir.
It appears you skipped a lot of classes. Otherwise you'd know that experiential knowledge is only a part of what constitutes a person's knowledge. You appear to misunderstand the essence of education.
You make another mistake when you "prove" your knowledge by the fact you attended that school: experience does not necessarily lead to knowledge. For example, even after decades of driving a car daily you will NOT know how the engine works.
To answer your question: no, I did not attend that university. I worked with some of the faculty formerly from Indiana, attended conferences there, and some of my friends from graduate-school years teach there. As you can see, there are other ways to learn about faculty than by sitting in a few classes.
"Her economics award was for POLICY not for science. You confuse science with garbage, sir."
You continue to be too hasty for your own good. This exchange was prompted by your ridiculously strong statement about the entire college, which includes such diverse departments as Mathematics and Sociology. I pointed out that, being a PolitSci major you hardly had any experience with Science or Mathematics faculty to make conclusions about their work.
[I actually doubt that you have seen recent work in Politics either. Look at "The Size of Nations" by Alesina and Rosenthal, who teach respectively at Harvard and Princeton. Requiring no more mathematics that algebra and basic calculus (if I remember correctly), it is quite readable.]
Finally, having several advanced degrees in mathematics and sciences, both natural and social, I very much doubt doubt I confuse them with anything. You have no idea how immature you look.
You may want to consider that, the stronger your statements are, the less applicability they have. Applied widely such statements are simply wrong. Young people sometimes think, erroneously, that they make them look knowledgeable and confident. In fact, they make them look... well, young and silly.
Have a good day.
Hi Trevor. Is that your name? Well, it is now and Trevor, you make a mistake when you say “no, I did not attend that university.” Argument lost. How can you possibly even think for one second that your idea of Indiana University is going to be better than someone who went there for four years? Because you have friends there? Please. I have friends at IU, Ball State, and Indiana State. You think I know how it’s run there?
Here’s another mistake Trevor: “I pointed out that, being a PolitSci major you hardly had any experience with Science or Mathematics faculty to make conclusions about their work.” That’s a big assumption, and you know what we do when we assume things, right Trevor? Prove to me that he didn’t take several math and/or science courses. I had to take 3 of each for my core requirements at another university that shall remain nameless. You also commit the straw person fallacy throughout your “piece”, but you wouldn’t know what that means (you’re probably going to Wikipedia to find out right now). I love irony.
You assume many things, Trevor, that he isn’t as competent as you, that he hasn’t read any political commentary lately (this could be true because I bet he has a real job, unlike you), and you continuously bash him because “having several advanced degrees in mathematics and sciences, both natural and social, I very much doubt doubt I confuse them with anything.” Doubt doubt?
Well, Trevor, it’s too bad you couldn’t find the time to get an English degree as well. So why don’t you crawl back into your hole, keep doing more research because you aren’t man enough to get a real job, and tell everyone else how they should live their lives. I’m sure nothing I say has no merit because apparently age is the most important credential in a debate. (If that’s the case, then I guess you should have voted for McCain).
You may want to consider that, the more bullshit your statements are, the less applicability they have. Applied widely such statements are simply stupid. Old people who don’t know what the real world is sometimes think, erroneously, that they make them look knowledgeable and confident. In fact, they make them look... well, old and moronic.
Have a good day, Trevor.
PS: I am more confident than you’ll ever be. Now go make some major assumptions that your friends have told you about me since they seem to have all the answers.
Your idea of calling me Trevor suggests also that you forgot to take your meds today. Please consider doing so without delay.
This does not appear to follow from his work. He has looked, rather dispassionately, at two forms of organizations in a particular context and compared them. I have seen no advocacy of private enterprise, free markets, or anything else that is generally associated with conservative point of view.
You really can’t think of anything a physicist could do in private enterprise? (...and you really can’t tell the difference between a “scientist” and a “political scientist”?)
Peoples Democratic Republik of Bloomington.
Congratulations, you have successfully committed the straw person fallacy. Fell right into my trap.
Congratulations, you have successfully committed the fallacy of “pooh-poohing”. You fell right into my trap.
It’s obvious the use of Trevor irked you quite a bit, Trevor.
He has looked, rather dispassionately, at two forms of organizations in a particular context and compared them.Two forms of organizations (markets and firms) existential to a particular context known as private enterprise.
Lucky: "You really can’t think of anything a physicist could do in private enterprise?"
Do you not see that these are two different questions?
"and you really can’t tell the difference between a “scientist” and a “political scientist”?)"
Yes, I can. This is equally unrelated to anything I said, however.
Thank you; I understand that. Williamson's work, if I understand it correctly, attempts to explain why some transactions are internalized into an organization (hierarchy, as opposed to market). It leaves aside the question of property rights to the firm (private ownership). It appears to be really a technical question on the theory of the firm and its boundaries rather than property rights or "freedom" of the markets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.