Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Clean Sweep Completed

    Posted by Jay Manifold on October 9th, 2006 (All posts by )

    (Ref Prizes Galore.) American wins 2006 Nobel for economics. I blame George Bush.
    Edmund Phelps is a Chicago School monetarist.


    5 Responses to “Clean Sweep Completed”

    1. Mitch Says:

      Those were the easy calls. The Literature and Peace prizes will tell the tale. How about Saddam Hussein for Literature and Kim Jong Il for Peace?

    2. Jay Manifold Says:

      Naah, that’s too easy. Here’s mine:

      Peace: Sudanese President Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, for helping several hundred thousand former residents of Darfur find permanent peace.

      Literature: Osama bin Laden, for his trenchant critiques of Western society and stirring call to the faithful to “kill the Americans … civilians and military … in any country in which it is possible to do it.”

    3. Jonathan Says:

      Maybe they should merge the Nobels with the Oscars.

      “And now, the award for best supporting dictator. . .”

    4. Lex Says:

      “Saddam Hussein for Literature and Kim Jong Il for Peace?”n Surely this is backward. Dear Leader’s collected works on the Juche philosophy are probably at least as good as Saddam’s romance novels. And as for peace, Saddam fought two wars against the ultimate evil in the modern world, the U. S. of A. That puts him ahead of even a guy like Yassir Arafat, who just ordered the murder of lots of Jews, which was enough for a prize. So, Peace for Saddam, Literature for KJI.

    5. Mitch Says:

      Back to the subject at hand, Phelps had an excellent essay in yesterday’s WSJ. Like most good essays, it inspires as many new questions as it answers. For example, he cites the “corporatist” economic policies of Italy between the wars – in other words, during Mussolini’s fascist regime – as a source and exemplar of Continental economics. He just throws it out as an aside, without bothering to elaborate on it, so you have to be alert to catch it. There is no doubt Phelps is aware of the word’s history. For another example, he mentions (but does not develop) another answer to Rawls’s ethical formulation, distinct from Nozick’s. Tolle, lege.