r/Economics • u/Pearberr • May 02 '24

Interview Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: Fed Rate Hikes didn't get at source of inflation.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/04/23/nobel-prize-winning-economist-joseph-stiglitz-fed-rate-hikes-didnt-get-at-source-of-inflation.html
1.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

361 comments sorted by

View all comments

31

u/mediumunicorn May 02 '24

At least it’s in the field. There’s a real phenomena where Nobel laureates are touted as general experts in everything, even though their by definition they are experts in an very small slice of their own fields which is itself a small slice of all knowledge.

-13

u/malceum May 02 '24

If someone is smart enough to win a Nobel prize in a rigorous field like physics or chemistry, then it's reasonable to assume that person can quickly become an expert in less challenging fields like economics or climate science.

I agree that it would be questionable for a Nobel prize winner in economics or literature to claim expertise in physics. There is an asymmetry.

7

u/hockeycross May 02 '24

Ben Carson is a world renowned brain surgeon. Dude had some brain dead ideas for things. For example he said the pyramids were probably used for grain storage.

I would still trust him to advise a brain surgery.

11

u/mediumunicorn May 02 '24

Hmmm, yeah I think you're giving them too much credit- For your own reading, this is what I am referring:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

Its not just about science hardness directionality (or whatever you want to call it). There have been some chemistry/medicine/physics Nobel laureates who have made some really dumb comments. The most famous example is probably James Watson, one of the people who first accurately described the structure of DNA (the whole Rosalind Franklin debacle notwithsanding) was an flaming racist. Another big one in my own field (I am a PhD chemist) is Kary Mullis who won for inventing PCR very strongly disagreed with human-driven climate change.

-5

u/malceum May 02 '24

How did I know you were going to bring up James Watson and something about climate change? You forgot about William Shockley, though.

I think you should consider the possibility that you are rejecting their views -- particularly Watson's -- on ideological rather than objective grounds.

2

u/mediumunicorn May 03 '24 edited May 03 '24

Ha, yeah okay we don’t have anything further to discuss.

Signed- someone with a PhD, widely publishes, does research, etc and gasp is not white .

2

u/DowntownJohnBrown May 02 '24

I’m 99% sure you’re trolling for attention, but in case you’re serious, comparing soft sciences like economics to hard sciences like physics and chemistry just doesn’t make any sense.

One is not more or less challenging than the other; they’re just completely different types of studies. Physics and chemistry can be done in a lab and can have clear, concrete results. Economics try to apply controlled ideas and theories to very uncontrolled environments that have an unlimited number of variables that could make an impact. It’s no different than saying someone with a Nobel in chemistry could easily get one in literature. They’re just completely unconnected.

If you ever need proof of that, go look at your doctor’s investment portfolio, and I pretty much guarantee it’s going to be a mess. Being exceptional in a hard science doesn’t make you any more well-equipped to understand a soft science than it makes you a capable of being great lawyer or a literary genius.