Nobel Prize in Economics Awarded, But It Should Not Have Been, Prostate Testing Illustrates Imperfections, Great Advice from a Dead Texan, Conservative Mag Infiltrates Protests and Instigates Police Action and Then Obscures Roll

And Other News of the Recent Days

A Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded and here is the explanation of the folks who did the awarding in case anyone wants to know the how and why of the award.  It is not recommended that anyone read the citation, in fact the recommendation of The Dismal Political Economist is that no Nobel in Economics should have been awarded this year and none should be awarded for the immediate future.

This is not to disparage the work of the winners, Thomas J. Sargent and Christopher A. Sims, but to recognize that a science that has led to the current state of economics affairs is in no way deserving of a Nobel Prize category.  Currently the U. S. is in an economic decline that has lasted more than three years and shows no sign of going away, Europe is on the brink of at least a minor and maybe a major economic collapse, Japan ‘s Lost Decade is now at least 15 years old and economic policy to change these things is non-existent.

The major policy thrust for dealing with Greece is to destroy country thousands of years old in the name of saving it.  And only a few of the members of the Economics Profession are up in arms about this.  So the best thing the Nobel people could do right now is to tell the Economics profession that until it does better at what it is supposed to be doing, it gets nothing from  them.

It has nothing to do with Economics, but the recent recommendation that testing for Prostate Cancer using the PSA blood test may do more harm than good illustrates the basic tenet of Economics.  That tenet is that there are tradeoffs, that no action or decision is all bad or all good. 

This week, the United States Preventive Services Task Force is expected to announce its recommendation against routine testing for blood levels of prostate-specific antigen, the protein that can be a signal of prostate cancer. The panel says research shows that over all, the test does not save lives and leads to unnecessary surgery and radiation treatment for slow-growing cancers that would never have caused harm. As for faster-growing, invasive cancers, there’s no proof that P.S.A. tests and earlier treatment offer any overall benefit.

The point is that while some people will be helped, others will be harmed by having to undergo destructive therapy that was not necessary.  This is the way in economic policy, some will be helped and others will be harmed.  That is why it is so difficult.

Remember when the head of Netflix arrogantly said that he was not going to change his decision to separate out the streaming of videos from the delivery of CD’s.    Well after the market reacted this way

The decision made the Silicon Valley company a target of anger and ridicule. Late night comedians made fun of the company’s decision. Customers started Facebook pages aimed at encouraging users to quit the service.

The stock lost about half its value and fell to a one-year low of $107. Hastings warned investors last month that the company — which has 24 million subscribers — would lose 1 million users due to the changes.

Guess who changed his mind.

Bill Keller, who was formerly in charge of the New York Times is now writing a column for the op/ed page, and his column on the status of the Republican race for the party’s Presidential nomination ends with this

The rest of us are left to recall the advice handed down 10 years ago by the late, wisecracking Cassandra of Texas politics, Molly Ivins: “Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention.”

In the classic book on government control, 1984 there is a methodology to change history.  When something in the past conflicts with the present positions, the past is obliterated.  A radical influential  conservative magazine, the American Spectator did just such a thing.

Patrick Howley, an assistant editor at the American Spectator, wrote over the weekend that he had infiltrated the protest group in order to discredit it. He said: "As far as anyone knew I was part of this cause — a cause that I had infiltrated the day before in order to mock and undermine in the pages of the American Spectator — and I wasn't giving up before I had my story."

But having a journalist infiltrate a group, cause the group to come under attack by police in order to discredit the group and write a story about how the group behaves is just not journalism.  So after the writer penned the above words

The magazine appears to have taken down the story, although it has been reported in the Washington Post and on the Firedoglake and Daily Kos blogs.

Removed from the new story is any mention of Howley's motive to "mock and undermine" the protesters, or his disdain for their "lack of nerve". Instead, he says his involvement was intended for journalistic purposes, and that he rushed inside the museum "to find a place to observe."

changing the facts he reported earlier that he rushed into the Smithsonian to provoke a police attack on the group.

An unconfirmed report from Fox News stated that Fox News thinks this is exactly the way stories are supposed to be created, and said they saw this action as the height of ethics in journalism.