Ben Schneider

John Maynard Keynes was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in the 1920s for writing “The Economic Consequences of the Peace”. Yet, despite being highly ranked by the advisor of the Nobel Committee and placed on the shortlist, he did not win. This column brings out previously unused archival material from the Nobel Committee in Oslo to explore why. The Committee tended to withhold the Prize when circumstances were too politically sensitive. Keynes, though praised and admired internationally, was likely politically too controversial to be chosen.

Lars Jonung examines archival material from the Nobel Committee in Oslo to understand why, despite being nominated three times in the 1920s, John Maynard Keynes did not win the Nobel Peace Prize for writing “The Economic Consequences of the Peace”.
cepr.org/voxeu/column...
#EconSky

This seems correct to me, but relies on the listener/third party also being able to distinguish between the two (and caring that there is a difference!)

There’s a mutual misunderstanding between the fields that don’t think in aggregates (history) and those that almost only do (economics). On one hand, compensation effects are real; on the other, someone else getting a new job doesn’t help an unemployed worker.

There are people on this website who think increases in labor productivity are necessarily bad for society 🤨

That…does not seem like a study that would sail through an IRB.

I’ve been a 🏈 fan since I was a kid, but at the start of every season, after ~7 months of not seeing it, my reaction is now invariably “this is incredibly dangerous and should not exist”.

I mentioned repeated subconcussive effects from heading elsewhere in this thread—the research on this isn’t as clear as for 🥊 and 🏈 , so far as I have seen.

Why would we expect the social/societal benefits of sports with high levels of head injuries ( 🏉, 🏈, 🥊) to be higher than others?

Baseball, much safer than boxing

“We need to find the positive effects of [behavior]” is not a compelling approach, I would say.

Concussive head impacts are damaging, the questions for action are: (1) can contact sports be suitably modified? (2) how dangerous are sub-concussive impacts (e.g. heading in ⚽️)?

Uh, there is quite a lot of evidence for this, even though effect sizes vary in the literature

I mean….

Not an epidemiologist, but I would think factors like the end of leaded gasoline would dominate changes in the rate of impact sport participation.

Crime is not monocausal?

Ayatollah Nepo Baby

🤨 @espncricinfo.com 🇦🇹?

It’s true, Starmer didn’t support Edward VIII or the Gallipoli invasion, and he didn’t oppose Indian independence.

I assume your rule of thumb is for the UK only?

Can we not take counsel with chatbots as we once did?

Signs of spring: the unforgettable smell of klister 🥲

They’re calling it The Art of the Deal

The NFF is an oddity in world football: it is a genuinely democratic emanation of its football. Should those motions be passed (which is likely), its president Lise Klaveness will be duty-bound to espouse them and confront Fifa - as she has done before.

More NFFs = no Infantino, simple as that.

And this is how unaccountable destruction is repeated. As soon as we can see the negative effects, it’s too late and nobody is interested in why things went wrong!

Technological Unemployment in the British Industrial Revolution: The Destruction of Hand-Spinning* Abstract. This article analyses the elimination of hand-spinning in Britain during the Industrial Revolution and shows that it produced large-scale technol

At the risk of being accused of self-promotion: academic.oup.com/past/article...

The flip side is that if one refuses to engage with counterfactuals, everything that happens is inevitable, the historian has nothing to explain, and can’t make any claims about causality.

The question of contingent work more generally is only partly related and more difficult to solve, including for reasons you mention.

The biggest funders are public bodies, and I would argue the current state of affairs is a clear policy failure: huge amounts of time input by applicants—but also administration and referees. Is there any evidence of an “increase in quality” that would justify these resources? I doubt it.

I don’t disagree on this, but I would put the onus on funders to improve their systems instead of applicants to give up their dream careers.

I guess I’m just reluctant to accept the initial framing (even though I myself have felt that way about some job and funding applications) because the system is set up to produce these outcomes.