It has often befuddled me as to why people win the Nobel Prize. I do understand the solid contributions in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine. Literature - some understanding.
The two areas that truly baffle me are the Nobel Peace Prize and the Prize in Economic Sciences (which is not a Nobel Prize but a prize in memory of Alfred Nobel through the central bank of Sweden).
The Nobel Peace Prize - really? I am truly dense, but do not see the results of the Peace Prize. All I see are more wars and rumors of wars, just like the Bible says. Whereas in Chemistry, Physics and Medicine I can truly see what has been done and how it has furthered the knowledge of mankind in general.
In current history all I have witnessed for peace are the grandiose attempts that politicians make to say they are promoting peace when in fact they are only promoting their own agenda. That is fine for them, but I do not see why they need to be awarded a prestigious prize for doing so.
And what is Economic Science? "Contributions in this category have dealt largely with the analytical structures of theoretical economic models, often highlighting the formal similarity of these structures, and clarifying the conditions for consistency, equilibrium, stability and efficiency of the economic system. Often, these contributions also have included important comparative static experiments, i.e., analyses of how equilibrium positions change in response to changes in various exogenous factors (parameters)." ["The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1969-2007". Nobelprize.org. 11 Feb 2011http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/articles/lindbeck/index.html].
Okay!? What really confounds the issue for me is, it is really simple. If you have funds, you can spend them. If you don't have funds, you can't spend them. But then there is credit and it is the idea that you can borrow money you do not have to pay for things that you do not need that gives rise to economic gobbledygook speak. I know this is a simplistic way of viewing the study of economics but, really? When the general public had the idea that banks only loaned money to those that had money, the economy was a bit more stable. As the government stepped in and made it almost mandatory that people who had low incomes be given the chance to go into debt well above their means, the mortgage holders started having problems that snowballed and everyone expects the government to bail them out. It was, after all, the government that pushed them into it. Right? Wrong. It was greed that pushed them into it and expecting to not have any repercussions as the result of bad business decisions.
The law of supply and demand has been usurped by the governments desire to make everyone equal and have no one lose money. When the boll weevil devastated cotton crops, the government would have stepped in and subsidized the cotton growers. Instead, the cotton growers found a new crop that made them more money and was hardier - the lowly peanut. People become industrious and creative when faced with poverty or hunger, if they know there is no one to bail them out when the going gets tough.
I am not saying that people should not help one another, I am saying that the government needs to let things go their course and quit propping up failing endeavors.
Families lived on budgets for thousands of years. Even during the famine in Egypt, there was no government handout. GOD provided by giving Joseph the knowledge of what was to come and how to avoid everyone starving. The grain did not go for free. When the inhabitants ran out of money, they turned over a portion of their land.
As far as peace goes, there will be no peace until THE LORD returns and sets things right.
Shalom. Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.
No comments:
Post a Comment