Military Review

The analytical program "However," with Mikhail Leontyev 16 October 2012

48


Nothing is more important today, at least for economics, of what is happening in the global economy. It would seem that it would be for the research in this area and for the prediction of the consequences and results that the Nobel Prizes in economics would have to be presented. And for what else? The Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Americans Alvin Roth from Harvard and Lloyd Shapley from the University of California for developing mathematical models for the distribution of a limited number of resources among users. For example, Roth optimally distributed students to schools in New York and brought kidney donors to those who needed them. Shepli contributed to the optimization of winnings between players in the theory of cooperative games. Both winners are known for their contribution to "game theory," which has more to do with mathematics than economics.

Games are very exciting and even useful. However, these applied models have nothing to do with economics, with “cognition of processes”. It seems that the Nobel community, that is, the modern economic establishment, generally denies the knowability of the economy. That is, economics as a science. In any manifestations.

On the eve, American Robert Schiller, one of those who is believed to have predicted the current crisis, was called the winner by the title of laureate. In fact, Schiller really predicted the collapse of the IT bubble in 2000, and the mortgage bubble in 2008.

Schiller - the famous bubble. However, no one in a hurry to grab it. Even like a straw. Although nothing such fundamental he - God forbid! - did not open. Just correctly counts and predicts. And he was asked? Who was his tongue at all? And even more so, no one asked the fundamental economic theories describing the essence and development of the current crisis.

"Any person who received this award is considered a knight without fear and reproach who never makes mistakes. However, the trouble is that if you give the Nobel Prize in economics to anyone who deals with the nature of the crisis, then almost automatically this look the nature of the crisis will be the only true one. And if there is only one right opinion, it means that someone is to blame for the fact that the crisis went according to this scenario. And often, accordingly, someone needs to be punished for that. thing x TJT avoid all the officials - that the research that the public ", - says the economist Mikhail Khazin.

In fact, these ridiculous Nobel prizes are the suicide of modern Western model economics. Self-shot. The worst evidence of the crisis than even macroeconomic indicators. However, there are worse things: the Nobel Peace Prize awarded this year to the European Union. For what? Obviously, for the fact that impotence in overcoming European problems has not yet led to war. At least in Europe. This is really a great merit.
Originator:
http://www.1tv.ru
48 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 17 October 2012 09: 18
    +17
    Michael this time announced in amusing form the whole nature of the Nobel Prize. In fact, the Nobel Prize from the category of leading achievement in applied sciences has slipped into a banal distributor of grants for purposeful licking of arrogant-Saxon backsides and betrayal of their peoples in favor of arrogant-Saxons.
    1. Uncle Serozha
      Uncle Serozha 17 October 2012 09: 29
      +13
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      The Nobel Prize from the category of leading achievement in the applied sciences, has slipped to the banal distributor of grants for the purposeful licking of arrogant-Saxon backsides


      The Americans themselves have long understood the value of this "economic science". American anecdote on the crisis:

      One economist asks another:
      “Do you understand what is going on?”
      - Now I will explain everything to you ...
      - Yes, I can explain it to you myself, I ask YOU UNDERSTAND ???
    2. vezunchik
      vezunchik 17 October 2012 10: 25
      +3
      it is "muck" !!! well said
    3. dimanf
      dimanf 17 October 2012 11: 14
      -4
      The prize has long been a tool of politics.

      Essential Question:
      Why is Mr. Leontiev afraid to talk about internal problems: the reform of education, healthcare, etc.?
      Where is his civic position?
      Or are these issues not so important?
      In his reviews, he only smacks of pin dosov!
      1. baltika-18
        baltika-18 17 October 2012 11: 32
        -2
        Quote: dimanf
        Why is Mr. Leontiev afraid to talk about internal problems: the reform of education, healthcare, etc.?

        On the first channel probably would not be allowed.
        1. mongoose
          mongoose 17 October 2012 13: 03
          -2
          no matter what the topic, but the fans are always ready! for how much has it sold?
          1. baltika-18
            baltika-18 17 October 2012 15: 57
            0
            Quote: mongoose
            no matter what the topic, but the fans are always ready! for how much has it sold?

            Are you Dima to whom? If to me, then turn to you, I will answer you. If not, then I just call for a polite treatment.
      2. Nick
        Nick 17 October 2012 15: 29
        +3
        Quote: dimanf
        Why is Mr. Leontiev afraid to talk about internal problems: the reform of education, healthcare, etc.?
        Where is his civic position?
        Or are these issues not so important?

        The questions are absolutely demagogic. I'll ask you the same ...
        Why do you sit on the site and write demagogic comments? Why aren’t you going to clean the street from the streets instead? Where is your citizenship? Or are street cleaning issues not so important?
        1. V. Salama
          V. Salama 17 October 2012 16: 00
          0
          Quote: Nick
          Why do you sit on the site and write demagogic comments? Why aren’t you going to clean the street from the streets instead? Where is your citizenship? Or are street cleaning issues not so important?

          Nothing personal. I am just collecting arguments of this kind: why, instead of cormorant here, we are not going to "sweep the streets", "modernize the economy", "increase labor productivity", "increase the share of the contribution of science-intensive products to GDP." But I would also like to understand your position (motivation). Is it really our civic position - to sit and not blather with our assessments of those services, the consumers of which we all are and the results of which are directly or indirectly related to the quality of our life?
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 17 October 2012 19: 57
            +1
            Quote: V. Salama
            Is it really our civic position is to sit and not blather with your ratings of those services

            Hm.
            Quote: V. Salama
            our
            ?
            Here is what I hate to endure, these are statements from a kind of collective: We, Ours.
            Pure attempts to give weight to your statements.
            1. V. Salama
              V. Salama 18 October 2012 11: 28
              0
              Quote: Cynic
              Pure attempts to give weight to your statements.
              And did you try to delve into the meaning of the statement? In addition (according to the context), I present my thought from the standpoint of my own and dimanf, in relation to which I acted, to put it mildly, not entirely tactfully. So there are already two of us, and this is "we" and the position will be called "our".

              And about "our" you, apparently, still will not please you, if you characterize you by your arguments - "pure attempts to give weight to your statements", I will say "my" position - declare that I suffer from conceit. So I am not happy with such unproductive communication - I do not see anything useful for myself and there is nothing to learn from you.
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 18 October 2012 16: 59
                +1
                Quote: V. Salama
                I don’t see anything useful for myself and there’s nothing to learn from you.

                You can only learn cynicism from the Cynic!

                Quote: V. Salama
                dimanf, in relation to which they acted, to say the least, not entirely tactfully. So there are already two of us, and this is "we" and the position will be called "our".

                Yes, in a sense, you are right to call a spade a spade in the eye for some reason in Russia, in certain sections of society, is considered tactless / indecent.
                Yes:
                Also say:
                My name is legion

                And yet, I apologize in advance for some reason, by some very unclear association, it has surfaced;
                We are two acrobat brothers, one is Scrap, the other is Shovel!
                1. V. Salama
                  V. Salama 19 October 2012 13: 16
                  0
                  Quote: Cynic
                  You can only learn cynicism from the Cynic!
                  This is not true, you are deceiving yourself, hiding behind a nickname. Otherwise, you can hardly explain, even to yourself, for what purpose write your comments. I could try to justify it, but it is long and perhaps uninteresting. The truth of any statement is relative, depending on the speaker’s position and situation. So, when I argued that “there is nothing to learn from you,” this related to a specific situation.
                  Quote: Cynic
                  Yes, in a sense, you are right to call a spade a spade in the eye for some reason in Russia, in certain sections of society, is considered tactless / indecent.

                  Well, here I see a number of aspects in the heap and I will try to answer your "why" by breaking the problem into a number of components:
                  1. A friend of mine talks to the Japanese on their forum. Admired that the phrase "I am not happy about this topic" is their highest degree of negative attitude towards the opponent, which they consider permissible to allow themselves. I try to take an example from them, so as not to upset my interlocutor in purely Russian language to the very impossibility (I don’t know if it’s true for how long I’ll last). Do you think this is wrong? Formally, things are not called by their proper names either.
                  2. As for the "dimanf, in relation to which they acted, to put it mildly, not quite tactfully", then calling a spade a spade, it should be said that in relation to it rudeness has been manifested, which remains rudeness, regardless of the form of presentation. But in this case, no communication is supposed with a person who allows this (given how this person should be called). But maybe this person just does not understand what his words mean for various reasons, emotional arousal as a reaction to injustice in his opinion, for example. Probably need to be kinder to people? Or do you think this is also wrong?
                  3. Indeed, in some corporate ethics it is considered non-tactful / indecent to use the pronoun “I” in certain situations, for this there are various tricks. So, for example, an applicant for a degree, speaking with reports of the results of his work instead of: “has been developed” would rather say “we have developed” than “I have developed”. And this is not “pure attempts to give weight to your statements” as you think, but a tribute to those people whose work results are the basis of the dissertation work (he didn’t absorb the initial scientific knowledge with his mother’s milk) and his staff who inevitably spend certain efforts in his work. This personality quality is achieved by appropriate educational influences of senior members of the scientific community. Sometimes, due to professional deformations, this habit is preserved and transferred to the household level, but it’s more correct to perceive it as a person’s desire to be tactful and not be too biased.
                  What I am writing about now, in general, is united by the concept of “morality,” which you must ignore as a Cynic if you position this name as a characteristic of your inner essence, but it would be more correct before denying something, in which to sort it out to the utmost. Otherwise, inevitably, disappointment awaits you at certain stages of your life path.
                  1. V. Salama
                    V. Salama 19 October 2012 13: 20
                    0
                    Quote: Cynic
                    Yes: Also say: My name is Legion
                    Here, if you call a spade a spade, you didn’t think a little because of the inertia of thinking, because I had justified earlier why I used “ours” in the sentence “Is it really our civic position to sit and not blather with your assessments ...”. I don’t even know how to round a topic shorter here? Suppose I replace "ours" with "I". This is what happens - only I should sit and not blather .... Why is this discrimination ...? It looks illogical somehow, and it will be wrong to sharpen others to the level of your intelligence.
                    Quote: Cynic
                    .. why then, for some very obscure association, surfaced; We are two acrobat brothers, one is Scrap, the other is Shovel!
                    Well, everything is simple, you just need to analyze the motivation. But I probably do not have the moral right to comment on this, since I am not a professional psychoanalyst, and it is not ethical to do this analysis publicly, albeit in relation to the Cynic. Let this be your self-study assignment. Begin by understanding the concept: “motive” is an internal, psychological, conscious or unconscious motivating source of human actions, giving them purposefulness and supporting their activity.
                    1. Cynic
                      Cynic 19 October 2012 19: 51
                      0
                      Quote: V. Salama
                      Well, everything is simple, you just need to analyze the motivation.

                      Yeah: hard childhood dry bread mold cheese.
                      Dear opponent, do not you think that we are more than excessively removed from the topic?
                      Quote: V. Salama
                      I don’t even know how to round a topic shorter here?

                      Here, too, have difficulty.
                      The most interesting thing is that our discussion with you arose from scratch due to the fact that:
                      one kid started a bazaar out of business, and then he moved off the topic and did not begin to answer for an empty bazaar.
                      And it turned out that you are responsible for the empty bazaar.
                      1. V. Salama
                        V. Salama 20 October 2012 15: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Cynic
                        Dear opponent, do not you think that we are more than excessively removed from the topic?
                        Since everything in this world is interconnected, I would call it that - we have expanded the subject under discussion, by the way, on your initiative. I could not just assume that your "why" are words of parasites. I interpreted your phrases literally and tried to answer "unclear ...", "why that". You didn’t write into emptiness and expected a reaction to your thoughts, I think.
                        "... round off the topic shortly" - I admit, it's my fault. Incorrectly expressed and was misunderstood - did not mean our entire conversation, but only that non-objective part of it. But in principle, rounding off the conversation, probably, should not be a problem in choosing a method: you can "in Japanese", you can "in English" or "in Russian." At least there is no obligation here. If I'm wrong, tell me, maybe the forum has its own corporate ethics, which I don't know about.
                        Regarding the "hard childhood, dry bread, mold cheese," they were offended in vain, least of all wanted it. But you must admit that I was forced to make it clear to the interlocutor that there are things that should and may not go unpunished, as he, to put it mildly, "more than excessively removed from the topic."
                        Regarding the fact that “our discussion with you arose from scratch due to the fact that:
                        one kid started the bazaar not in the case, and then he moved off the topic and didn’t keep the answer for an empty bazaar. Nothing arises on its own, everything needs a reason, and if we don’t realize this reason (our need) ourselves (remember the definition of the term “motive), then this is our tragedy, and often a problem for others. The "Boy", in principle, reacted normally, I already on the page justified my opinion on this matter. Of course, it is assumed that if you got out with your opinion, then be ready to defend it, and he "moved off the topic ...". But he can be understood, in this situation his reaction is quite normal - he simply appreciated the qualities of his opponents (who demonstrated them themselves intensively) as incapable of a productive conversation. It is a reasonable decision.
                        I myself do not think very reasonable and I got into the discussion due to the fact that she was hurt by a clear injustice. Well, for what reason did you react to me to judge you.
                      2. Cynic
                        Cynic 20 October 2012 17: 39
                        0
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        he simply appreciated the qualities of opponents

                        Thanks for the compliment .
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        But it can be understood

                        Sorry, but the correct interpretation / motivation of the post dimanf :
                        The main thing is to crow and there, though do not dawn
                        Chimebox.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        own corporate ethics

                        Ethics is the same everywhere, discuss the topic under discussion.
                        For those who argue for the sake of argument, there is such a form of organizing Internet forums as a flame. Social networks, for example, but where they discuss knitting, they will not joyfully meet someone who wants to discuss embroidery.
                        Quote: V. Salama
                        “Hard childhood, dry bread, mold cheese,” they were wronged,

                        Mmmm? laughing
                        I didn’t imagine that such a common joke was not known to you.
                        Sorry, but it’s really time.
                        As the saying goes: To the rage!
                      3. V. Salama
                        V. Salama 22 October 2012 11: 03
                        0
                        Quote: Cynic
                        Thanks for the compliment .
                        I just didn’t believe it, and now I don’t believe that your mask reflects your essence and turned just like an opponent.

                        Quote: Cynic
                        ... correct interpretation / motivation of the post dimanf:
                        The main thing is to crow and there, though do not dawn
                        This could be argued in the event that he was clearly formulated what they want to hear from him or what they think of him, and after that he "dumped from the topic", then it would be fair to say that "the boy is not responsible for the market." And so, everything turns out unfounded.
                        Quote: Cynic
                        .... argues for the sake of argument ... ... where they discuss knitting, they will not joyfully meet someone who wants to discuss embroidery.
                        I can’t take it to my account, unfairly, following the parcels of opponents.

                        Quote: Cynic
                        I didn’t imagine that such a common joke was not known to you.
                        I admit, I’m not known, so sorry for the misunderstanding. To the pobobcheniya!
                  2. Cynic
                    Cynic 19 October 2012 19: 30
                    0
                    Quote: V. Salama
                    united by the concept of "morality", which you must ignore as a cynic

                    Denial of negation. Law.
                    wink
                    1. V. Salama
                      V. Salama 20 October 2012 14: 14
                      0
                      Quote: Cynic
                      Denial of negation. Law.
                      Yes, but this is the law of dialectics - development, which implies the emergence of a new one, and not just denial for the sake of denial. However, there is an important nuance: development can be either with a sign (+) - progress, or with a sign (-) - regression, degradation, so everything develops in the end, but it is not always good.
          2. arkady149
            arkady149 17 October 2012 22: 06
            +1
            Well, why? About 30-40 minutes ago I made an attempt to improve the demographic situation.
          3. Nick
            Nick 17 October 2012 23: 33
            0
            Quote: V. Salama
            But I would also like to understand your position (motivation).

            What is incomprehensible? Leontiev prepared the program. Prepared, from my point of view, well, briefly, but succinctly and informatively, without "water" and unnecessary fancy. And demagogues, using questions such as "if he is so smart, then why does he not go in formation?" trying to discredit his work, and even M. Leontiev himself.
            Nothing personal...
            1. V. Salama
              V. Salama 18 October 2012 13: 34
              0
              Quote: Nick
              Leontiev prepared the program. Prepared, from my point of view, well, briefly, but succinctly and informatively, without "water" and unnecessary cleverness. And demagogues, using questions like "if he is so smart, then what does he not go in formation?" they are trying to discredit his work, and even M. Leontyev himself.

              I understood your position normally, now everything is clearly explained. I will try to clarify my:
              In economic theory, there are two main branches that are radically different from each other: Marxist political economy and Western economic science or “economics”. Although there are certain discoveries that claim to be something third, and even awarded the Nobel Prize (Thomas Sarget and Christopher Sims), this still does not attract a holistic economic theory.
              Like any branches of knowledge, political economy and economics differ from each other in a specific subject of research, a set of specific research methods and a specific conceptual apparatus. Leontyev’s material seemed to me, so to speak, somewhat strange, in that he expounds it from the standpoint of the needs of some obscure “economic theory”, “economics as a science”, should he not know that “mathematical models of the distribution of a limited number of resources between users ”,“ catastrophe theory ”and“ theory of operations research ”(cooperative games in particular) are the methods of economics, and it is quite natural if for their development someone is awarded the Nobel Prize.
              Regarding "these ridiculous Nobel Prizes are the suicide of modern model Western economics", should he not know that prizes (degrees) are awarded for obtaining a certain set of results (in the field of urgent problems) that contribute to both science and practice, and even more so providing a significant economic effect. Which, quite obviously, is extremely important and relevant for the crisis economic situation in the West. But here Leontyev is unfounded ("without" water "and unnecessary cleverness"), does not analyze and is "uninformative", while creating the impression that "modern model Western economic science" in the worst case of its application is not incorporated into the creation of the Russian economy (allegedly we have our own "economy as a science"). Here I cannot understand to whom this material is addressed, what purpose it pursues by this means, if it criticizes (explains) something important, then why is it so unconvincing in argumentation.
              Concerning “there are things worse”: the Nobel Peace Prize awarded this year to the European Union. For what?" But this is a banality, an unworthy pen of a master - it is no secret to anyone who orders music on the Nobel Committee. You can still remember Obama and Solzhenitsyn.
              I recall Leontyev’s fair statements, I quote: “There are no independent journalists, because there are no neutral consumers of information”, as well as his other thoughts (I generalize because I do not remember literally) like: those ideas that are being introduced into the mass consciousness are subject to strict control, since they trigger relevant processes in society. So, precisely this, in view of the foregoing, allows Leontiev to be suspected of either insincerity or in an attempt at multi-way manipulation of consciousness with hidden goals. This opinion (I hope I have the right to express it) has developed among me and, as I understand it, with dimanf. Perhaps I’m too demanding on the author, but I’m not trying to discredit anyone, because you can’t discredit nonsense, and you can always refute a lie, point out errors, and do not pretend to be the ultimate truth.
              1. Nick
                Nick 18 October 2012 21: 34
                0
                Quote: V. Salama
                So, precisely this, in view of the foregoing, allows Leontiev to be suspected of either insincerity or in an attempt at multi-way manipulation of consciousness with hidden goals. This opinion (I hope I have the right to express it) has developed among me and, as I understand it, with dimanf.

                Everything is clear with your opinion, you expressed it, although you let a lot of "fog", but the dimanf did not express his opinion, he just asked demagogic questions! Read his comment again! You are just wishful thinking.
                As for your statements about the attitude to the economy of “mathematical models of the distribution of a limited number of resources between users” and “theory of operations research”, it’s completely clear to me - they are, rather, achievements in the field of mathematical sciences that can be used, among other things, in economics , as well as in other areas ...
                Leonteva outraged the approach of the Nobel Committee to award prizes in the field of economics, he also explained:
                Games are very exciting and even useful. However, these applied models have nothing to do with economics, with “cognition of processes”. It seems that the Nobel community, that is, the modern economic establishment, generally denies the knowability of the economy. That is, economics as a science. In any manifestations.
                On the eve, American Robert Schiller, one of those who is believed to have predicted the current crisis, was called the winner by the title of laureate. In fact, Schiller really predicted the collapse of the IT bubble in 2000, and the mortgage bubble in 2008.
                Schiller - the famous bubble. However, no one in a hurry to grab it. Even like a straw. Although nothing such fundamental he - God forbid! - did not open. Just correctly counts and predicts. And he was asked? Who was his tongue at all? And even more so, no one asked the fundamental economic theories describing the essence and development of the current crisis.

                And you must admit, Leontiev also has the right to express his opinion ...
                1. V. Salama
                  V. Salama 19 October 2012 16: 19
                  0
                  I tried hard not to “let the fog”, perhaps I was incomprehensible, because of the desire to be concise, but I’m ready to justify any of my vague statements. I believe that I was extremely attentive and meticulous in relation to what was written, both by Leontyev and dimanf, to which you are unfair and inattentive. So, I will try again:
                  In economic theory, there are two main directions: Marxist political economy and “economics”. Other directions for a holistic economic theory cannot yet claim this. Talking abstractly about “economics as a science” or “economic theory”, not deciding on a position, is cunning, because “mathematical models of the distribution of a limited number of resources between users”, “catastrophe theory” and “theory of operations research” (cooperative games in particular) like “achievements in the field of mathematical sciences”, they are “economics” methods, they determine its main content and Leontyev’s converse statements, as well as your ideas on this subject are false. In turn, these my statements are key in our case. If they are false, which is quite possible (I am not an economist by education and my knowledge in this area could become outdated) then I will be wrong. And the “economics” was awarded the Nobel Prize in the field; there they do not recognize another science.
                  Leontief’s following statement: “It seems that the Nobel community, that is, the modern economic establishment, generally denies the cognizability of the economy. That is, economics as a science. In any manifestation, it’s a double craftiness, designed for domestic consumption. It turns out that we are climbing into a strange monastery with our “Marxist-Leninist” teaching, the existence of which we ourselves openly deny.
                  Robert Schiller is one of the main candidates for the Nobel Prize, but which was unexpectedly thrown to everyone. Why? Khazin explained normally, his gaze quite convincing. But what Leontyev says about this causes a feeling of shame for the master: “Although he is nothing so fundamental, God forbid! - did not open. Just correctly considers and predicts. ” The fact is that the main tasks of any science are analysis, synthesis and forecast. Thus, Leont'ev admits that the results of R. Schiller’s work are literally scientific, but nevertheless derogates from “Although he didn’t discover anything so fundamental”. In political economy, in principle, there can be no fundamental discoveries; it is based on objective laws revealed by other branches of knowledge, and even more so in the “economics”.
                  And the phrase “And he was asked? Who was pulling his tongue at all? And even more so, no one asked for fundamental economic theories describing the essence and development of the current crisis ”in general seems to be spiteful. Schiller that should ask someone in which direction he should conduct scientific development. It depends on the allocated grants and his personal desire.
                  1. V. Salama
                    V. Salama 19 October 2012 16: 30
                    0
                    At the expense of "malice" must explain. Here Leontiev is simply overly emotional commenting on Khazin and speaks as if on behalf of the Western political elite. Since I have no right to believe that here he is putting his personal withdrawal into this emotion, I am ready to admit that I am wrong here.

                    If everything that I wrote here is considered insignificant, then regardless of whether I am right or wrong, what remains in the asset? What remains is what dimanf is hooked on.
                    Regarding the injustice to dimanf: I think that I do not give out “wishful thinking” because he showed a normal reaction of a normal person to the material under discussion, which logically follows from its content. Here I focus on my own feelings, which were similar and arose immediately after reading this material. Of course, my justification will look weak and far-fetched, because I am forced to interpret the thoughts of another person in order to confirm my statements, but any analogy (as a logical device) is inevitably weak and does not correspond 100% to the analogy of which is presented. dimanf with easy spontaneity cut off all the insignificant by grasping the very essence of the article. A key statement of his opinion is at the very beginning of the comment: "The prize has long been a tool of politics." With this phrase, he summarized the whole article, agreeing with the author and at the same time expressing bewilderment with his obvious banality - why did this suddenly a smart person from scratch set up a storm in a glass of water, everything is obvious so long ago, could there really be no more relevant topic. Further, he, even if incorrectly, used a technique acceptable in rhetoric by formulating questions that are called, in this case, not “demagogic”, but “rhetorical,” that is, not suggesting an answer to them, but only expressing their attitude to the subject of discussion ( and in this case to the author of the material under discussion).

                    And the last: Leontiev not only “has the right to express his opinion ...”, he is obliged to express his opinion, he has such a job. And our common sense and instinct for self-preservation should oblige us not to “create an idol” and be critical of representatives of power, which in essence is Leontyev (the media is the fourth power, and power is the ability to influence people's behavior) otherwise problems will inevitably arise.
                    1. Cynic
                      Cynic 19 October 2012 19: 55
                      +1
                      "No one is so intolerant of dissidents as an intellectual who is fiercely convinced that only he thinks, and all the others, at least all who disagree with him, are stupid brutes."
                      1. V. Salama
                        V. Salama 20 October 2012 16: 24
                        0

                        Cynic: "No one is so intolerant of dissidents as an intellectual who is fiercely convinced that only he thinks, and all the others, at least all those who disagree with him, are stupid brutes.",
                        In vain you are, this is clearly not our case. Absolutely contrived and unfounded. He did not give a reason, although he may know better from the side, and "everyone is free to look for a cat in a dark room, even if it is not there." Since there is no evidence or justification for this statement, I have to interpret this analogy literally and, of course, I would have to refute it on all points (I can’t know if everything concerns me here or just some part), but I won’t, because I’m thinking I didn’t bother anyone and I did not shut my mouth. If my beliefs are false, then it is necessary to refute them reasonably. If where wrong - tell me, do not consider it difficult to formulate a claim and justify it at least minimally.
                  2. Nick
                    Nick 20 October 2012 17: 40
                    +1
                    Quote: V. Salama
                    I tried hard not to “let the fog”, perhaps I was incomprehensible, because of the desire to be concise, but I’m ready to justify any of my vague statements. I believe that I was extremely attentive and meticulous in relation to what was written, both by Leontyev and dimanf, to which you are unfair and inattentive. So, I will try again:

                    Let's stop this useless discussion.
                    1. V. Salama
                      V. Salama 22 October 2012 10: 35
                      0
                      Quote: Nick
                      Let's stop this useless discussion.

                      Well, I’m stopping, but you were even very useful to me, if only because you just let me know that I turned out to be tactless towards you. I will be more attentive to myself and apologize.
      3. Cynic
        Cynic 17 October 2012 19: 47
        +2
        Quote: dimanf
        Why is Mr. Leontiev afraid to talk about internal problems: the reform of education, healthcare, etc.?

        Apparently afraid of competition.
        By the way, judging by the statement You have to say .
        So, what is your short article waiting here on the forum?
      4. Ziksura
        Ziksura 17 October 2012 20: 39
        +2
        Quote: dimanf
        Why is Mr. Leontiev afraid to talk about internal problems: the reform of education, healthcare, etc.?

        White tape stupor of logic? What does the Nobel Prize and internal Russian reforms have to do with it? What is the logical connection? What is the report about?

        An old trick. What do not talk about always cry: "We are not talking about that !!!! It is necessary about ......" You start talking about "about ......." the cry is repeated only "about ....." other ... And so on ad infinitum. Under this sauce, an information field was created for the collapse of the Union. I remember that very well. I even remember about this at that time there was a monologue from one of the satirists.
        It is a pity that others have a short memory. Or just years are not enough.
    4. alexng
      alexng 17 October 2012 13: 03
      +3
      Nobel probably spins in a coffin.
      The Nobel Prize has become the Gnobel Prize.
  2. andrei332809
    andrei332809 17 October 2012 09: 22
    +6
    The Nobel Prize in economics should be given to those who can make the owners and close FRS make everything printed work.
    and so, too politics has wedged into all areas. starting with sports and ending with science
  3. Goga
    Goga 17 October 2012 09: 23
    +2
    Yes, it would be something to worry about, "Nobel Prize" tongue - and so it is known to whom and how it is now "distributed", the only thing that B.Kh. Obama is a Peace Prize Laureate!?!? talks about how these guys approach such questions (or about the fact that good smoking mixtures are brought to Scandinavia especially for this committee) bully
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 17 October 2012 09: 37
      +4
      Quote: Gogh
      and so it is known to whom and how it is now "distributed", one thing is that B.Kh. Obama is a Peace Prize Laureate!?!?

      Hi Igor, such a feeling that Obama himself distributes them laughing
      1. Goga
        Goga 18 October 2012 03: 00
        +1
        Alexander Romanov - Greetings, Alexander, - a quote - "... Obama himself distributes them ..." - and he himself gets pleasure from this ... this process is called onan ---, however ... fellow
  4. Leisure
    Leisure 17 October 2012 09: 51
    +7
    The award has become a laughing stock. The validity of its award will remain on the conscience of the Nobel Committee, and soon, the Nobel and Shnobel Prizes will be little distinguishable from each other.
    1. Big lexey
      Big lexey 17 October 2012 11: 46
      +7
      Quote: Lazer
      The award has become a laughing stock. The validity of its award will remain on the conscience of the Nobel Committee, and soon, the Nobel and Shnobel Prizes will be little distinguishable from each other.

      I think that the 2013 Shnobel Prize should be awarded to the 2012 Nobel Committee for having fun and reckless spending of funds from the Nobel Fund.
      And to be honest, it’s not even funny ... Some nominations are already politically biased so much that the whole value and prestige of this award is completely leveled.
      1. TULSKIY CAMOBAP
        TULSKIY CAMOBAP 17 October 2012 20: 29
        +1
        BigLexey 5+, there can be no question of any prestige of the Nobel Prize, and Obama started with the Peace Prize.
  5. mnegda783
    mnegda783 17 October 2012 10: 02
    0
    ***
    SITE of adult girls
    for adult boys
    ***
    .......... http://microurl.ru/minNET
  6. Trailer
    Trailer 17 October 2012 10: 05
    +7
    2001
    UN
    "For his contribution to creating a more organized world and strengthening world peace."
    Kofi Annan

    Yes, that gene. sec, which allowed the massacre in Yugoslavia and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.



    2002
    Jimmy Carter
    “For my efforts to peacefully resolve conflicts around the world and fight for human rights.”

    This man can be safely considered the founding father of modern American politics: "On January 23, 1980, Jimmy Carter delivered the annual State of the Union Address, in which he announced a new foreign policy doctrine. The Gulf region was declared a zone of US interests, for the protection of which the United States are ready to use armed force. In accordance with the "Carter Doctrine", attempts by any power to establish control over the Persian Gulf region were previously declared by the American leadership as an encroachment on important US interests "

    2003
    Shirin Ebadi
    For his contribution to the development of democracy and the struggle for human rights, especially of women and children in Iran. ”

    And here the Iranians themselves got lost: “In various speeches after the announcement of her laureate, Ebadi emphasized her commitment to Islam and her patriotism. Thus, she spoke out against any foreign interference in Iran’s affairs, saying that the struggle for human rights should be waged in Iran by the Iranians themselves. [4] Ebadi also defended the Iranian nuclear program, stating that, “apart from economic feasibility, the development of nuclear power is a matter of pride for any people with a glorious history, and no Iranian government, regardless of its ideological sympathies, cannot stop this program. ”[] In November 2009, the Iranian authorities confiscated the Nobel Prize medal and diploma from the human rights defender. [6]
    7]. "


    2005
    IAEA
    “For efforts to prevent the use of atomic energy for military purposes and to ensure its peaceful use in the safest possible conditions.”
    Mohammed Al Baradei

    I found everything that the Americans needed in Iraq for their massacre!


    2008
    Martti Ahtisaari
    "For the important efforts in resolving international conflicts that he has made on several continents for three decades."

    Serbs still spit on him

    2009
    Barack Obama
    “For extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation among nations.”

    He wages three wars, prepares 4-th.

    2012
    The European Union
    "Over six decades of protecting human rights in Europe and a long-term role in unifying the continent."

    Greetings to you from sunny Yugoslavia and Libya, which have become the stronghold of the world given by Europe
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 17 October 2012 12: 53
      +4
      Trailer, a shitty little list, it’s possible to add Gorbachev here, who without a war destroyed the whole bloc and the country.
      1. Trailer
        Trailer 17 October 2012 13: 03
        +1
        In general, only those who are useful to Europe bring peace to the world!
        1. Ascetic
          Ascetic 17 October 2012 14: 12
          +7
          Quote: Karavan
          In general, only those who are useful to Europe bring peace to the world!


          The USSR was also useful to Europe, he "united" it
        2. Cynic
          Cynic 18 October 2012 16: 39
          0
          Quote: Karavan
          only those who are useful to Europe bring peace to the world!

          Nope.
          only those who are useful bring peace to the world certain individuals are not in Europe
          wink
  7. ronin
    ronin 17 October 2012 10: 47
    +2
    Soon the Pusks will be given the Nobel Prize in literature wassat
    1. arkady149
      arkady149 17 October 2012 22: 09
      0
      You still tell "kitties" the name of their mad vaginas !!!
  8. V. Salama
    V. Salama 17 October 2012 10: 53
    +6
    In 2011, the Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to Americans Thomas Sarget and Christopher Sims for discovering the processes of the influence of politics on the economy. The analysis methods they developed are used by politicians and economists around the world. However, if the contribution to the science of these Americans is so great and was recognized 30 years ago, only one thing remains unclear - why did they decide to mark them only now?
    The intrigue is that at that time, with the mouths of partners with the tacit consent of our fashionable economists, we were massively brainwashed that there is no such science (and cannot be) like political economy - this is "bullshit", but there is only one science is economics. And such a science is only in the West. They ruined education, produced economists (we have them in terms of per capita - like in no other country) and, as a result, we have our own flawed economy. Recently, nevertheless, they began to separate “political economy” and “economics”, but not everyone wants to - they will have to answer for the old “bazaar”. Yes, and the train left ... So now we pay the bills for our own stupidity or cunning?
  9. anchonsha
    anchonsha 17 October 2012 11: 33
    +2
    Apparently the inverted consciousness of all of us, different from the Nobel stewards, is why we do not understand their actions. Iran has long understood that the West, the United States will never let the Nobel beyond its interests, and therefore decided to create its own award for scientific achievements. It’s necessary to think of it - to give Nobel Obama in honor of his future work in the field of peaceful politics, the EU for what has done a lot in strengthening peace and as if the EU is not guilty of the war against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya
  10. vladimir64ss
    vladimir64ss 17 October 2012 16: 03
    0
    It is curious that in the West they also giggle about this, But they cannot stop. "" "" Announcing the award, the President of the Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, admitted that the European Union is currently facing serious financial problems and civil discontent "" " An award for discontent? Paranoia.
  11. Hard
    Hard 17 October 2012 18: 02
    +1
    ................
  12. Magadan
    Magadan 18 October 2012 04: 54
    0
    Everything is fine, but there is one big "BUT". Economy - it's not a damn science What kind of science is this, if there is nothing to prove it is possible and there are no historical examples of the correctness of this or that theory either. Would you say that the current Western economic model has proven itself? All that she proved is that gold, resources and other values ​​stolen from other nations can be launched into the united economy of several countries, create the appearance of success, then, under this appearance of success, print all kinds of bonds and now earn money through deception, after how he earned on the robbery. That's the whole secret of the "successful" Western model. Can you imagine how much gold was exported to the European economy by the Spaniards in 4 centuries? How many resources did England receive from the colonies, and then, through their banks, invested them in the economies of Europe and the United States? And how many human resources were used by the United States at the time of its formation. I mean black slaves. All European nations were robbed, except for the Scandinavians and Germany. Those are actually hard workers and they earned by production, exchanging their goods for the Inca gold plundered by the Spaniards.
    There you have the whole economy. For a long time Europe and the United States did not rob anyone, and so the crises began.