The economics blogosphere is all a titter with the news that a dismal pseudoscientist at Columbia University named Edmund Phelps won the Sveriges Riksbank prize in economic pseudoscience in(sulting the) memory of Alfred Nobel.
Elmer Fudd's claim to fame? Trivial modifications and applications of existing theory. Edmund S. Phelps best known for his work on the trade-off between unemployment and inflation, won the Nobel prize for economics (more correctly the Swedish Bank prize). Phelps took the simple idea of the Phillips curve and extended it into the expectations-augmented Phillips curve.
I wasn't joking when I said (one year ago today) that the Bank of Sweden (a.k.a. Sveriges Riskbank) was a bigger threat to the long term well-being of the United States than al quaeda.
When I worked at NSF, Dan Newlon, the guy who has devoted his life to securing summer salary for as many overpaid dismal scientists as possible would practically be peeing in his pants with joy on the day the fauxbel prize was announced. He used it as an excuse to go lick the boots of the big shots up stairs (Rita Colwell and her sidekick Joe something) and brag that he'd funded the latest dismal pseudoscientist to win the fauxbel prize, not mentioning, that he funded the top 50% of economists for the last 25 years. How could he NOT have funded the fauxbel prize winner?
Why do American academics, who surely understand how arrogance, overconfidence and asperger's ridden departments of economics are (Larry Summers is the rule, not the exception folks!) put up with the disgusting annual ritual of reifying the dismal scientists even more?