Why did the Nobel Laureate apologise ‘profusely’ ?
- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
He’s a Nobel-laureate economics genius known by the name of Professor Robert J. Aumann. He’s an aged and most wise guy. I asked him to make known his view of the thesis that money cannot measure the worth of a commodity. By ‘worth’, I meant the use-value (usefulness) of a commodity. A commodity has both use-value and exchange-value. The most basic distinction between them is the former is inexpressible in terms of money while the latter is always expressible in money terms.
The genius Nobel laureate is well aware of the most basic distinction between the two kinds of value of a commodity. He endorsed the correctness of my thesis and claimed that it was ‘ well known ‘*, and that ‘ It has been known for hundreds of years that the monetary value of an object does not measure its “intrinsic worth”, usually called its utility. ‘** Evidently, Professor Aumann prefers a different wording for this thesis.
The significance of the thesis happens to be the immediate corollary to it: the high or low price (market-price) of a commodity is not attributable to its use-value (‘ “intrinsic worth” ‘, as Professor Aumann put it ). Thus, a doctor’s or an engineer’s enviable income & lifestyle is Not justified on the grounds that they provide qualitatively better service (a sort of commodity) than nurses or ordinary workers do. Hence, it follows that the wealth & income disparity does Not owe its origin to the qualitative distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist & a copyist or between the different sorts of work different people do.
In his first message in response to my message asking him to comment on the significance of the thesis at issue, Professor Aumann just refused pointblank to oblige me: Professor Aumann ‘ feels that he has nothing further to say on the subject. ‘*** Thus read the message from his assistant. Evidently, the Nobel laureate chose to stay mute with clenched teeth on ‘ the subject ‘. The message from him contained nothing to give you an idea of what led him to adopt such an odd stance on the significance of the thesis at issue, and it’s implied that the genius economist were unwilling to welcome any further message from me on ‘ the subject ‘. Still, I sent him another message with a view to calling his attention to the gravity of ‘ the subject ‘.and thus persuading him to change his mind. This message contained the following points.
1. Nobel laureates are viewed as Great people by ordinary folks.
2. The thesis at issue and its significance is concerned with the staggering wealth & income disparity the innocent victims of which make up the 99% of humanity.
3. The thesis at issue and its significance are meant to awaken the deprived, the 99%, to the fact that they’re Not to blame for their pathetic plight really.
4. They’re also meant to awaken humanity to the fact that the evil of wealth & income inequality happens to be at the root of the greatest & gravest social INJUSTICE.
5. The wealth & income inequality and the greatest & gravest social INJUSTICE it engenders are unbecoming of the humanity of the Space age.
6. Humanity must rid itself of the twin evils (the wealth & income inequality and the greatest & gravest social INJUSTICE it engenders) if humanity wants to be civilised through and through.
7. Shying away from making known your stance on such a sensitive and serious issue is unbecoming of a Nobel laureate.
8. By shying away from making your views on ‘ the subject ‘ known, you deserve to be accused of a callous attitude towards the 99% of humanity.
9. Such behaviour as that of yours is in direct conflict with the Principle of healthy & meaningful living.
The Nobel laureate chose to stay unresponsive to this message from me, which fact moved me to send him another message in which I argued that since the thesis at issue ‘ has been known for hundreds of years ‘, its significance that happens to be the immediate corollary to it must have been known for ‘ hundreds of years ‘ too, and so I asked him to refer to some works containing it. The response to it came soon. It read as follows: ‘ Professor Aumann apologises profusely, but he must end this correspondence now. ‘****
Thus, it’s clear as day that the Nobel laureate is determined not to make known his stance on the significance of the thesis that he subscribes to, and that he won’t say a word to justify this bizarre behaviour of his. By reading between the lines, the sensible see that Professor Aumann’s silence (a perfect example of deafening silence) is Not in the least natural or naive. There certainly happens to exist something most serious behind this deafening silence, something that made the Nobelist economist apologise ‘ profusely ‘ to as humble a guy as me, an ordinary, unknown & practically nonentity. and the way he did it created the impression that he must be under a death threat from someone that was holding a gun to his head and threatened to pull the trigger if he dared to make his position on ‘ the subject ‘ known.
Why did he behave thus? My answer is not only is the Nobelist genius devoid of the backbone needed to utter the Truth, he’s also an embodiment of rank hypocrisy.
references:
* Prof. Aumann’s Office <aumann@mail.huji.ac.il> Oct 22, 2017 to Robert, me
Dear Mr. Prakash RP, Prof. Aumann thanks you for your message of yesterday. He certainly agrees that the monetary value of an object does not measure its “intrinsic worth,” which depends on the individual consumer, but he thinks that that is well known.
With best wishes,
Victoria Chvatal
…
http://www.math.huji.ac.il/raumannVictoria Chvatal
Temporary Assistant to Prof. Aumann
The Federmann Center for Rationality
The Hebrew University
Givat Ram Campus
Jerusalem 91904
Tel. +972-2-6586254
Fax. +972-2-6584863
http://www.math.huji.ac.il/raumann
** Prof. Aumann’s OfficeOct 24, 2017 to me, Robert
It has been known for hundreds of years that the monetary value of an object does not measure its “intrinsic worth”, usually called its utility. Prof. Aumann does not know who stated this thesis first. 2) It occurs, for example, in the following, first published almost 300 years ago:Bernoulli, Daniel; originally published in 1738; translated by Dr. Louise Sommer (January 1954). “Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk”. Econometrica. The Econometric Society. 22 (1): 22–36.
*** Prof. Aumann’s OfficeOct 30, 2017to me, raumann
Dear Mr. Prakash RP, Prof. Aumann thanks you for your message and apologises that he hasn’t answered to your previous e-mail; however, he feels that he has nothing further to say on the subject. He wishes you success with your research.
Regards,
Victoria Chvatal
…www.math.huji.ac.il/raumann
Victoria Chvatal
Temporary Assistant to Prof. Aumann
The Federmann Center for Rationality
The Hebrew University Givat Ram Campus
Jerusalem 91904 Tel. +972-2-6586254 Fax. +972-2-6584863 http://www.math.huji.ac.il/raumann
**** Prof. Aumann’s OfficeNov 12, 2017to me
Dear Mr. Prakash RP, Prof. Aumann apologises profusely, but he must end this correspondence now. He wishes you the best of success in your endeavours.
Sincerely,
Victoria
…www.math.huji.ac.il/raumannVictoria Chvatal
Temporary Assistant to Prof. Aumann
The Federmann Center for RationalityThe Hebrew UniversityGivat Ram CampusJerusalem 91904Tel. +972-2-6586254Fax. +972-2-6584863www.math.huji.ac.il/raumann
The prize should have been given to Andrew kilman who clearly explain Marx concept of intrinsic value different to the bourgeois economists
https://files.libcom.org/files/kliman.pdf
Genius and Nobel prize are capitalist feature to create the belief that there are exceptional human being above others human beings
Doctors, nurses, accountants, and economists belong to the unproductive sector of the capitalist mode of production
The so called 99% instead of being called wage slaves are the ones who produce all of he wealth in this society and 1% or the capitalist class does not produce anything they are parasite
The so called injustice takes place at the point of production where the sweat of the working class is stolen by a small group of human beings
Hey, No one is stealing anything from anyone in the capitalist mode of production. It’s an open & fair deal. Workers sell their labour-power of their own free will; capitalists buy it, and so capitalists are the legitimate owners of the workers’ labour, the use-value of their labour-power, and fruits of their labour. It’s as simple as this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.