This will bow the O-ring out of any remaining respect you might have for the Nobel Prize. O-Ring referring to the winner’s economic model, of course, and totally not to sodomy. So we are assured.
Esther Duflo is the youngest person to ever receive the Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences and only the second woman. Duflo is a native of France and has been teaching economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1999.
Duflo was awarded the Nobel Prize on October 14, 2019, along with her husband, fellow MIT professor Abhijit Banerjee. Michael Kremer from Harvard University also shared the award.
That’s nice. Why should we care?
Whoa, that’s an amazing pedoface on… Ab.. Abhijit…
Banarjoy Banerjee. A French chick and a pedo-dot-Indian? Are there no American economists worthy of teaching young Americans anymore?
Duflo, of course, set off the usual alarms for female privilege.
The three researchers are known for their anti-poverty research. They have conducted experiments in African nations and in India to determine how various factors, such as health care and education, could be improved to combat poverty. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences noted during the award ceremony that Duflo and the other two economists “have played key roles in transforming research on global poverty alleviation.”
Here’s what you need to know.
What you need to know is that poverty has two causes: stupidity and government. Stupid people don’t clean their homes, live frugal and stay sober. Government either robs you of your property or prevents you from working.
See, poverty isn’t scarcity. A bad crop season or played-out mine is scarcity. But poverty is a lack of money, the medium of exchange. They’re related but not synonymous, which is why half the world survives on wages that would kill a Westerner. Also why, as in Venezuela, people can be destitute while squatting on an ocean of oil.
I just outperformed three nations’ worth of top experts on poverty, who think the cause is not enough government intervention. So has every counter monkey at McDonalds whose till balanced at the end of the day, because all three co-winners are lifetime residents of the academic Ivory Tower.
Esther Duflo was asked about how it felt to be the second woman to win the Nobel Prize for Economics during a phone call with the Academy shortly after she was announced as a winner. She said she felt “humbled” upon being selected for the reward and hopes to represent “all of the women in economics.”
Duflo said she hopes that her win can inspire other women to continue their research. She added that she hopes professionals in the economics profession will treat women with more respect.
“We are a time when we are starting to realize in the profession that the way we conduct each other privately and publicly, is not conducive all the time to a very good environment for women. Showing that it is possible for a woman to succeed, and to be recognized for success, I hope is going to inspire many, many other women to continue working, and many other men to give them the respect they deserve, like every single human being.”
Was she given the award specifically because she was not male, or was she given the award for achievements that have nothing to do with her gender and that she didn’t want to talk about?
Before getting Duflo on the phone, the representatives from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences discussed Duflo and her team’s research. The committee noted that more than 700 million people live in extreme poverty around the world and that a large portion of children in poverty leaves school without basic skills.
Michael Kremer found in his research that simply providing additional tools such as textbooks did not improve results. Duflo and Banerjee then conducted field experiments that found that matching the teaching to the children’s learning levels led to improved results; to explain, children should be taught “based on learning levels rather than age or grade.” This research, called “Teaching at the Right Level,” is now used in India to benefit more than 60 million students.
That’s an obvious, old educational principle. It’s also not economics. To answer my previous question, Duflo didn’t have any accomplishments to brag about, so she felt “humbled” to represent “all women” instead.
Esther Duflo and her husband, Abhijit Banerjee…
No sharing last names? Top billing to wifey?
…have collaborated multiple times in the course of their research. In 2011, they published “Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty.” The book has been translated into 17 languages and won the Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award.
Duflo and Banerjee used the book to explain the results of their “hundreds of randomized control trials” analyzing why impoverished people make certain decisions and how those choices impacted the trajectory of their lives. A summary included on Duflo’s bio page on MIT explains:
“Through their work, Banerjee and Duflo look at some of the most surprising facets of poverty: why the poor need to borrow in order to save, why they miss out on free life-saving immunizations but pay for drugs that they do not need, why they start many businesses but do not grow any of them, and many other puzzling facts about living with less than 99 cents per day. POOR ECONOMICS argues that so much of anti-poverty policy has failed over the years because of an inadequate understanding of poverty.”
“Why the poor need to borrow in order to save” because government permits usury against them. Also, stupid.
“Why they miss out on free life-saving immunizations but pay for drugs that they do not need” could be either stupidity or government wondering why normies don’t trust Socialist medicine.
“Why they start many businesses but do not grow any of them“, government again. Those free, life-saving immunizations aren’t actually free, y’know.
“POOR ECONOMICS argues that so much of anti-poverty policy has failed over the years because of an inadequate understanding of poverty.” The solution to government micromanagement is not government indoctrination. These chuckleheads won the Nobel Prize for discovering that the solution to poverty is reeducation camps for underperforming fools!
Smelling many rats in this, I dove deeper.
While [Duflo] believed [gender imbalances in Nobel Prize winners] was starting to change with a younger cohort of economists, it was “not happening fast enough,” and the field needed to make more progress in showing younger people that it was relevant to the problems they cared about.
The economist also said her profession lacked ethnic diversity.
Then quit your job, Duflo you Western European. Pajeet will happily import his cousin to replace you with.
The French-American Nobel laureate received the MacArthur “genius” Fellowship in 2009 and was named as one of the “forty under forty” most influential business leaders by Fortune magazine in 2010.
MacArthur Foundation is notoriously globalist. She certainly hasn’t missed any Narrative talking points in her acceptance rant.
Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee (born 21 February 1961) is an Indian-born American economist, who is the Ford Foundation International Professor of Economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ford Foundation is another major Swamp funder. Magic dirt didn’t change Abhijit into Arthur.
He received his school education in South Point High School, a renowned educational institution in Kolkata. After his schooling, he took admission in the University of Calcutta in Presidency College, Kolkata where he completed his B.Sc.(H) degree in economics in 1981. Later, he completed his M.A. in economics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi in 1983. During his JNU days, he was arrested and jailed in Tihar Jail during a protest after students ‘gheraoed’ the then Vice Chancellor PN Srivastava of JNU . He was released on bail and charges were dropped against the students. Later, he went on to obtain a Ph.D. in Economics at Harvard University in 1988.
“Gheraoed” is a form of picketing that Americans would call unlawful confinement. Bit of a rabble-rouser, was he? *follows Wiki links* Banerjee was incarcerated on charges equivalent to sedition but was released on bail after ten days. Charges were dropped after a year. He claims he was protesting Leftists but seeing as he’s a hardline Leftist now, that dog doesn’t hunt. *GQ digs deeper*
Guess who else was arrested at that 1983 incident? India’s Defense Minister and current Minister of Finance & Corporate Affairs, Nirmala Sitharaman.
Sitharaman had studied economics at JNU in the 80s, and gheraoed then vice-chancellor P.N. Shrivastava in 1983 as an activist of the Free Thinkers to protest disciplinary action against a student. The university had been temporarily closed because of the agitation.
That school closure for riot wasn’t mentioned in any bio of our Nobel Prize winner. The Free Thinkers, as far as I can determine, was/is a loosely organized yet vocal atheist organization. Although Nirmala went on to become a politician for the Hindu nationalists.
It is likely that Banerjee’s award-winning research on poverty in India is closely connected to his fellow detainee from university, India’s Minister of Finance.
Sigh, I thought I was going to plumb MIT’s Deep State with this post. Now I’m doing India’s instead.
Let’s move on to the third guy, the actual economics researcher, Michael Kremer.
Kremer, the Gates Professor of Developing Societies in the Department of Economics, shared the honor with Abhijit Banerjee, Ph.D. ’88, and Esther Duflo of MIT. The award recognizes their work on reducing poverty by breaking down larger problems, such as deficiencies in education and child health, into component pieces, then designing targeted field experiments to determine the most effective solutions.
Breaking big problems into small problems? Is this a joke?
Kremer received both his 1985 undergraduate degree in social studies and 1992 Ph.D. in economics from Harvard. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship and a Presidential Faculty Fellowship. In 2010, he was named the Scientific Director of Development Innovation Ventures for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and in 2013-2014, a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.
A career student, he has no idea how the real world works. That’s beneficial for the globalist designing a new economy for the world’s poor to “enjoy”. MacArthur Fellowship association confirms him for a globalist.
Duflo is also MacArthur Fellowship. Probably how they met.
“It can often seem like the problems of global poverty are intractable, but over the course of my lifetime and career, the fraction of the world’s people living in poverty has dropped dramatically,” said Kremer. “Over the years, we have learned a lot about what works and what doesn’t work, and why. Governments and nonprofit organizations have become much more effective in addressing [poverty], and there is much wider recognition of how researchers and policymakers can work together in the fight against poverty.”
As I mentioned at this post’s beginning, government is often the source of poverty, so we need a closer look at Kremer’s research. And what I found was remarkable.
O-ring theory of economic development
The O-ring theory of economic development is a model of economic development put forward by Michael Kremer in 1993, which proposes that tasks of production must be executed proficiently together in order for any of them to be of high value. The key feature of this model is positive assortative matching, whereby people with similar skill levels work together.
The name comes from the 1986 Challenger shuttle disaster, a catastrophe caused by the failure of a single O-ring.
Plausible but it’s also a sodomy reference, even back in 1993. Considering the source, a professional student funded by globalists and a policy designer for the world government, we can rule out the innocent explanation.
This is exactly the sort of confession that wicked men are compelled to make. They need to show the world how evil they are, in a way that the world won’t believe or will convince itself isn’t what it looks like.
Kremer thinks that the O-ring development theory explains why rich countries produce more complicated products, have larger firms and much higher worker productivity than poor countries.
Rich countries have people that are well-behaved under a government that doesn’t rob them blind. It’s that simple.
I won’t cover the actual model. It’s a lot of math that this trained mathematician can’t understand, probably because he isn’t supposed to understand it. My default position with any new economic model is that it exists only to make a simple situation difficult to prosecute, er, explain.
I’ll try to prove that by reviewing the summary.
There are several implications one can derive from this model:
1. Workers performing the same task earn higher wages in a high-skill firm than in a low-skill firm.
That sounds fishy. When I get paid a lot to do something routine, it’s usually incidental to what I’m actually paid to do. Hiring a day worker to keep my timesheet would be much more expensive than me doing it myself.
2. Wages will be more than proportionately higher in developed countries than would be assumed by measurements of skill levels;
Had he said “disposable income” then I’d be inclined to agree. The suck part of being poor is that most of your time gets spent treading water. As it stands, he sounds like he’s trying to justify the command-economy wet dream of dictating lawful wages from Moscow.
3. Workers will consider human capital investments in light of similar investments by those around them;
He’s making up new terms. Never a good sign in economics.
4. This model magnifies the effect of local bottlenecks which also reduce the expected returns to skill;
He keeps going back and forth between “skills” and “wages”. This really does sound like a command economy pig wearing a new, capitalist tutu. Skill X returning Z wages/returns on investment? That’s a uselessly massive oversimplification of workforce education. Any PhD who had to work a McJob as a graduate student should know this.
5. O-ring effects across firms can create national low-production traps.
If he means a local market failure, well, that’s the bane of command economies. It’s hard to see disaster coming when your only source of info is complaints from distant proletariats.
Capitalist economies correct themselves; socialist economies screw themselves.
You want to know how to prevent “O-Ring blowouts”, Kremer? Let the normal people rule themselves. A poor man, even a stupid man, is better off ignored by the government than micromanaged by the government.
But nothing I might say will convince this Ivy League Elite, who spent his entire life in a university bubble because he didn’t want to live an independent life, that leaving people free to fend for themselves is a successful economic model… one that doesn’t require a PhD making veiled jokes about anal sex to comprehend.
His more recent work is in vaccinations, which is curious behavior for an economist.
The Sabin Vaccine Institute’s Product Development Partnership is developing the world’s first hookworm vaccine for human use. The Sabin Institute was established in 2000 with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and is the only Product Development Partnership in the world working to develop a vaccine for human hookworm infections.
The institute is receiving support from the European Commission FP7 program and uniting professionals from around the world to build research. This global consortium has been coined HOOKVAC and includes members from the Netherlands, the United States, Belgium, England, Germany and Gabon. This project aims not only to perfect the manufacturing process of the vaccine, but also to increase and share research on NTDs [Neglected Tropical Diseases].
That doesn’t sound ominous. I didn’t even know a vaccine could kill an invasive organism.
Children and pregnant women are by far the most drastically affected by this disease. Children with long-standing blood loss from hookworm often experience sufficient mental and motor development delays. They can actually lose IQ points as well. These detrimental effects undoubtedly follow them into adulthood, making productivity more difficult.
We don’t need no stinkin’ men! There’s the first red flag that all is not well in Charity Town. “Sick children become unproductive adults” is perhaps more revealing of their motivations than this author intended.
The first clinical testing of the vaccine will take place in Sub-Saharan Africa once it is ready. Gabon’s Lamberene Research Centre will lead clinical testing in adults and children in Gabon, a region plagued with hookworm.
Punking Gawddamned Africa! You know what the Africans want? White Man to leave them alone! Let’s quarantine the continent and pretend it doesn’t exist for a thousand years. We’ve already dumped resources into Africa for centuries with nothing to show for it.
Do these people want to save millions of lives? Legalize DDT! Kill the mosquitoes and other parasites, don’t immunize the people so they can coexist.
The vaccine is being called the “anti-poverty” vaccine due to its vast potential to lower child mortality rates, save mothers in labor and improve health conditions for agricultural workers, who are the backbone of many poorer economies.
Children, women and… “agricultural workers” instead of men. These people aren’t trying to make Africa a better place, they’re trying to inoculate their would-be livestock against local pests.
That’s why a high-level economist is involved, to determine potential returns on investment.
Watch me outperform a Nobel Prize winner again: Give it up, Mike. Africa always wins and need I bring up the last time whites tried to make Negroes into a slave class? Bad idea, then and now.
Africa is a poor place because the people there are stupid and the governments are thieves. That doesn’t mean resources are scarce. Half the world lives on two cents a day, yet they live and occasionally thrive… because poverty is not necessarily a lack of life’s necessities.