U.S. Financial Crisis

The U.S. economy is fundamentally of poor quality. There's high double-digit deficit, to which the U.S. government did not seek a solution. America borrows money to pay debt, uses its military might to secure its foothold, to maintain a superficial stability of dollars.
...

The entire financial world has been injured, but can be restored, except for the ultimate culprit - the United States.

In theory, I think the U.S. government has gone bankrupt because it does not have the ability to pay debt. On the other hand, because the debt owed by the United States is processed in dollars, the U.S. can pay back the debt by printing money, which is the only way the United States will not go bankrupt.

There are three causes for the world financial crisis: first, the greed of human nature; second, the Government's incompetence; third, the academia's adding fuel to the flames.

The first cause is the most helpless; greed is human nature and cannot be eradicated. We can only acknowledge and face it.

The second cause is the most inexcusable, because the financial crisis was completely preventable.

The third is the most heinous, because scholars' shamelessness is national shamelessness.

Not only business is where there's the most money, but a business school is also easy to get a degree from. For example, there's the well-known academic journal called "Harvard Business Review", YST [the author of this posting] was once in the library reading this magazine. I'm just a student in the science and engineering department, but I randomly picked any article in that magazine and found it was not only easy reading, but full of rubbish. Most of the articles in this journal are valueless junk.

There's junk in science and engineering journals, too, but there're not nearly as many. In terms of degree of difficulty, if you are not an expert in this field, even the first page will be beyond your knowledge.

...

Acamedia adding fuel to the flames

Many economists in the American academia study financial derivatives. Among them at least four won the Nobel Prize in Economics. They are:

Merton H. Miller, awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990;

Harry M. Markowitz, awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1990;

Myron S. Scholes, awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1997;

Robert C. Merton, awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1997.

The first three are American Jews. I'm not sure about Merton. Miller and Markowitz won the prize "for their pioneering work in the theory of financial economics". Scholes and Merton won the prize "for a new method to determine the value of derivatives". These people's voodoo research paved the way for excessive reproduction of financial derivatives, directly leading to the U.S. financial collapse and the world financial disaster.

The U.S. academic circles's praises for Merton include "lifetime achievement award in mathematical finance" and "Isaac Newton in modern finance theory". Don't we see great irony in these praises? There's one thing common to Merton and Newton; the spelling of "ton" in their names. If Newton's mechanics were voodoo as Merton's, would anybody dare to fly today? Alas, how many there are of those shameless and "reknowned" economists!

Some of Wall Street's unemployed people entered the financial sector in Shanghai, China. I don't think this is a blessing. These people are basically junk. They have mentality problems and their personality has been stereotyped. They will not make a real contribution to China and yet likely to bring disaster to China.

...
Removing Economics from Nobel Prizes

In 1968, the Nobel Prize had a new category Economics, which is a joke. From the beginning of 1901, the Nobel Prize was in accordance with Nobel's will, only five awards - physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and peace. In the will, Nobel made it clear that the Nobel Prize should not include mathematics.

To celebrate the 300th anniversary of the establishment of the Central Bank of Sweden in 1968, the Central Bank of Sweden set up a prize in economic science, which is understandable and no one will object. However, just to make this prize carry more weight, the Swedish Central Bank bluntly stole Nobel's name. Nobel never authorized anybody to do so.

The science of economics is too soft. It left too much space for the researchers to make nonsense conclusions. The consequences are not only deceiving academic fame, but actually great harm to the society.

In 1975, the Nobel Prize for Economics was awarded to two Americans, Leonid Kantorovich and Tjalling Koopmans, because they created the best investment theory. Their award-winning paper is "theory of optimum allocation of resources". The two experts claimed that if you invest according to their theory, you always win.

After Kantorovich and Koopmans received the award, curious reporters asked them: "Now that this theory is so powerful, have you ever thought of using the money to verify this great theory?"

The two economists replied: "We are ready to do so."

Guess what happened?

Kantorovich and Koopmans used their theory to invest and lost all the money they got from the Nobel Prize. This is the best annotation for economists.

There're so many voodooish stories about the economists. Milton Friedman is the 1975 Nobel Economic Prize winner. His theory of free economy was used in South America, where the economy was brought down. Have we not learned lessons from it?

In 1999, the U.S. Congress changed law under monetary lobby of the financial industry and misguidance by the economists advocating financial derivatives. In 2008, the traders in the American financial industry fished away a lot of money, leaving the mess to the U.S. government and taxpayers to pick up. Are we supposed to encourage this kind of economics and economists?

Economists had a louder voice after the theft of Nobel's name, repeatedly caused great harm to the society, and practically violated the goal of the Nobel Prize. And yet they are, according to the Nobel Prize, "who bring human the best interests of the people."

The Nobel Prize in Economics should long have been removed. It's OK for economists in their small circles to praise each other and warm up their bodies; that or giving some XX prize among themselves we don't care, but they should not steal the name of Nobel.