Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Nobel-Winning Economist Goes to Burning Man

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: A Nobel-Winning Economist Goes to Burning Man

#31

Post by hndamien »

soneca wrote: post #30
hndamien wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the down voters, it is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". It is distinctly not a Nobel prize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...

I would assume that most of downvoters know this. They are not downvoting because they think you are factually wrong, they are downvoting because your comment was just pedantic and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

The entire intention of the mentioning of the "Nobel winning Economist" is to convey an authority that doesn't exist. I feel anybody relying on this should also have it pointed out that such implied authority is false.

Re: A Nobel-Winning Economist Goes to Burning Man

#32

Post by detaro »

hndamien wrote: post #31
soneca wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume that most of downvoters know this. They are not downvoting because they think you are factually wrong, they are downvoting because your comment was just pedantic and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

The entire intention of the mentioning of the "Nobel winning Economist" is to convey an authority that doesn't exist. I feel anybody relying on this should also have it pointed out that such implied authority is false.

The "authority" of the money originally coming from a different source? Because according to the wikipedia article you linked, that's the main difference.

Re: A Nobel-Winning Economist Goes to Burning Man

#33

Post by droithomme »

dang wrote: post #24
droithomme wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a playpen for the ultra rich. It's quite similar to Epstein's Island in that regard.

If you can't or won't stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN, we are going to have to ban you.

[flagged]

Re: A Nobel-Winning Economist Goes to Burning Man

#35

Post by perl4ever »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #26
perl4ever wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cumulative attendance of Burning Man since 1986 is around 1 million people, so that's about the maximum number of people that could have experienced it, if nobody went more than once - but of course, people have, so the real number of unique attendees is lower. ...that means more than 99.7% of the US, and 99.99% of the world has never gone and it is thoroughly alien to them. So a bemused anthropologist seems like…

> 99.99% of the has never gone and it is thoroughly alien to them Bit of a false dichotomy. Surely there's a bunch of people who are familiar with Burning Man from photos and videos online but haven't attended personally.

I imagine you could argue the opposite just as easily.

I first heard of it many years ago, but seeing a few photos doesn't mean someone is "familiar" with it from an anthropological perspective. Especially since presumably it's changed a lot over the years.

Re: A Nobel-Winning Economist Goes to Burning Man

#36

Post by droithomme »

I've been to Burning Man myself several times. Over the years it's changed a lot.

Currently the ticket price is so high no one can afford to attend except the extreme elite. This is a well known phenomenon.

When you go there are cool things but also depraved. In recent years the proliferation of orgies involving underage girls has become extensive. Burning Man is now a parallel of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein's island where the ultra rich come to abuse children.

I posted before on this fact and the moderator elite that prop up the ruling class told me my post was "unsubstantive" and they were going to ban me.

Good. They should. The problem of global elite and their sex trafficking networks should not only be hidden and anyone calling attention to it punished, but this should be done by legions of sycophantic supporters of the power structure of these vile global elite fascists. Moderators pull on their stormtrooper boots and go to work defending the agenda of the elite. For what exactly? For the destruction of the planet and of the human race, and of decency and humanity and compassion. Why? Many love evil that is why. They don't really need more of a reason. Those that speak the truth of matters are their enemies and they will go to the ends of the earth to destroy them and hide the truth.

In the end though the truth becomes known and the enablers of evil are regarded with the appropriate contempt and disgust.

Re: A Nobel-Winning Economist Goes to Burning Man

#37

Post by perl4ever »

hndamien wrote: post #31
soneca wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume that most of downvoters know this. They are not downvoting because they think you are factually wrong, they are downvoting because your comment was just pedantic and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

The entire intention of the mentioning of the "Nobel winning Economist" is to convey an authority that doesn't exist. I feel anybody relying on this should also have it pointed out that such implied authority is false.

What authority is inherently vested by having invented dynamite and wanting to be remembered as something other than a "merchant of death"?

Obviously this is not just about pedantry for its own sake; this is about attacking economics as an illegitimate pseudoscience. But right or wrong, it's still not in any way making a novel statement or argument about anything. A lot of people think economics, economists, and central banks suck. This is common knowledge.

It's utterly useless to debate whether a broad field of study is supported by "authority". If there were a Nobel prize in climatology, would it have any impact on a reasonable person's assessment of the legitimacy of climate science or their attitude towards global warming? Of course not.

Re: A Nobel-Winning Economist Goes to Burning Man

#38

Post by hndamien »

detaro wrote: post #32
hndamien wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire intention of the mentioning of the "Nobel winning Economist" is to convey an authority that doesn't exist. I feel anybody relying on this should also have it pointed out that such implied authority is false.

The "authority" of the money originally coming from a different source? Because according to the wikipedia article you linked, that's the main difference.

The authority coming from the Nobel name, which the money is co-opting.

"The interest is to be divided into five equal parts and distributed as follows: one part to the person who made the most important discovery or invention in the field of physics; one part to the person who made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who, in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction; and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry are to be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical achievements by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be selected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that when awarding the prizes, no consideration be given to nationality, but that the prize be awarded to the worthiest person, whether or not they are Scandinavian."

Re: A Nobel-Winning Economist Goes to Burning Man

#39

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

perl4ever wrote: post #35
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 99.99% of the has never gone and it is thoroughly alien to them Bit of a false dichotomy. Surely there's a bunch of people who are familiar with Burning Man from photos and videos online but haven't attended personally.

I imagine you could argue the opposite just as easily. I first heard of it many years ago, but seeing a few photos doesn't mean someone is "familiar" with it from an anthropological perspective. Especially since presumably it's changed a lot over the years.

Right.

I just meant that if you’ve read about it, it probably ain’t thoroughly alien to you.

Re: A Nobel-Winning Economist Goes to Burning Man

#40

Post by H8crilA »

soneca wrote: post #29
H8crilA wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little more than that. All the BM principles are there and necessary. In particular there's no typical "market", as BM runs neither on any form of money, nor on bartering, but instead on unconditional gifting.

From what I read (never been there), "unconditional" does not seem the right word. There seems to be a social rule that a camp is expected to gift. So everyone there is gifting on the condition that everyone else is gifting too.

Some camps don't gift much, and that's fine. But yeah the whole setup only works because so many people are giving things. For starters there would be no artwork if people didn't give - artwork set up in the playa or on a mutant vehicle is also a gift.

It is unconditional in the sense that you just give without asking for anything in return.

Post reply on HN