The name of Alfred Nobel is known today to any literate person in the world. Nobel (1833-1896) - Swedish chemist, engineer, inventor, entrepreneur and philanthropist. Known as the inventor of dynamite (there were other inventions - a total of 355 patents). But all the same, he gained the main fame as the founder of the award named after him.
A year before his death, Alfred Nobel made a will, which was announced in January 1897.
Here is a fragment of this document: “All my movable and immovable property should be converted by my executors into liquid values, and the capital collected in this way should be placed in a reliable bank. Income from investments should belong to the fund, which will annually distribute them in the form of bonuses to those who have brought the greatest benefit to humanity during the previous year …
The indicated percentages must be divided into five equal parts, which are intended: one part - to the one who will make the most important discovery or invention in the field of physics; the other is to the one who will make the most important discovery or improvement in the field of chemistry; third - to the one who will make the most important discovery in the field of physiology or medicine; the fourth - to the one who creates the most outstanding literary work of the idealistic trend; the fifth - to the one who made the most significant contribution to the cohesion of nations, the elimination of slavery or the reduction of the number of existing armies and the promotion of peace conventions …
It is my special desire that the nationality of the candidates is not taken into account when awarding the prizes."
In 1900, the Nobel Foundation was founded with the aim of managing finances and organizing the Nobel Prizes.
The initial capital of the fund is SEK 31.6 million. At the beginning of the last century, the fund has grown significantly in capital. By the way, the main source of growth was the oil assets in Baku, where the company founded by Alfred Nobel operated. In 1901, the first Nobel Prizes were awarded in all five nominations.
The Nobel Prize was and remains the most prestigious in the world. There were, of course, some roughnesses in the activities of the foundation and the Nobel Prize Committee.
Some decisions on prizes for contributions to peace consolidation and on literature were especially biased.
Suffice it to recall such a Nobel nominee as the American President Barack Obama. The Nobel Peace Prize went to him for "extraordinary efforts aimed at strengthening international diplomacy and cooperation among peoples."
Only now I was embarrassed by the fact that the president was awarded the prize just … 12 days after he took office.
Many politicians and public figures in different countries of the world (including in Sweden itself and in the United States) rightly accused the Nobel Committee of depending on the shadow power structures that forced it to such a decision.
Needless to say, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate himself, during his two term in office, led US military campaigns against a number of independent states.
It's the same with the Nobel Prizes in Literature. Here is what our famous writer Yuri Polyakov thinks about this: “With rare exceptions in recent decades, awards have been received by writers who, to put it mildly, are not outstanding. And often they are just bad. Because of this, it could be suspended.
Take Aleksievich, for example: she is a purely political journalist and publicist, with an openly Russophobic direction. Bob Dylan, too, cannot be compared to those outstanding poets who were awarded the prize at one time. The fall in professional criteria and requirements has simply gone off scale in recent years.».
One can only add to what has been said that in the literary sphere, as in the sphere of "struggle for peace", the political engagement of the Nobel Committee, acting within the framework of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, is simply off scale.
But this is all a preface. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that another "Nobel" prize appeared half a century ago - in economics. I have deliberately used quotation marks to emphasize that we are talking about forgery… The main organizer of this forgery was central bankSweden.
1968 marked the 300th anniversary of the founding of the Bank of Sweden (Swedes believe it is the oldest central bank in the world). The management of the Bank of Sweden decided to mark the "round" date by establishing an international award for achievements in the field of economics (economic science). The award was named after Alfred Nobel. In the same 1968, the Bank of Sweden established the Fund for the payment of bonuses.
The issuance of prizes began in 1969. In total, from 1969 to 2016, the prize was awarded 48 times. 78 scientists became its laureates. The discrepancy between the number of prizes and the number of laureates is due to the fact that one prize can be awarded to several persons at once. So, out of 49 awards, one scientist received it 26 times, 17 times - two, 6 times - three researchers at once.
It is noteworthy that the decisions on the awarding of prizes in economics are made by the same Royal Academy of Sciences of Sweden. It is difficult to distinguish diplomas and medals of laureates of economic prizes from those that are given to laureates of real Nobel prizes. And the amount of remuneration to the laureate of the economic prize is exactly the same (at present it is equivalent to an amount slightly exceeding 1 million US dollars).
Finally, the Nobel Committee, the Swedish and world media soon began to call the Bank of Sweden's economic prize the Nobel Prize. Without any quotes or reservations. Obviously, everything possible was done to raise the prestige of the award. Even with the help of rather dubious methods.
The question is: why did the Bank of Sweden need it? There are two versions that complement each other.
The first- This is necessary for the Bank of Sweden, which for a number of years sought the status of an "independent" institution (by that time the central banks of most Western countries were already independent of their states). And for this, the leaders of the Bank of Sweden needed the support of "professional economists".
The Bank of Sweden hoped that it would “create” such economists who would help it to obtain the necessary “independence”. The Nobel Prize in Economics was supposed to be the means of creating and promoting the necessary specialists. In fact, this is a corrupt scheme of "buying" the right people.
The secondversion - this is necessary for the "owners of money" (the main shareholders of the US Federal Reserve System), who wanted to have at their disposal "economic geniuses" capable of "justifying" the necessary decisions.
The late 1960s was a time when the world Bretton Woods monetary and financial system was already bursting at the seams. The "owners of money" were preparing decisions to remove the "golden brake" from the printing press of the US Federal Reserve System, i.e. on the transition from the gold-dollar to the paper-dollar standard.
And then, according to their plans, general economic liberalization in the world, globalization, the loosening and gradual dismantling of national states should begin (they should be replaced by a "world government"). For the intellectual support of such a grandiose strategic plan, the institution of an authoritative international award was required.
The nominees for this award must serve the interests of the "owners of money" associated with their advancement to world power.
Since in the global hierarchy of central banks, the Bank of Sweden is under the US Federal Reserve, the institution of the Nobel Prize in Economics worked to satisfy the interests of both.
At first, the works awarded to the authors of the Nobels in Economics were quite decent.So that no one was suspicious, and everyone thought that the prize was really intended to encourage the search for scientific truth in economics.
But a few years later, the "launch into orbit" of those "wise men" that the "owners of money" needed began. The most significant of these were Friedrich Hayek (won the award in 1974) and Milton Friedman (in 1976). Both are double-minded liberals who come from the same "nest" - the University of Chicago.
Back in the 30s of the last century, the so-called "Chicago School of Economics" arose there - a trend in economic thought, which was opposed to the teaching of the English economist John Keynes, which had become popular at that time. Keynesianism was practically adopted by Franklin Roosevelt and his team to lift America out of the economic depression.
Even during the years of crisis and depression, economists from the University of Chicago protested against the growing influence of the state in the economy. The Chicago School of Economics was financially backed by Wall Street billionaires.
It is therefore not surprising that the University of Chicago has literally become a nursery for Nobel laureates in economics. There are about a dozen of these "pets".
By the way, the last Nobel nominee - Richard Thaler (2017) - also from the University of Chicago. He teaches there as a professor.
Among the most famous pets from the Chicago "nest" is Paul Samuelson. He received a Nobel in 1970 for the work that formed the basis of the so-called "neoclassical synthesis" (combining into one concept of neoclassical microeconomics and Keynesian macroeconomics).
Samuelson did not make any brilliant discoveries… He is known for his thick textbook on economics, which, by the way, was translated and published in the Soviet Union (I read it while still a student).
But Hayek and Friedman especially needed the "owners of money", since they were the most real fans of "economic freedom" (Samuelson was considered "moderate").
Before being put into the "Nobel Orbit", these two liberals were little known, and in academic circles they were perceived with caution. A number of "scientific theses" of future "economic geniuses" simply shocked the representatives of academic science. For example, the following flamboyant statement by Milton Friedman: "To be acceptable, a model does not have to be based on real premises."
In particular, the author of the article “There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics” writes about these two “economic gurus”: “Hayek's contemporaries in the economic scientific community considered him a charlatan and a deceiver. He spent the 50s and 60s in scientific obscurity, preaching the doctrine of the free market and economic Darwinism for the money of the ultra-right American billionaires.
Hayek had influential supporters, but he was in the margins of the academic world. In 1974, five years after the award was established, it was received by Friedrich Hayek, a leading proponent of liberal economics and the free market (otherwise called “enrich the rich”), one of the most famous economists of the 20th century and the godfather of neoclassical economics.
Milton Friedman, who studied with Hayek at the University of Chicago, was not far behind him. He received his Nobel Prize in 1976.”
Even after these liberals received the coveted prizes, there was no immediate recognition. And after receiving the award by Milton Friedman, a scandal even ensued.
It was known that after the military coup in Chile that brought General Pinochet to power, a group of American economists, which was called the "Chicago boys", went to this Latin American country.
One of the main such "Chicago boys" was Milton Friedman (not a boy for a long time, he was then over sixty).
The main task of the team was to open access to American capital in the Chilean economy.
And the people there were plunged into deep poverty. Chilean economist Orlando Letelier published an article in The Nation in 1976, in which he called Milton Friedman "an intellectual architect and unofficial advisor to the team of economists who run the Chilean economy today" on behalf of foreign corporations. A month later, the Chilean secret police killed Letelier in the United States by blowing up his car.
There were protests, demands were made to deprive Friedman of the title and the Nobel Prize. However, all of this has been ignored by the Royal Academy of Sciences and the Bank of Sweden. A lot of money was injected into Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, until finally their names began to sound.
Omitting many interesting facts and details concerning the activities of the Bank of Sweden and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in the field of the Nobel Prizes in Economics, I note that they released several dozen "economic geniuses" into the world orbit, whose destructive impact on the world economy exceeds the effect of dozens of atomic bombs.
The ideas of these "economic geniuses" have been repeatedly strengthened by the media controlled by the "owners of money", replicated in the form of tens of millions of "smart" books, driven into the heads of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of students' heads.
These ideas became the "scientific" rationale for the wave of privatization that swept around the world, deregulation of the economy, removal of all barriers to international trade and cross-border movement of capital, granting central banks complete "independence" from the state, inflation of financial markets, etc.
All these measures in the field of economic liberalization are needed by the "owners of money", ultimately, in order to undermine the foundations of the state, to deprive the peoples of national sovereignty.
And the destruction of national states, in turn, is necessary for the "owners of money" in order to seize power in the world. According to their plans, a world government should come to replace the nation-states. And the role of the so-called "Nobel" prizes in economics in the implementation of these plans should not be underestimated.
All these decades, honest economists, public figures, politicians have protested against a fraudulent and dangerous project for humanity, codenamed "The Nobel Prize in Economics."
Here is what, in particular, says the great-nephew of the famous Alfred Nobel, Doctor of Jurisprudence Peter Nobel: “This prize should be criticized for two reasons.
Firstly, this is a confusing intrusion into the concept of "Nobel Prize" and all that it means.
SecondlyThe bank award unilaterally rewards Western economic research and theorizing. Alfred Nobel's will was not a fad, it was thought out. His letters show that he did not like economists."
This year marks half a century since the launch of the Nobel in Economics project. It makes sense to think about it. In Russia, its destructive effect is obvious (privatization, deregulation of the economy, complete currency liberalization of capital flows, etc.).
The destructive effect continues in such a direction as economic education in domestic universities.All Russian economic textbooks are crammed with "ideas" of economic liberalism, and half of the authors of the ideas are the very "Nobel" laureates in economics. It would be more correct to call them impostors.
To start putting things in order in the country, we first need to put things in order in the heads of our citizens. And for this, in addition to everything, it is necessary to put things in order in the system of higher economic education.
And for this, in turn, it is necessary to get out of the hypnosis of the "Nobel" impostors I have described above.
Like the boy from Andersen's fairy tale "The King's New Dress" about the "Nobel" economists, we should say the words: "And the king is naked!"