That's kind of my point. They didn't come up with their ideas yesterday, so you shouldn't expect the results to appear groundbreaking today.
The prize is for research in economics, not history or social science. They may be interested in the same topics, but economists usually take longer to reach a conclusion because their work is usually more data-driven.
Hence their conclusions appear to be "not news" to historians and social scientists who already believed the same things without the benefit of economic data.
The economics prize is funded by Sveringes Riksbank but they are not involved in selecting a winner. Neither is the government. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is solely responsible for selecting the winner, and it is not part of government.
Here's the thing about economics: the "dismal science" is often trying to prove - or disprove - what appears to be common sense.
For instance, to some it's common sense that minimum wage increases cause more unemployment. To others, it's common sense that they don't. Eventually economists will reach a consensus, and it will be "not news" to half the population.
Since you've done research in this field, you must be aware that Acemoglu and Robinson have been publishing on this topic for ~20 years. Is there some earlier economist who was not properly given credit for their results?
The prize in economic sciences is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901.
The Nobel Prize is awarded after a lifetime of work, not the latest news.
The 2022 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for describing the violation of Bell inequalities. The initial experiments were performed in the 80s and the results are "not news" to many current high school physics teachers.
How is the culture minister the "same people" as the Royal Academy of Sciences?
Did you also teach your students about ethnic prejudice?
An asteroided earth is still more habitable than Mars.
The stock price/earnings ratio is still quite high. So based on fundamentals it's still not a good buy. Instead, you're gambling that in the future you'll hear more unexpected good news from Tesla than unexpected bad news.
Personally, I wouldn't take that bet.
Not to mention that Trump's wife and mother are both immigrants.
On the contrary, I'm just repeating what courts have already ruled.
You're the one spreading misinformation. For instance, you just suggested using AI to delete something would invalidate copyright over the rest of the image, which is simply nonsense.
Technically, it's far less explosive than a gasoline powered vehicle. However, batteries are very hard to extinguish if they catch fire.
You did. Is there one economist in particular who you think contributed more to this field than the actual winners?