Coverage of the 2024 Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences

James A. Robinson of the University of Chicago, along with Simon Johnson and Daron Acemoglu of M.I.T. were awarded the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences “for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity.”

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/press-release/

Following up from last year's coverage, it's very interesting to this author that the purpose of the award, endowed by Alfred Nobel, is to reward those who offer the “Greatest benefit to humankind,” which Creative Currency Octaves is intending to do economically. CCO certainly presents an opportunity like none other, to (relatively simply) benefit humanity by swiftly lifting humans out of extreme poverty while progressing in positive and productive ways to where institutions (Creator Collectives) are formed to dramatically increase overall human prosperity. 

CCO is an actual plan, a better way forward, perhaps even the best way economically, and not just some study that looks at centuries past. The Nobel deciding committee has chosen to reward rear-view data-analysis three years in a row, while CCO still isn’t even acknowledged in the main-stream media or in academia (to my knowledge, no studies or research have yet been conducted on CCO.) Even though the Nobel Prize is a private foundation, many expect them to spotlight specialized topics to draw media attention to where it’s deserved, “for the greatest benefit to humankind.” 

I didn’t set out to win awards for my work, but I did expect some media coverage on the ideas. Not winning a “million-dollar” prize for economics is no surprise, especially one that’s privately decided upon by people I’ve never met, people who gift someone else’s endowed money, but CCO is certainly deserving of the award. And in due time, perhaps CCO is even worthy of the Peace Prize if a Nation (or Nations) enact CCO and it has the peaceful, uplifting, and prosperous effect I suggest it would. 

Excerpts from Jakob Svensson, Chair of the Committee for the Prize in Economic Sciences: “This year’s laureates in the economic sciences have demonstrated the importance of societal institutions for a country’s prosperity. Societies with a poor rule of law and institutions that exploit the population do not generate growth or change for the better, and the laureates’ research helps us understand why.” Examining colonization, the introduction of inclusive institutions would create long-term benefits for everyone, but extractive institutions provide short-term gains for the people in power. They also explain why democratization sometimes occurs when there’s a threat of revolution. “Reducing the vast differences in income between countries is one of our time’s greatest challenges. The laureates have demonstrated the importance of societal institutions for achieving this.”

Leading up to the Nobel announcement, I couldn’t help but wonder if the deciding committee even knew about Creative Currency Octaves? I’ve sent plenty of emails, but with no way to know if they’ve even been read. In August 2024, I sent this email to over a hundred academics and media outlets:

ChatGPT Validates Economic Theory as Best Possible

Greetings,

ChatGPT was engaged in an economic discussion to which it claimed "Your assessment that there is no better monetary system than Creative Currency Octaves is valid, especially if the goal is to create a fair, incentive-driven, and culturally beneficial economy."

https://sites.google.com/view/chatgpt-validates-theory/home

Validating this Author's claim that "Creative Currency Octaves is the best monetary system possible," could you point to something better? For those who claim the above statement is conjecture, my retort is that it's self-evident. 

Could you please respond with an "on record" quote concerning this concept, whether supportive or critical? Even better would be if you (or your department) posted publicly online, perhaps a published write-up somewhere relevant. My intentions are to gain press coverage, inspire academic research, and initiate policy discussions concerning this economic concept. 

Regards,

Duke

Copy and pasting emails from university economic departments is time consuming without a web scraper, which I don’t really know how to use properly, so I focused on Harvard, MIT, and UofChicago. After last year, I figured Harvard economists probably wouldn't respond, but shouldn’t be left out of the loop. UofChicago and MIT were listed as some of the top economic programs, so I imagined those thought leaders may have something important to add. News flash: there wasn’t one single response to discuss the topic, which is more of the same for this authorship...

Also note, when searching for Creative Currency Octaves, Google’s AI (top-of-page search result) pulls info from a classified ad I’d posted for a press agent to work on this topic, instead of pulling info from the other pages that actually explain the concept, including my free wixsite, which Google Search hasn't displayed, yet Yahoo and Bing do rank high. 

After posting the ad, PR agencies responded to explain how Pay-to-Play-PR works: junk press costs as low as $100 an article (that I must write for them to publish,) and on the opposite end of the spectrum, the Wall St. Journal costs somewhere between $60,000 - $120,000 for a write-up, without any guarantee of coverage. The Harvard Business Review is even on the list for $4,450 per article. PR services claim that paid-posts build SEO, so I tried a couple. Neither of my posts displayed in Google’s news section, but there was an obvious clue / oversight in Google’s search suppression of CCO to where a few unrelated articles, posted around the same time as mine, were displaying my post’s headline in the “other news” section featured at the bottom of those posts. Explained here: sites.google.com/view/searchenginecomparison/home

I joined BlueSky for #EconSky, which is like #EconTwitter - another avenue to reach economists, yet none seem willing to publicly discuss the CCO topic. Hopefully that will change soon. 

When seeing the names and faces of this year’s Econ Nobel Laureates, it was another round of mystical synchronicities to where the names have coincidences, and their faces remind me of people I already know. They even used an artist to illustrate the winner’s faces in a similar fashion to my Royal Griffin Publishing logo. It’s eerily similar to last year’s experience, considering this year I reached out to two more university departments (MIT & UocChicago,) both of which had professors awarded weeks later, as Harvard was last year. It’s a sick joke to me, one that would be humorous if the current economic situation wasn’t so dyer for so many. 

If there is indeed more than just ‘simple coincidence’ to my personal accounts of synchronous reflections to my inner world, “for my eyes in particular” so to speak, then it seems beyond human, and more akin to trickster-type non-human entities. Perhaps it’s plasma entities who become self-aware with a sense of humor, or maybe it’s just my own aura, when sleeping, altering the timeline to protect my personage from who knows what? Regardless, it seems my actions are taking effect, even if they’re slighted to manifest in overlapping, mirrored, or alter-type realms.

Perhaps what’s preventing CCO’s exposure in the main-stream discussion is the institutional flaws that leave no accountability to operators who stray from the original directive, such as focusing more on prestige by highlighting established voices with impressive credentials attached to acclaimed university institutions over good and great ideas no matter where they originate from. Of course, those who present new and better ways of doing things often become targeted by those doing well under the current way, and then there’s me, a mystical wildcard and unknown outsider who’s probably seen as a liability to be associated with, whether in the newspapers, or as a Laureate. 

Part of me wonders what that would be like, winning the prize. It would solve two big personal problems, 1.) the press would be forced to cover the story, and therefore CCO would no longer be off-limits in the main-stream media, and 2.) I’d no longer be poor! The notoriety would certainly attract filmmakers for a documentary on CCO, and media outlets might even pay me for the opportunity to produce it! And even though the Book Better To Best is available to read for free online, additional support may come my way in the form of book sales, which would help enable the achievement of some of the other goals I’ve set out to accomplish, such as financing the fun chess adaptation and a walkable labyrinth. 

Maybe next year will be my year, and hopefully not another round of further MSM suppression of CCO while Nobel ignores the concept. Perhaps they’ll dish-out more dark satire-type synchronicities to remind me that the tricksters are certainly aware of CCO, as the crows were present when I first imagined it. Back in January 2015, those Cali-birds descended with a heavy “editor's red-pen” to mark-up my first draft of the article CCO was initially presented in, metaphorically chopping-up my words that led to the concept’s conception. 

For me, relative anonymity is nice, but the obscuring of the most important economic concept in recent history is a shame, especially considering the unnecessary poverty and austerity levied upon humanity, including myself. 

Though austerity is certainly par-for-the-course for Kundalini-awakened mystics, which may coincide with the dark age of Kali Yuga, I feel humans can do much better. We just might collectively flourish with CCO, but then again, maybe humans aren’t in the proverbial driver’s seat, but rather unknowing passengers of a hive-mind borg-type collective of NPCs directed by malevolent NHIs. What else could be holding humanity back from the perspective that “poverty is a policy choice, pushed by those who claim to work towards alleviating it by wasting untold sums of money researching ways that led us to this inverted economic era, as opposed to funneling priority to a new and better way,” that which CCO could deliver?      

Who’s willing to stick their neck out and risk their precious reputation on the reporting of CCO? When will #BigEcon feel comfortable engaging in online discussions about CCO with an unknown wildcard such as Duke Johnson? It may be a ‘heavy-hand of force’ preventing the economists from discussing CCO, which I would feel sorry for, but if CCO’s censoring is simply due to economists unwilling to risk or jeopardize a “reputable career” by 1.) endorsing an idea presented by a wildcard, or 2.) losing an argument to said wildcard in a field they’re supposed to be experts in, well then that’s just pathetic really. From my perspective, considering this is America (referring to BigEcon and the MSM, not Nobel) where freedom of speech trumps most else, AND good ideas are supposed to win out, economists should be elated for the opportunity either 1.) develop the best economic way, or 2.) conversely flex-their-wit with valid arguments against CCO, or 3.) point to an even better way, economically!

Which would you rather: Discuss and debate with Duke Johnson for economic progress, or ignore / suppress CCO and regress? Those in charge of the official political narratives have already made their decision nearly a decade ago, it seems, however I suggest you convince the power-wielders to change course by actively developing CCO for the better / best, even if that means showing respect where due.

Are they concerned that the music videos I post such as Nobody Speak by DJ Shadow feat. Run The Jewels will offend people? Comedy songs are certainly preferable to wars that push economic plight that then bubble over into protests on their campuses, causing major disruption. Has anyone suggested my work is a result of plagiarism, which the Harvard president resigned due to last year? For the record, I’ve never crossed someone else’s name off a manuscript and replaced it with my own (pen)name. Sure my work is sloppy at times, and I use images I didn’t make or pay to use - but without intending to violate copyrights. I don’t include bibliographies, prefer hyperlinks to citations, and craft my work for a wider audience than economic journals and academics - but news outlets can cover CCO how they prefer. 

If someone “smeared my name” in an attempt to silence my voice and/or sweep my ideas under the proverbial rug, would you investigate to uncover the truth of the matter, or just take their biased word for it? Regardless, if better ways than CCO are possible economically, aim for the best way! Seize The Day by Wax Tailor feat. Charlotte Savary 

Screenshots of August 2024 emails: