The 2022 Nobel Prize in Economics recognized excellent work in economics. No one will dispute that. However, the Nobel committee did not display the kind of even-handedness we have seen in the past. I remember when the Diamond-Dybvig model was first put forward. It energized discussion of the role of central banks and supported their […]
Nobel 2022: Comments Read More »
The 2022 Nobel prize in economics will be announced tomorrow, Monday, October 10. Of course, it is not a “real” Nobel prize but rather the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” but I will use the conventional phrase “Nobel prize in economics.” The official name does raise an interesting question. Why
Is Economics a Science? Read More »
I have documented errors in economics papers and pointed out the arguments for why economists say they can’t do better. In a real science, authors would fix errors others have found before publishing their paper. Not in economics. In 2001, I became aware of a working paper version of “Equilibrium Welfare and Government Policy with
Economists Knowingly Publish Papers with Errors Read More »
You may have guessed that I enjoy poking the ruling elite in economics. That was the case with a self-declared tyrant that threatens the careers of my students, a Fed VC who thinks it is best to have neither his students at Columbia nor researchers at the Fed be trained in modern computational skills, and
At today’s macro conference hosted by John Taylor, George Hall presented his paper with Tom Sargent titled “Three world wars: Fiscal-monetary consequences” at today’s Taylor conference. James Bullard asked Hall and Sargent to compare their analysis of taxation and spending with the Barro theory. In their paper, Hall and Sargent say “After World War I
Macroeconomists endorse Barro (1979). I prefer Dehejia and Rowe (1995). Read More »