I say “Ernst Fehr, Matthew Rabin, and Richard Thaler for their contributions to behavioral economics“ (I even bet 3$ on this, but for some yet unclear reason that pool has closed, with my money returned). In any case, I think it would be highly suspicious if I got it right also this time, given I got it perfectly last year and almost perfectly the year before that. → Read more
- The most recent event under this heading is the Northwestern conference in the honor of Dale— with some very good and some not so good presentations…– featuring also some very (and some not so) entertaining speeches by former Mortensen students, co-authors, advisers etc, either at the dinner at the Northwestern Allen Center on Friday evening, or at the drinks & snacks session at Beverly and Dale’s splendid home (photo with Ija on their balcony) on Saturday evening.
[…] I must out of courtesy and caution reserve judgment on any laws that Professor Stigler may unveil. For, as I learned when our friendship began long ago, George Stigler can do anything– anything but be boring.
Here’s the Sunday read I recommend to you: a great 1963 dialogue on the “proper economic role of the state” between two intellectual giants, George Stigler(*, **) and Paul Samuelson. → Read more
- Crises and opportunities in Balkan science policy (start, more). A word of caution for my Romanian pals, among whom a new risk of self-denying optimism– expected to turn into the usual complacency– appears contagious: con calma, this is at best a mediocre start (though, granted, a start it is).
Not that I want to brag or anything but… please check this out again and then go to the Nobel prize site to see who won this year’s Prize in Economics (by the way, last year I predicted Hart, Holmstrom and Williamson, hence I also got there one of the awardees– just in case you were wondering if I predict the same every single year). → Read more
Some names are recurrent in the betting pools, but– as usually– it does not appear that anybody has a very clear favourite for this year’s Economics Nobel, and that seems true even in terms of the Econ area(s) to be currently rewarded. → Read more
EMH: it really ain’t dead. (via Mankiw)
An interesting debate in the latest issue of Capitalism and Society on the current status of Economics and other Social Sciences, worth reading especially for the two comments to the leading article on the theme. Unfortunately, Jon Elster, in his “Excessive Ambitions“, otherwise a welcome (and relatively informed) outsider’s critique, does not manage to rise up to his declared ambitions of debunking the status quo / portraying “the persistence in the economic profession and elsewhere of these useless or harmful models“, and eventually falls easy prey to his commenters: Pierre-André Chiappori (who, very elegantly, but unmistakenly, tackles most of the points raised by Elster in his criticism of economic theory and testing its predictions) and respectively, David Hendry (who virtually destroys Elster’s line of reasoning and conclusions on empirical modelling in Economics).
Certainly Williamson was expected to win sooner or later (sooner rather than later), in fact I predicted him to be winning, yesterday (and a year ago, and two years ago…). But then together with Hart and Holmstrom…. Honestly, I have to say that I have never heard of Elinor Ostrom, before discussing whether I have read anything of what she’s written. → Read more