Comments for New School Economic Review

Comment on Advice to young economists… zzzz by dofollow

dofollow — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:27:40 +0000

hi…

I just would like to give a huge thumbs up for the great info you have here on this post. I will be coming back to your blog for more soon….

Comment on PhD Comics… The movie! by kzabbott

kzabbott — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 00:08:13 +0000

No gag! The first showings started last night at several campuses, including University of North Texas, Drexel University, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, UCSD, and UCLA where comics creator Jorge Cham and members of the cast were invited to attend.

Check out http://www.phdcomics.com/movie to see when it’s screening at a university near you, or to find out how to arrange a screening for your school.

Then get back to the lab!

Zachary (aka Prof. Smith)

Comment on When the U.S. last defaulted by Juan

Juan — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 03:03:59 +0000

Benjamin,

Wouldn’t the ‘slamming shut of the gold window’ in ’71 constitute a default – or would the more casual actions, and formalization, into ’73 place that in another category?

I believe most would consider it a default no matter that the paper gold relation began breaking down much earlier,

Regards

Comment on What is Economics: Friday Column (4) by Ricardo

Ricardo — Thu, 19 May 2011 18:42:31 +0000

Very nice point of view Benjamin. Indeed, you can say that when things are going the wrong way with mainstream economics, I mean with the story (I really think animal spirits is an excellent approach to understanding economic behaviour in the view of Akerlof and Shiller http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8967.html) of mainstream economics, the Academy recognises the wonders of progressive economics and widens up the story in order to fit into the stroy, acceptance to other theories. But as you say, the next award returns to mainstream and with it, I think that the story of “the all mighty mainstream economics” so well recognised by the Academy of all sciences returns as well.
I wonder when has the science of economics advanced the most after the work of a Nobel Laureate? And most important, when has the humanity gained the most? After Tobin, Sen, Ostrom, Mundell or Friedman?

Comment on What is Economics: Friday Column (4) by Brandt Weathers

Brandt Weathers — Tue, 17 May 2011 19:10:07 +0000

I think both of your contributions are essential to this discussion.

Extending your argument into the past, Benjamin, would be an interesting exercise.

Crisis years::Laureates
1991::Ronald Coase
1990::Markowitz/Miller/Sharpe
1982::George Stigler
1981::James Tobin
1980::Lawrence Klein
1975::Kantorovich/Koopmans
1974::Myrdal/Hayek
1973::Wassily Leontief
1970::Paul Samuelson
1969::Frisch/Tinbergen

Admittedly, the political climate has changed, which may lead to interesting results as you go further into the past (read: Hayek included, Hicks/Arrow excluded).

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Comment on What is Economics: Friday Column (4) by Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 17 May 2011 15:09:58 +0000

I don’t know Ricardo. I seem to notice a trend that whenever the economy is not doing so very well they tend to give this prize to someone slightly outside the economic mainstream… Or indeed far far outside it…

I mean,
2008-09 recession:
2009: Williamson and Ostrom – whose work is very exciting, but by no means in the econ. middle.
2008: Paul Krugman – for good historical reasons, but not a fan of the current system

Dot-com bubble bursts:
2001: Akerlof, Spence and Stiglitz – the latter who had just ‘woken up’ and started criticising mainstream economics.
2002: Smith and Kahneman – the latter being a psychologist.

I’m not saying the prize was not deserved, but it always seems to me that there is some tendency to go a bit wider when there is a crisis (which is natural) and then to go back into the core theory once the crisis is over. Good money still says that Fama will get his Prize at some point…

Comment on What is Economics: Friday Column (4) by Ricardo

Ricardo — Fri, 13 May 2011 05:07:00 +0000

I think it plays the role of feeding an animal spirit, mainly stories. So giving a well recognized prize to an economist developing a biased ideologically work in any economic field, makes other academics, politicians and society to be influenced by the story they are perceiving, say “dont put all the eggs in one basket” or “having opportunities is what freedom is all about”. Those stories are important animal spirit that mold our behaviour, so the question is for what interests? $ 3 millions a year for the sake of social sciences? I hope so..

Comment on What is Economics: Friday Column (3) by wkenton

wkenton — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:01:09 +0000

Craig Smith at Uni of St. Andrews has written a book (his doctoral thesis) called “Adam Smith’s Political Philosophy: The Invisible Hand and Spontaneous Order.” In it he makes the case for a secular Adam Smith (in Hume’s tradition) who thinks of the “invisible hand” as a metaphor to explain how complex social organizations can arise without a human planner.

Is it possible to dispute this article of faith? Is it possible that complex social orders sometimes come about precisely because there was a human agent — say, a charismatic a leader — who planned which groups of people are assigned to various necessary economic tasks? If it is not possible to argue with the Invisible Hand, why are there so many people in the world studying “planning” (urban, economic, development, etc.). Didn’t they get the memo?

Comment on What is Economics: Friday Column (3) by Benjamin

Benjamin — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:21:36 +0000

another perspective is Andy Denis’s argument that the invisible hand is part of a broader allusion/reference to a deity and that the text – like many 18th century treatises – needs to be read with like this. But maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t everyone seem to quote Smith for their own ends? I get the feeling that he’s been claimed for every camp there is?

Denis, Andy. 2005. “The Invisible Hand of God in Adam Smith” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 23-A: 1-32
(http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/andy.denis/research/smith.doc)

Comment on What is Economics: Friday Column (3) by dandanar

dandanar — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:59:48 +0000

Gavin Kennedy, an emeritus professor, author of two books on Smith, and prolific blogger, has written extensively about the "myth" of the invisible hand - the myth, in this case, being that Adam Smith had a "theory" of the invisible hand. Kennedy argues, compellingly I think, that the invisible hand was a commonly used literary metaphor of Smith's time and that Smith used it once in Wealth of Nations (the passage you quote above) to refer to unintended consequences, not spontaneous organization. He also uses it once each in an essay on the history of astronomy and Theory of Moral Sentiments, but never does it refer to some theory of markets that self-regulate (a theory which Smith did not believe, see for example Viner's essay on Smith and Laissez-Faire). Emma Rothschild makes a similar argument in Economic Sentiments. Kennedy's blog is excellent and available here, and the paper is Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand: From Metaphor to Myth.