Who is your Favorite Economist?

What do you think about Greenspan still having press conferences and giving his views on the economy etc. given that Bernegy or whatever his name is is now the chairman of the fed? Is greenspan undermining him or does it not really matter? I can't really get a feel for it. Did Greenspan have to retire?

fstknynrunner wrote:

Friedman and Keynes

that does not make any sense to me. their ideas are not at all alike. i did not think anyone seriously puts much faith keynes anymore.

friedman and george stigler i understand, friedman and von hayek i understand.

but these two together?

the only thing they have in common is that they are arguably the two most well known economists

It does not matter and I don't think bernanke really cares. Did he have to retire? No, I don't think he HAD to.Greenspan can have his viewpoint - in the end bernanke is the one deciding policy so there really is no way for greenspan to 'undermine' bernanke. He maybe able to give the market a shake or two but beyond that, just noise.

Mandingo wrote:

What do you think about Greenspan still having press conferences and giving his views on the economy etc. given that Bernegy or whatever his name is is now the chairman of the fed? Is greenspan undermining him or does it not really matter? I can't really get a feel for it. Did Greenspan have to retire?

Harry Kooter wrote:

anEconomist wrote:

- i am a fan of greenspan (i was an economist at the fed in 2000 and 2001) but to attribute the success of the 90s to any individual is erroneous; there were many factors at play including low oil prices, record gains in productivity, the fact that the fed had moved to inflation targeting much earlier (this was done before greenspan), globalization and there are more

I wasn't really trying to attribute the success of the 90s entirely to Greenspan. My point was more specifically on the argument of GDP speed limit. He realized that we could grow faster without accelerating inflation and pushed policy that would allow for such even though many economists argued that inflation would spiral out of control. Greenspan wasn't the only factor, but it was important that he stood his ground on the issue.

When I was an undergrad, I had an economics prof with PhD from the conservative UCLA school of economics who wrote on the board a "proof" using the Phillips Curve of why the combination of unemployment and inflation we had in the 1990's was "impossible." This is one example of why I look on economists with roughly the same level of respect as I reserve for astrologers. All you have to do is look at the list Barrons has each year of prominent economists--including several mentioned in this thread--and see how wrong they've been in the past.

My preferred method of using economic analysis is to carefully check the Outlook from the National Association for Business Economics....and assume exactly the opposite. I am far more likely to pay attention to people like Abby Joseph Cohen, who have demonstrated in the past that they actually do know what they're talking about.

Regarding Greenspan, I think many people in the field (except conservatives) attribute the beginning of the 90's growth/job boom to both Greenspan and Rob Rubin, with the agreement that the Fed would allow interest rates (the real rate of interest was VERY high in 1990-1992 because of concern about Federal Deficits) to drop and the Federal Government would reduce the defecit spending. Obviously, there are other things that came later, such as business investment in technology (which was partly made possible by bringing long term rates down), growth of the internet, and deflationary impacts from China. But I think Greenspan deserves a lot of credit for realizing that the previous consensus was simply wrong and replacing the outmoted philosophies with new metrics.

Thanks. At first I was confused when it seemed like Greenspan kept giving statements. Does anyone else think Greenspan looks like he could be Woody Allen's dad/older brother? ANd has anyone ever seen the two of them together?

In no particular order

Sowell

Smith

Friedman

I think it is interesting Hayek and Rothbard have been mentioned as many times as they have. Usually Rothbard is a little too over the top/extreme for most people (Great short book by him: What has the Government Done to Our Money). I also think it is interesting Hayek getting a few votes (Road to Serfdom is classic), while at the same time his mentor Mises has received 1. Perhaps more people know at least something about Austrian than I would have guessed. Also, Bastiat's Seen and the Unseen is perhaps one of my favorite econ pieces (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html).

One of the things which sets Friedman apart is his devotion to what he believed in. His contribution about the Great Depression (with Schwartz) was a brilliant.

"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." - B. Bernanke

He also played a large role in getting rid of the draft, which many of us are thankful for. For his economics as well as his devotion to his ideas Friedman is a great choice I think.

To go off the beaten path a little, I will put in a vote for Carl Menger and solving the Water-Diamond paradox.

Terry Kozma

Marx

Engels

Adam Smith

Gordon Tullock, James Buchanon, Charles Goetz

I just got the John Maynard Keynes skin for CJ in San Andreas. Huge fan.

Swathe wrote: Adam Smith

The dude who runs for Brooklyn RRC? Man, that guy is no economist!

It's not that he thinks he's smart because he knows Hayek and Rothbard. More to the point, Hayek and Rothbard (prominent in the Austrian School of Economics) are rarely referred to in lectures, in exams, on reading lists or anything. They are neglected for a combination of methodological and political reasons. Economists generally do not understand the epistemological problems of economics, or basically anything about logic or philosophy, so they reject the Austrian approach without giving it proper consideration. They also tend to jump to the conclusion that government is necessary to solve most of the economy's perceived problems, so lots of taxation is necessary. Austrian economics suggests that capitalism works better than communism, and the purer capitalism (i.e. less government intervention), the better. This conclusion is based on logic and not ideology, but so few people are prepared to read it to find out for themselves.

This is why I think he is right to say it is a shame people won't read Rothbard or Hayek (though I would suggest Mises is better than both) - just about all of Mises and Rothbard can be freely downloaded from mises.org

At times I wish I understood numbers. I have struggled through numerous finance and economics classes, from which I have taken nothing. I look at the equations and theories and think, man these guys are smart. Then I remember, they are just numbers. And functions. And spreadsheets. And calculations. At the end of the day, you have a briefcase full of numbers. And that just sucks. At least to me. But I suppose to others, it's a sort of art. I will never see it that way perhaps to my loss.

Well checkout mises.org - these dudes deal in words which in addition to being true are probably easier to understand than alot of equations.

I'd have to say Coase. He has been highly influential in our field.

I'll second Douglass North.

Georg Schauer