Home > Uncategorized > Voting is now open for the Revere Award for Economics

Voting is now open for the Revere Award for Economics

The Revere Award for Economics is named in honour of the American revolutionary hero Paul Revere, who rode through the night to warn of the approaching British army. In this its inagural year, it will be awarded to the 3 economists who first and most clearly saw the Gobal Financial Collapse coming and whose work is most likely to prevent another GFC in the future. 

96 people were nominated for the prize.  Through consultation with contributors to the Real-World Economics Review Blog, the following shortlist of twelve economists has been selected for the ballot: Dean Baker, Wynne Godley, Michael Hudson, Steve Keen, Paul Krugman, Jakob Brøchner Madsen, Ann Pettifor, Kurt Richebächer, Nouriel Roubini, Robert Shiller, George Soros and Joseph Stiglitz.

 As with the Dynamite Prize, which attracted over 7,500 mostly economist voters –, the ballot will be conducted by PollDaddy.

Voting is quick and easy.  The ballot is near the top of the right-hand column.   Click on your three choices and then the big yellow “vote” button. 

But first you should readForesight and Fait Accompli: Two Timelines for the Global Financial Collapse“.

Short bios of the twelve shortlisted economists, the selection criteria used for the shortlist and background about the prize can be read here.


Procedures

The voting is being conducted using PollDaddy.  Its system uses cookies to prevent repeat voting.  A voting box showing the short-listed candidates and a link to their dossiers will remain till voting closes near the top of the right-hand column on the home page of the Real-World Economics Review Blog.  Voting is open to all interested parties. Each voter can vote for up to three of the listed candidates.  The ballots are secret.  Voting will remain open for several weeks.  No results will be announced before closing the poll.

  1. April 1, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Some of these nominees did not forecast the precise time of the crash. Other economists who accurately forecast the crash timing have not been included.

  2. April 1, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    The omission of Nassim Taleb in the list of candidates is fascinating. It is not that I cannot picture the usual mental gymnastics needed to exclude him (he’s not trained as an economist/he generally predicts crisis/he’s a popular writer not a ‘real’ thinker), but rather I can’t imagine why anyone still tolerates such special pleading given the facts. We can certainly find ‘serious’ economists who take him seriously to vouch for his inclusion if this is a matter of pure insecurity.

    Undoubtedly, this is an obvious error given the wise inclusion of George Soros and I look forward to its correction.

  3. Boabdil
    April 1, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    Why is George Soros on the list?

  4. N N Taleb
    April 1, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    This is outrageous, irresponsible, and I will make sure whoever is responsible for the selection is exposed.

    • Jamie Morgan
      April 8, 2010 at 9:02 am

      Hello, exposed as what exactly? Mendacious, venal, calculating in a conspiratorial fashion to deliberately exclude you? As I understand it nominees were asked for and a list compiled from that and then opinion canvassed from non-nominees. It’s not a perfect process and suffers from the same systemic ambiguity that any process of selection based on opinion does. If you are Dr Taleb then I liked your book (if not I liked the book). It is important in many ways and has introduced, following it’s original use in philosophy of science, the term Black Swans to a wider audience. You have done a service to many. I didn’t think the book highly oriiginal in its insights; but it is oriignal as a synthesis and application across social phenomena – the later charge made in your name of ‘intellectual theft’ seems entirely unfair in this context – I thought many of the things that appear in a general way in your book long before I had read it – one only had to read Fama etc. and look at the way they constructed the argument – or shiller and the way he posed his early work to their work (using similar methods) to see the limitations of beginning from random walk models etc, and one can read Robinson, Keynes and many others for the issue of uncertainty and crisis potential – at the same time you do seem to have a case to be included, though I didn’t vote for you.

      Best wishes, Jamie

  5. April 1, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    I’m sure you meant a list of short and not a shortlist. Is there any relation between economists and economy? Why is not Taleb on the list, like Eric wrote?

  6. Eagle
    April 1, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Krugman… lol. Well at least you found some “economists” that “predicted” the crisis. Of course the best predictors were people like Peter Schiff and Marc Faber who shouldn’t be included because they are not “professional” “economists”. One wouldn’t want these two 100m sprinters competing with the wheelchair crew listed above, right?

  7. Peter Haas
    April 1, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    The glaring omission of Nassim Nicholas Taleb from this list reflects poorly on your entire organization. Not only was he prescient in predicting the collapse, but he put his statements on record and in writing, producing multiple books on the subject of systemic instability, while also delineating possible remedies WELL BEFORE the inevitable collapse occurred. To exclude one of the very early voices of dissent in this crisis is both astounding and sad. I look forward
    If we do not encourage those who got it right from the beginning, and instead focus on ex post facto commentators, where is the value of economic commentary? Economists could aspire to be useful to mankind by raising valid concerns about economic instability rather than becoming financial obituary writers.
    I look forward to your organization rectifying this omission and adding one wise voice in the wilderness who was raising the alarm well before the damage occurred. Simply put, the world would be a better place today if it had heeded Mr. Taleb’s clarion call years ago.

  8. Jason T
    April 1, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    While all these guys are very accomplished, I agree with Eric that omission of Taleb is very shocking. If you were to do a survey on Wall St (or any Street in the World),I can guarantee you that Roubini and Taleb would hands down be the favorites in this category. Taleb, more so because he actually put his money where his mouth was. Economist bashing probably explains the ommission because I see other non-economists on this list. I would love to see Nassim Taleb included on here.

  9. reuben
    April 1, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    where is taleb and schiff? krugman!?? give me a break!

  10. Mike Smith
    April 1, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    How can Taleb not be a nominee?

  11. April 1, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    Peter Schiff and Robert Prechter are two names who should be on this list.

  12. April 2, 2010 at 12:31 am

    No one talked as clearly about the crisis beforehand as Nassim Taleb. Describing the interconnectedness of banks, the leverage problem, fragility, over reliance of models, lack of redundancy, as well as the agency problem (i.e. that managers have a free call option on investors moneym, which is incentive to gamble freely). That aside from clearly and openly talking about fannie sitting on a barrel of dynamite

  13. April 2, 2010 at 1:28 am

    I will second the great disappointment in the omission of Nassim Taleb. Here is a man who brings proper thought and skepticism to this subject. A man whose risk management success speaks for itself. And the man I (and others) owe everything to in this business for his ability to bias the mind, philosophically and practically, with the proper empiricism to take in data and make correct speculations. In the world of economic speculations, he is the first name I gravitate towards.

  14. April 2, 2010 at 2:11 am

    I understand the idea was to limit the nomination to economists, to counter the myth fostered by mainstream economists that no economist could possibly have predicted the crisis.

    As Mr. Taleb, I understand, is not an economist, he certainly does not fulfil this basic requirement, however his merits might be.

    In any case, during the nomination phase of the process, other non-economists were proposed and, just like Mr. Taleb, were not accepted. Probably that would have been the right opportunity to state your case for Mr. Taleb’s candidacy.

    Finally, although I did not nominate Mr. Soros, I do believe he is a graduate of the London School of Economics. I do not understand why you mention him in support of Mr. Taleb’s nomination

  15. April 2, 2010 at 5:15 am

    I appreciate the perspective. Let’s talk through it.

    If this is to be an issue of credentialism as I anticipated, let us refer to him as Prof. Taleb or Dr. Taleb unless someone has reason to call his CV into question. I assume the claim is that either he is not a financial economist or that financial economists are not real economists. Either claim is interesting.

    According to his page at NYU:

    http://www.poly.edu/user/gammafooledbyrandomnesscom

    he is Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering publishing in the Journal of Behavioral Finance, Quantitative Finance, Journal of Portfolio Management and elsewhere. True, I find no publications in Econometrica or seminars delivered at UChicago, but that seems an odd standard here. His Ph.D. advisor has 2 Ph.D.’s in Finance and statistics. Nassim has an MBA from the Wharton School.

    I would suggest a different explanation. I could craft several better, as this one runs the risk of claiming that von Neumann is not an economist, Bott and Gleason are not mathematicians, Dyson does not qualify as a physicist and Crick and Gamow are to be defrocked as biologists. Many of our best people lack standard credentials and I would hate to lose them. The list above is far from exhaustive.

    I mention George Soros in part because I thought it was an excellent choice showing an indifference to strict credentialism. I sometimes lecture on the central importance of reflexivity as economic theory and it has never been well received by economists. I have not been able to find a reference to Soros having a PhD although he may well have one. On the chance that it is not a PhD Soros earned in 1952, Taleb’s MBA becomes relevant.

    But this is silly. If the point is simply that Nassim is ‘other’, I will not protest too loudly; if a reason to exclude him must be found, it will be found. I had high hopes that the post-autistic economics review would be the last place I would have to make such an argument. Grant me at least the honor of acknowledging that there is an air of whimsy here as Casey Mulligan would be easier to nominate than the author of the ‘Black Swan’ referenced on the award page.

    I thank you for considering this perspective.

  16. N N Taleb
    April 2, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Hello,
    This is getting even more ludicrous: what do you define as economists? Is there a certification? A degree? An MS in economics, an MBA from Wharton, a doctoral thesis in financial options qualify? Did you investigate the subject’s credentials?
    Again your organization has a huge liability when it takes away from someone’s reputation; I consider this just as THEFT of intellectual credentials.

  17. April 2, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Too bad Taleb is not on the list. He clearly predicted the crisis and is still doing an awesome work to “to prevent another GFC in the future.”

    That being said, I voted for Stiglitz, Roubini and Krugman, my prefered one after Taleb being Stiglitz.

  18. April 2, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    Eric Weinstein :I appreciate the perspective. Let’s talk through it.
    If this is to be an issue of credentialism as I anticipated, let us refer to him as Prof. Taleb or Dr. Taleb unless someone has reason to call his CV into question. I assume the claim is that either he is not a financial economist or that financial economists are not real economists. Either claim is interesting.

    I referred to Prof. Taleb as Mr. Taleb because I personally have no knowledge about his work or him. I didn’t mean any disrespect and if any was felt, I apologize.

    I am sure he has an impressive curriculum and is most deserving of recognition, but I am not obliged to know either him or his work.

    And because I am not forced to know of him and his work, it falls on those knowledgeable about him (as is clearly your case), to nominate him. If you failed to do so, as regretable as it may be, it’s not my fault. Nor is the fault of the organizers of the prize, to whom I am not related.

    I would suggest a different explanation. I could craft several better, as this one runs the risk of claiming that von Neumann is not an economist, Bott and Gleason are not mathematicians, Dyson does not qualify as a physicist and Crick and Gamow are to be defrocked as biologists. Many of our best people lack standard credentials and I would hate to lose them. The list above is far from exhaustive.

    But here, then, and by the same criteria, I would suggest that the same courtesy you rightfully demand towards Prof. Taleb, is applied to Prof. von Neumann and the other gentlemen you mention.

    In any case, I am also sure you can craft many different explanations. That does not mean they are accurate.

    I, for instance, could craft the theory that you referred to Prof. von Neumann without the honorific out of the intention of being offensive. I refrain from accusing you of this, because I find it clearly ridiculous. I hope you realize the same reasoning applies to your accusation.

    But this is silly. If the point is simply that Nassim is ‘other’, I will not protest too loudly; if a reason to exclude him must be found, it will be found. I had high hopes that the post-autistic economics review would be the last place I would have to make such an argument. Grant me at least the honor of acknowledging that there is an air of whimsy here as Casey Mulligan would be easier to nominate than the author of the ‘Black Swan’ referenced on the award page.

    I frankly have no reason to dismiss Prof. Taleb or his work. Although I don’t know him or his work, if he is as deserving of the prize, as you are sure he is, I find it unfortunate he wasn’t included in the list.

    What’s more, it’s entirely possible that many other scholars equally deserving were left out. Would you suggest an indefinite wait until everyone is made aware that a prize is open to nominations?

    Unfortunately, it’s not up to me to change this. I want to make this entirely clear: I have no connection to either the prize itself, or their organizers.

    I thank you for considering this perspective.

    Again, I assure you and through you Prof. Taleb, I meant no offense. My intention was to find an explanation for the fact he was not included.

    Thanks.

  19. April 2, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Thanks for the reply. Don’t sweat the small stuff. I’m sure you’re sincere and I take no offense. This isn’t about either one of us.

    You wrote:

    “As Mr. Taleb, I understand, is not an economist, he certainly does not fulfil this basic requirement, however his merits might be.”

    Is it safe to say you are retracting your previous understanding? I don’t want to put words in your mouth so feel free to disagree.

    Of course, I would prefer we drop the honorifics and just call him Nassim once we agree that he certainly does meet the basic requirement. We are colleagues after all. I didn’t know his CV either. I just use Google to which everyone has access.

    So forgetting the Mr. vs. Dr. vs. Professor issue, are we agreed that he qualifies?

    As for the ‘you should have brought this up before’ issue, that’s fascinating too. That I would be totally unaware of the award is no way surprising. But, what was needed to leave Nassim off the list is that EVERYONE associated with the award had to miss the ommission. And that is really the point.

    If I asked for lists of American Pianists, how many would come back without Art Tatum? I’d conjecture it would be most all of them. I’m not sure how that could be, but it would have to do with the way in which ‘Pianist’ is stored in the mind. After the fact, most everyone would put Art Tatum generously towards the top. But I have no question that Horowitz, Rubinstein, and Rachmaninoff would have gotten it the first time around.

    The problem isn’t with Nassim, paperwork, or my failing to learn of the poll in time. It is about a marvelous mass blindness among professionals. When people complain about heterodoxy not being taken seriously, its first obligation is to take itself seriously.

    Fix the poll. Don’t fix the poll. Complain about credentials. Fall back on comment periods. Include Nassim. Don’t.

    This all suits me fine. Who doesn’t love revealed preference…and it doesn’t get better than this. Well, except for the fact that it should probably be the William Dawes, Paul Revere, and Samuel Prescott award. But I’m sure Lonfellow’s error is no more than a temporary oversight with no impact on Dawes and Prescott.

    This is not personal. We all do this, myself included. But not all of us continue to exclude once it is pointed out.

  20. Jason T
    April 2, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    I am glad to see a debate going here because this is blasphemous on many levels. This is list is absolutely incomplete, totally irrelevant and extremely naive without the inclusion of Nassim Taleb.

    I hope the people responsible see this and make amends.

  21. Ankit SisodiaI
    April 2, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    I’m sure Nassim wouldn’t be offended by his exclusion. He has had a profound impact on the world through his books, mostly The Black Swan. It has been, I assume, more widely read than most of other economists’ thoughts combined.

  22. April 2, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    Notice one thing guys: The “N N Taleb” speaking in the comments is the real one!
    For some reasons, I know that from the second comment:
    “I consider this just as THEFT of intellectual credentials.”

    So considering that the first comment was: “This is outrageous, irresponsible, and I will make sure whoever is responsible for the selection is exposed.”, I am looking forward to seeing a new reaction of Taleb. Maybe in his next book?

    Good luck Prof. Taleb against the thieves of intellectual credentials!

  23. Jason T
    April 2, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    Nassim (and yes thats the real NNT) is definitely offended and outraged and justifiably so. I would be too, the man has been waging his war on exactly this- fragility in the system and has been working on a robust framework for YEARS. For someone he obviously considers credible to exclude him from this list is criminally naive. How can anyone possible ignore his contribution? very disappointing.

    I really hope the editors pay some heed to this outpouring of outrage and modify this poll and include NN Taleb. Please Mr Editor, Dont ignore our voices.

  24. Danny L. McDaniel
    April 2, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    The Black Swan is way over-rated. The Black Swan has predicted nothing but has only help explain the past from someone’s ideological perspective. It was an interesting read but after seeing the author interview on C-Span I believe alot of people make alot of money and obtain much attention by being full of themselves.

  25. April 2, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    Danny,

    Here is the text (more citations collected at http://fooledbyrandomness.com/imbeciles.htm

    Globalization creates interlocking fragility, while reducing volatility and giving the appearance of stability. In other words it creates devastating Black Swans. We have never lived before under the threat of a global collapse. Financial Institutions have been merging into a smaller number of very large banks. Almost all banks are interrelated. So the financial ecology is swelling into gigantic, incestuous, bureaucratic banks – when one fails, they all fall. The increased concentration among banks seems to have the effect of making financial crises less likely, but when they happen they are more global in scale and hit us very hard. We have moved from a diversified ecology of small banks, with varied lending policies, to a more homogeneous framework of firms that all resemble one another. True, we now have fewer failures, but when they occur ….I shiver at the thought.

    Banks hire dull people and train them to be even more dull. If they look conservative, it’s only because their loans go bust on rare, very rare occasions. But (…)bankers are not conservative at all. They are just phenomenally skilled at self-deception by burying the possibility of a large, devastating loss under the rug.

    The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup. But not to worry: their large staff of scientists deemed these events “unlikely”.

    Now let’s see the irelevant way you have judged him (sorry to be blunt)

    <<>>

    Ahh? The book being good but on TV he feels full of himself. This is clearly ad hominoum attack. And you admit the book being good until you see his style on TV.
    What relevance does style on TV has to his theories?

  26. Danny L. McDaniel
    April 2, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    You wrote alot about sterotypes and cliques. Nice try. Apparently you never worked for a bank!

  27. Jason T
    April 3, 2010 at 5:09 am

    Danny,
    I have worked for a bank and seems like you have as well and most likely at Lehman Brothers. I am sure NNT doesnt care too much about you loving him and thats besides the point anyways. Even you cannot deny that the man had been screaming his lungs hoarse for a while about the excessive risk ( along with debt and leverage) in this complex and fragile system and proposing robustness criteria. thats the basis for these awards and it is very disappointing that the most eligible person is excluded from this list. These guys have lost credibility in mine and many others’ eyes.

  28. Phil
    April 3, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    Would Nassim Taleb actually want to be on this list?

    From the above description, the award is for someone who

    “In this its inagural year, it will be awarded to the 3 economists who first and most clearly saw the Global Financial Collapse coming and whose work is most likely to prevent another GFC in the future.”

    If I understand Taleb’s work correctly, he is more interested in the various possibilities that can occur, rather than predicting, believing in or betting on any one.

    Risk management would appear to be a key element of his philosophy and “believe in nothing” would seem to be part of his makeup.

    Sure, he saw risks – but he sees risks everywhere, and indeed there always are. But predicting something? Would he want to be honoured for that?

    The guys on this list were ultimately right about the frailty in the financial system, but many had been saying that for years. If they’d been hedge funds managers, they’d have been fired long before being proved right.

    That doesn’t diminish their academic achievements, but it does show that they are a different breed to Nassim Taleb.

    One of the scary things I found about the popularity of “The Black Swan” is how people started telling me of things Taleb had “predicted” or things the book had “predicted”.

    Were those people reading the same book as me??

  29. Jamie Morgan
    April 4, 2010 at 9:12 am

    I like Black Swans as an exercise in statistically related reasoning but:

    Is there a flaw in Taleb’s reasoning pp 125-129?

    If one argues that Fat Tony is justified in rejecting the basis of the probability of the coin toss because of outcomes (the game is fixed and reality deviates from expectation – there are 99 heads) does it follow that financial actors were reasonably justified in assuming that the system was stable/rising because of the previous period of outcomes i.e. the use of the example is inconsistent with Taleb’s later intent…

    I’m not doubting the non-Gaussian nature of finance etc but Taleb’s work is notable for lack of an idea of how expectations are structured and how behaviours involve attempts at control through nodal points by key actors with timelines and different reasons for participation where they know they have limited control but have both a public statement of function and a group sense of limitation (but transferable costs)- it is a curiously inhuman approach to a human system that is social-economic-political and is not especially illuminating in terms of the actual nature of the reality he is clear we should be concerned with.

    If Keen and others were hedge fund managers it would not follow that they would be fired – the basis of any given strategy would not necessarily entail large losses on definitive shorts just because one antiicpated general downard financial instability (in any case just as with Taleb most of them would be saying one cannot produce a definite timeline of how/if/when vulnerability manifests as actual effects since that is precisely the nature of the nstability – its uncertainty). If they were hedge fund managers they would still choose indexes, equities, financial instruments and levels of leverage that are hedged, timed and also are specific to specific pieces of research… It is not a blind process for effective hedge fund managers (of which there are few) so this does seem a rather sweeping statement to make. As managers they would be doing something quite different than as academics.

    I don’t think they are a different breed than Taleb since most of them are questioning structure and understandings of that structure based on ideas that one cannot control/decisivley predict/calculate risk and outcomes.

  30. April 4, 2010 at 11:04 am

    The economist, Fred Harrison, is not included either.
    Maybe because he is English?
    He wrote “Boom and Bust” in 2005 which not only corectly predicted the date of the recession but clearly and correctly identified land speculation as the cause.
    References to the “housing bubble” or “stock market” bubble are a proxy for the land price bubble. Buildings do not increase in value over time but the sites on which they are located do.

  31. April 11, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    Most of the names on the short list did not accurately predict the timing of the crash, and published academic papers that did explain and time the Crash of 2008 have been excluded from the short list and from the time line. There is a distinct bias against land-value-based theory.

  32. April 11, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    Most of the names on the short list did not accurately predict the timing of the crash.

  33. April 13, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    I have not seen any explanation of why I have not been included in the short list, since my October 1997 article in AJES predicted the 2008 crash and presented a theory of the cycle that is consistent with economic history. And why has that paper not been included in the time line?

  34. Lil'D
    April 17, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    There have been plenty of doomsayers not included.

    accurately predicting the timing shouldn’t be a key criterion. Understanding and explaining the mechanism & why the processes will lead down that path is a much better set of criteria. That’s why Keen is important. Also, Ann is important because she pulled together many of the others on this list, and some not on the list, very early. I’d think Baker is well deserving, since he has both a substantial platform and got it really right.

    Taleb did nothing to predict this, though his incessant pointing out the obvious (returns aren’t Gaussian!) and that unpredictable extreme events will occur are moderately interesting.

    And Foldvary, if that is really you. You are probably not on the list because your paper read like those of a crank. I guess you have a real PhD and a real faculty position, so perhaps you are not a crank.

    Bookstaber might be a good choice as well.

  35. Lil'D
    April 17, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    Taleb being offended at anything is not news. He takes offense at nearly everything, often in very stereotypical ways (anyone who wears a suit, the French, …) Nassim the Dream was a legend in the pit. Good for a lot of scalped ticks. Now he’s a legend among those who feel resentful about, well, *them*. You know, *those* imbeciles.

  36. April 20, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Anyone who’s ever read him or heard him can see that Michael Hudson is the standout, followed not too far back by Australia’s Steve Keen.

  37. April 20, 2010 at 11:50 am

    Yes, where are the nominations for the two Freds, i.e. Harrison and Foldvary? Meanwhile, Michael Hudson is the clear standout, followed by messrs Shiller and Keen.

  38. April 25, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    It is stated that my 1997 paper “The Business Cycle: A Georgist-Austrian Synthesis.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 56 (4) (October 1997): 521-41

    reads “read like those of a crank.” This implies that AJES is itself a crank journal. If this is a serious accusation, then the accuser should provide textual evidence exactly where in my 1997 paper reads like a crank. I provide a thorough and coherent explanation of a business cycle, and test it against the history of real estate and business cycles as evidence of the connection between the two.
    I have a PhD in economics from George Mason Univesity, 1992. I have in the faculty of economics departments at Virginia Tech, California State University, and currently Santa Clara University. If you are accusing AJES of being not truly scholarly, this is a very serious charge, and needs to be backed by evidence.

  39. April 25, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    I urge everyone hear to read the article by Steve Hanke, “The Great 18-year real estate cycle” http://www.e-consulate.org/globe_asia_feb10.pdf This article has been widely read, and summarizes the real-estate based theory of the business cycle, as consistent with U.S. economic history. He cites my AJES 1997 paper and states, “This knowledge has allowed for some prescient forecasts. The prize in that department goes to Prof. Fred Foldvary who wrote in 1997: ‘the next major bust, 18 years after the 1990 downturn,will be around 2008.'” Hanke’s recognition has substantially more scholarly worth than the “voting” in this “revere” prize that will clearly be seen as biased and lacking in objective merit. I don’t care that much about this “revere” prize, than about my 1997 paper being omitted from the timeline, and the implication that AJES is a crank journal.

  40. April 25, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    If anyone wishes to read my paper “The Business Cycle: A Georgist-Austrian Synthesis,” it is online at
    http://foldvary.net/works/geoaus.html

    I can also provide a pdf file of it on request.

    Fred Foldvary
    Dept. of Economics
    Santa Clara University

  41. April 25, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Since my credentials have been questioned, see
    http://www.scu.edu/business/economics/faculty/foldvary.cfm
    My email address ffoldvary@scu.edu

    Fred Foldvary
    Dept. of Economics
    Santa Clara University
    PhD George Mason University, 1992

  42. Jeff Martin
    April 25, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    OK everyone don’t argue with Fred Foldvary. He has a Piled Higher Deeper degree in economics. Academics get so testy about the abstract. Papers, papers, papers! High paid term paper writer is what Dr. Fred has evolved to. As George Bernard Shaw once said, “Those who can do; those who can’t teach.” Keep up the paper writing to no where, Dr. Fred.

    Jeff Martin, Ph.D
    Purdue University

  43. April 27, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    I agree with the warnings launched by the Nobel Prize Stiglitz,but even by Soros.However I should like to add 2 other names:prof.Raghuram G.Raian presenting a good forecast of the systemic risk on August 2005 (Proceeding Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City) and Ravi Batra about the relation development of financial capitalism/inequality

  44. May 1, 2010 at 11:24 am

    I am sorry but I can not refrain from quoting the title of a paper by the late Andre Gunder Frank: EQUATING ECONOMIC FORECASTING WITH ASTROLOGY IS AN
    INSULT – TO ASTROLOGERS
    ANDRE GUNDER FRANK, 1980
    Please see
    http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/index.html
    Other Marxist or Marxian economists have been talking and writing about this for ages. Mostly predicting unemployment growth and the usual “financial bubbles” (that follow…) to come some time after the year 2000.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.