The “Real World Economics Review Blog” is accepting submissions (limited to three per poster; opened on 12 January) for what they’re calling the Ignoble Prize in Economics, with an aim towards awarding it to those most culpable for the current GFC, which I take to mean Global Financial Catastrophe. Currently, apart from my lackluster contribution, there appears to me to be no Austrian input on the form that this thing is taking. It’s really a trifle, really, but it did move me to wonder what direction an influx of Austrians might lead it in.
A critic did nominate Walras, of all people, and bemoaned that they couldn’t nominate Menger and Jevons as well. That was amusing.
That Keynes is the culprit most readily identifiable is not in doubt.
Get a load of their GENERAL RULES:
Only economists may be nominated, and they must have been active during part of the last quarter century. Joke nominations (e.g., Baker, Keen or Roubini for the Ignoble Prize) or ones suspected of being motivated by malice or for which no supporting evidence is forthcoming will not be accepted or allowed to stand. Likewise evidence submitted must be substantive, accurate and presented in good taste.
Keynes is out and what are we to make of the public works programs and expanded regulatory apparatus of the state favored by Dean Baker? Accurately predicting the bursting of an asset bubble is cool and all, but that doesn’t necessarily make Baker a great economist.
Fed policy has been more monetarist / price-stabilizationist than Keynesian. So I’d actually nominate Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman over Keynes for this particular mess.
I think honourable mention should go to the Krugman for sticking with that broken window fallacy, and as someone we could have trusted to have messed things up even worse than Span did
Difficult to pin down. As has been pointed out, Keynesian theory is not the only big influence on fiscal policy, and it shoud be noted that there are many modern Keynesians who differ and disagree greatly with their progenitor. As for Bernanke, well, he’s like the driver of a car that’s going over the cliff. It doesn’t matter if he’s a saint or the Devil himself, you are still going to get smashed to bits when the car goes over.
This is off topic, but this reminds me of my idea to nominate the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for a Lifetime Achievement in the Ignobel Prize for Science.
I think awarding the prize to Friedman would unfortunately be perceived as a triumph of the “see deregulation, greed and free markets caused this!” crowd. I wouldn’t even put it past someone voting for Hayek for the same mistaken reasons.
Ha, ha! What I noticed is that free markets are always blamed for every social/economic/political ill while science and technology are always the reason for social progress as in, “Free markets didn’t cause the population to double, that was caused by the reaper and the process of crop rotation.” Or something like it. Seriously we can’t win against this kind of hair-splitting! [;)]
I don’t see how you reach this conclusion. The FED has been working with the Philips curve and they target short term interest rates, as opposed to the money supply. Fisher was bad on monetary theory but his work on capital was quite impressive (not technically Austrian in the Misesian sense, but still good).
I think it has to be Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, or the guy that made that ridiculous freakanomics book. Maybe flat tax people. And the fair tax people. Libertarian paternalists. Bernanke. Greenspan. Jim Mad Money Kramer.
Not necessarily for current mess – economists didn’t cause it – but in general.