Paul Milgrom, Jean Tirole, and Holmstrom - they win one day.
2011 Nobel Prize predictions ITT
-
I'm an econ phd at Uppsala, the head of my department is the head of the comittee that awards the prize. That said, I do not have any inside information, just a feeling based on past chats with senior staff at my dpt and also at SU and SSE where i take some courses.
Bernanke is a very strong candidate (Remember that the committee consists of academic economists who will likely want to stand behind their colleague under tea party attack).
Fama - no way. Nobody in Swedens big-3 (Stockholm Uni, Uppsala Uni, Stockholm School of econ) is a big fan of the emh. But I'm pretty sure Andrei Shleifer will get a nobel sometime partially due to his work with noise trader risk + BF.
Mankiw is a possibility and so is Taylor, but i'd still put my money on Bernanke if I had to bet.
Oh btw, all the aforementioned except fama deserve the prize equally in my opinion.
-
"Oh btw, all the aforementioned except fama deserve the prize equally in my opinion."
Your opinion means ****all. Fama is the only person mentioned who remotely deserves the prize. Bernanke did nothing groundbreaking, Mankiw and Taylor did nothing at all, and Shleifer is a joke.
-
Ha. Considering that i'm tops 5 years away from tenure, my opinion will certainly matter more than yours as to who gets the prize from 2016 on. And i didn't mean that Fama is retarded, i'm just saying that he's not nobel material. "All the aforementioned" goes to all in the topic, not just my post. As for Shleifer a joke and Bernanke/Mankiw/Taylor having done nothing, well, i've heard the guys who award the prize teach their papers, so maybe a little modesty on your part is in order.
"Oh btw, all the aforementioned except fama deserve the prize equally in my opinion."
Your opinion means ****all. Fama is the only person mentioned who remotely deserves the prize. Bernanke did nothing groundbreaking, Mankiw and Taylor did nothing at all, and Shleifer is a joke. -
Bernanke would be a disastrous choice IMO. Not because he's a bad economist or undeserving -- I think he's a perfectly good candidate. But, to the extent that the profession is seen as engaging in politics (and the awarding of a Nobel is a large part of how our profession gets seen popularly), that reduces EVERYONE's credibility. The prize committee would be effectively spending our political capital for us, especially with the recent awards to Krugman and Diamond which were already perceived in parts of the populace as political.
Anyhow, the whole thing sort of raises the question of how much good it does to have a Nobel Prize in economics anyhow.
-
So in your opinion a worthy economist like krugman or bb or Diamond should not get a well deserved prize because of US politics? And actually pretty much every Nobel laureate is more or less political in some way - Friedman, Hayek, Pissarides etc. The credibility of the profession would be worse if we only rewarded apolitical econometricians.
Bernanke would be a disastrous choice IMO. Not because he's a bad economist or undeserving -- I think he's a perfectly good candidate. But, to the extent that the profession is seen as engaging in politics (and the awarding of a Nobel is a large part of how our profession gets seen popularly), that reduces EVERYONE's credibility. The prize committee would be effectively spending our political capital for us, especially with the recent awards to Krugman and Diamond which were already perceived in parts of the populace as political.
Anyhow, the whole thing sort of raises the question of how much good it does to have a Nobel Prize in economics anyhow.