The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem.
Recent economic theory that will stand the test of time
-
50 years is quite an interesting time span. Most of the ideas in MWG and in undergrad core micro theory coursed dates to the 1970s and earlier decades. The 1980s did add some games and bargaining theory.
Aren't all the equilibrium refinement papers from the 80s. Intuitive criterion etc are in mwg so I'm guessing the coverage extends to 80s
-
Suprised that no one mentioned the results in Decision theory - Schmeidler, Gilboa-Schmeidler, Bewley, Variational Preferences, GGMS 10, etc.
These are all strong, influential, papers.Decision theorists do not use expected utility to make their own decisions.
Case closed. -
Suprised that no one mentioned the results in Decision theory - Schmeidler, Gilboa-Schmeidler, Bewley, Variational Preferences, GGMS 10, etc.
These are all strong, influential, papers.Decision theorists do not use expected utility to make their own decisions.
Case closed.Yes, but not the case you think
-
Suprised that no one mentioned the results in Decision theory - Schmeidler, Gilboa-Schmeidler, Bewley, Variational Preferences, GGMS 10, etc.
These are all strong, influential, papers.Decision theorists do not use expected utility to make their own decisions.
Case closed.Yes, but not the case you think
Ok. You quote GGMS 10. It is a trivial composition of GS and Bewley.
It is influential because it is GGMS. Not because there is any substance in it. -
Suprised that no one mentioned the results in Decision theory - Schmeidler, Gilboa-Schmeidler, Bewley, Variational Preferences, GGMS 10, etc.
These are all strong, influential, papers.Decision theorists do not use expected utility to make their own decisions.
Case closed.Yes, but not the case you think
Ok. You quote GGMS 10. It is a trivial composition of GS and Bewley.
It is influential because it is GGMS. Not because there is any substance in it.And try to observe "objective rationality". It is laughable at best.