Bailouts of financial sector customers in 2008 was OK. Bailing out the shareholders was not. They were responsible for management not taking systemic rick into effect If not for regulators letting them do it). The Fed's error (Bernanke's error? Who knows what politics was going on inside the Fed?) was allowing a financial crisis from turning into a recession. ST interest rates did not go to even near zero until much later. QE, announced to be "whatever is necessary" not amounts limited in time and amount, should have begun in September 2018, not January 2019. TIPS inflation expectation should never have been allow to drop as far and as rapidly and to remain below target for as long as the did.
I wonder if the following statement is correct: "When First National Bank of Podunk goes bust, no one knows which farmers in Podunk are good credit or not." As the old saying goes, the most important capital of a company goes out the door every business day at 5:00 PM. The First National Bank of Podunk (FNBP) doesn't know which farmers are good credit or not, whether it's operating or failed. But the bankers who worked at FNBP do know the farmers whether they're working at FNBP, elsewhere or not at all. They could go to work at another local bank (if one remained open) and continue lending to their old customers, albeit under a different flag. There must've been something else going on that prevented *any* bank and its human bankers from lending to farmers who were seeking credit.
The statement was surely more true before credit rating systems than today. That said, I think you took the statement too literally. Yes, the employees hold the knowledge but the point was that they acted though a local bank that went away and no other local bank existed or if it did, those employees didn't have the same knowledge. Also, in the best of times redistributing those knowledgeable people takes time and these were far from the best of times so a lot of damage can occur in the meantime.
As the consequences of what has transpired in central banking the last 15 years appear, the natural reaction is going to be to bolster the credentials of those central bankers.
On the one hand, the number of research economists has increased vastly over the years. On the other hand, the number of "giants" seems to have decreased. By giants, I mean the likes of Samuelson, Stigler, Coase, Becker, Schelling. Astonishing for both breadth and depth.
Specialization might be a factor.
Diminishing marginal productivity of research?
But other trends are access to many more kinds of data, and to powerful softwares, which should facilitate research productivity.
I am casting about. I am curious to know if economists think that the Nobel prize has become "thinner."
Thinner? IDK and I don't think anybody can really know but I'd bet not. As I look through the list I see the ones you mention and others I know but quite a few I don't, both recent and further back. More recent winners include quite a few that seem likely to be one day considered "giant" if they aren't already. And I can think of others who I expect might soon win and one day be giants.
Here's a hypothetical that may be relevant. It's at least worth thinking about in all the variations. If there were a dozen or two giants in years back and there are ten times as many today doing equally profound work, would we see the two groups equally?
Bailouts of financial sector customers in 2008 was OK. Bailing out the shareholders was not. They were responsible for management not taking systemic rick into effect If not for regulators letting them do it). The Fed's error (Bernanke's error? Who knows what politics was going on inside the Fed?) was allowing a financial crisis from turning into a recession. ST interest rates did not go to even near zero until much later. QE, announced to be "whatever is necessary" not amounts limited in time and amount, should have begun in September 2018, not January 2019. TIPS inflation expectation should never have been allow to drop as far and as rapidly and to remain below target for as long as the did.
I was waiting all morning for this.
I wonder if the following statement is correct: "When First National Bank of Podunk goes bust, no one knows which farmers in Podunk are good credit or not." As the old saying goes, the most important capital of a company goes out the door every business day at 5:00 PM. The First National Bank of Podunk (FNBP) doesn't know which farmers are good credit or not, whether it's operating or failed. But the bankers who worked at FNBP do know the farmers whether they're working at FNBP, elsewhere or not at all. They could go to work at another local bank (if one remained open) and continue lending to their old customers, albeit under a different flag. There must've been something else going on that prevented *any* bank and its human bankers from lending to farmers who were seeking credit.
The statement was surely more true before credit rating systems than today. That said, I think you took the statement too literally. Yes, the employees hold the knowledge but the point was that they acted though a local bank that went away and no other local bank existed or if it did, those employees didn't have the same knowledge. Also, in the best of times redistributing those knowledgeable people takes time and these were far from the best of times so a lot of damage can occur in the meantime.
As the consequences of what has transpired in central banking the last 15 years appear, the natural reaction is going to be to bolster the credentials of those central bankers.
What do economists say about talent and the Nobel prize in economics?
To a layperson (me), it looks like it has become commonplace to award the prize to more than one person each year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_laureates_in_Economics
On the one hand, the number of research economists has increased vastly over the years. On the other hand, the number of "giants" seems to have decreased. By giants, I mean the likes of Samuelson, Stigler, Coase, Becker, Schelling. Astonishing for both breadth and depth.
Specialization might be a factor.
Diminishing marginal productivity of research?
But other trends are access to many more kinds of data, and to powerful softwares, which should facilitate research productivity.
I am casting about. I am curious to know if economists think that the Nobel prize has become "thinner."
Thinner? IDK and I don't think anybody can really know but I'd bet not. As I look through the list I see the ones you mention and others I know but quite a few I don't, both recent and further back. More recent winners include quite a few that seem likely to be one day considered "giant" if they aren't already. And I can think of others who I expect might soon win and one day be giants.
Here's a hypothetical that may be relevant. It's at least worth thinking about in all the variations. If there were a dozen or two giants in years back and there are ten times as many today doing equally profound work, would we see the two groups equally?