We’re interrupting our regular series of podcasts on the 1970s–the first here on inflation and monetary policy–to bring you a new podcast honoring next week’s Nobel Prize in economics. Who will win? Who should win? Who should have won but didn’t? Who won but should not get?
Here is one:
COWEN: I would give it to Robert Barro.
TABARROK: That’s right. Tell me why you would give it to Robert Barro.
COWEN: “Are government bonds just wealth?” as a basic way of thinking about monetary policy remains central. Also, he did the first work on the theory of the political business cycle. The international growth recession is very low. People once thought that he might get it for that. That may now hurt even his chances, but I think that in total, what he created and did is enough to get a Nobel Prize. He had five or six important articles in major fields.
TABARROK: Yes, I agree with you. I think you’re right about the secular regression that has become more popular over time, but it’s still very important and pushed the work in that direction for a long time. Just because it’s not fashionable today doesn’t mean it wasn’t a great contribution.
COWEN: It means that few people will vote for him for fear of looking low-key, like, “Oh, you still think that national growth is a thing.” I think it matters how many people picked you in the first rounds.
TABARROK: Yes. I think it’s Barro’s birthday this week. He is 80 years old, I think.
I would be happy if Barro won, not least because he will be here at GMU next week which would be even more exciting if we could celebrate the Nobel too.
Here is the MR Podcast home page. Subscribe now to take a small step towards a better world: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube.
Source link