The sky’s the limit?

23 Jan, 2013 at 17:42 | Posted in Varia | 1 Comment

happy-cartoon-boy-jumping-and-smiling3 Yours truly launched this blog two years ago. The number of visitors has  increased steadily. From having only a couple of hundred visits per month at the start, I’m now having almost 55 000 visits per month. A blog is sure not a beauty contest, but given the rather “wonkish” character of the blog – with posts mostly on economic theory, statistics, econometrics, theory of science and methodology – it’s rather gobsmacking that so many are interested and take their time to read and comment on it. I am – of course – truly awed, honoured and delighted!

1 Comment

  1. Hello, Lars. I seize the opportunity of this post to congratulate you and encourage you to continue with this work. I am one of the relatively new (I have been following for 6 months or so) and it has become one of my favourites.

    I read carefully your article on the REal Worl Economics Review on rational expectations. I was very interested because I have thought (as many others, I believe) for some time that this hypothesis is one of the biggest problems of the current dominant view of how a modern economy works. I wrote an article in a small Spanish Journal called The year that falsed rational expectations.

    Your article has added new insights to my interepretation of the implications of the REH. I wanted to make two questions/remarks.

    First, I am not totally sure about your claim that REH means that all actors are alike and this would preclude transactions. They can have different preferences and this would allow for transactions. The problem is that there is one objective model which is equally accessible for all…and this makes everyone converge to the same expectations on average.
    Second, you mention Sargent at the beginning of the article. But then, when you refer to some modern apologists of REH, you do not mention his work on model uncertainty, robustness and learning. The articles are quite tough and my reading of them might have not been deep enough, but I think he has been one of the REH fathers that has understood the flaws in the concept quite early. In one of this articles, he acknoledged the need to replace REH with a different concept of equilibrium. What do you think?

    Thank you

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.