Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
User avatar
bobcat2
Posts: 5247
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: just barely Outside the Beltway

Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by bobcat2 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:10 am

This year’s Nobel Prize in Economics is shared by Paul Romer (no relation to the prominent economic team of David & Christine Romer) and William Nordhaus. While Nordhaus’ award is well deserved, I personally believe that Paul Romer has been the most influential economist in the world over the last quarter century.

Paul Romer’s work on long-term economic growth has had a huge impact both on economic theory and economic practice and policy making. Not to mention that Paul is also a fascinating individual. Son of a former governor of Colorado, Paul dropped out of academia while in his 50’s to form his own company that built software to improve teaching methods at the college level. Later he resigned in protest as Chief Economist of the World Bank because he felt that the Bank’s assessment of economic conditions in developing countries was politically biased, particularly in the case of Chile. In recent years he has become a severe critic of modern macroeconomics, which is built on Romer's own research on long-term growth and technological change, as becoming too abstract and based on advanced math often filled with math errors that he described by a word he coined, mathiness - Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathiness. Romer has also been an early and strong advocate for global charter cities.

Romer’s economic modeling is often based on computer programs he writes. Lately he has been attempting to port his computer site to a new improved site. Yesterday he was having trouble with his server and stayed up until the wee hours of the morning attempting to get the server to reboot at which point his work was seriously interrupted by a phone call from Stockholm. This sounds very much like something that could happen to Paul Romer.

David Warsh wrote a fine book on Paul Romer and his work on long-term growth titled, Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations: A Study of Economic Discovery. The book is not technical and for the lay person interested in modern economics I highly recommend putting this book at the top of your reading list. BTW Romer thought the book was good but presented too admiring a view of himself and his work. Link -https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Wealth ... 0393329887

Nordhaus has also worked on long-term growth and obstacles to rapid long-term growth. He has written an excellent introduction to the science of climate change – The Climate Casino. This book I also highly recommend. Link - https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Casino-U ... 030021264X

Here's a link about both economists - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/busi ... e=Homepage

Here's a link about Paul Romer -https://marginalrevolution.com/marginal ... omics.html

Here is a link about William Nordhaus - https://marginalrevolution.com/marginal ... omics.html

Paul Romer's twitter feed -https://twitter.com/paulmromer

Paul Romer's web site -https://paulromer.net

BobK
In finance risk is defined as uncertainty that is consequential (nontrivial). | The two main methods of dealing with financial risk are the matching of assets to goals & diversifying.

User avatar
Wildebeest
Posts: 1145
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by Wildebeest » Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:48 pm

Hi bobcat2,

Every time when the Nobel prize in economics is awarded I am disappointed that the most deserving person John C Bogle has again been bypassed. But what do Swedes know of low cost Index funds which have caused a revolution in how people can retire?

I did not read about the new Nobel Prize Laureates on line. I did read your post and I am happy I did. While not as deserving as Jack, I am happy for Paul Romer and William Nordhaus.

I will read David Warsh's book "Knowledge and Wealth of the Nations" next after I finish Harari's 21 lessons for the 21 century ( I am at page 100 and I am enthralled).

W.
The Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

Valuethinker
Posts: 36722
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:28 am

Wildebeest wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:48 pm
Hi bobcat2,

Every time when the Nobel prize in economics is awarded I am disappointed that the most deserving person John C Bogle has again been bypassed. But what do Swedes know of low cost Index funds which have caused a revolution in how people can retire?
The Nobel Committee is not just composed of Swedes? (I don't believe) and they consult lots of experts in the field in any case.

"The Swedes don't know about index funds" is not an accurate depiction of a committee that awarded the Nobel Prize to Modigliani & Miller, Fama, Shiller (from memory) among other great minds of modern finance. Robert Merton & Myron Scholes also received the Nobel, and the late Fisher Black was the only one I can think of whose work was commemorated even though he was deceased.

The great disappointment was that William Baumol did not receive a Nobel before his death - he deserved it.
I did not read about the new Nobel Prize Laureates on line. I did read your post and I am happy I did. While not as deserving as Jack, I am happy for Paul Romer and William Nordhaus.

I will read David Warsh's book "Knowledge and Wealth of the Nations" next after I finish Harari's 21 lessons for the 21 century ( I am at page 100 and I am enthralled).
Harari seems to just cut the top off a bunch of issues. If you know anything about an issue, it seems superficial (and sometimes just plain wrong). If you don't it's probably a good introduction to that issue (although one has to distinguish between the facts and his opinions about the facts/ his forecasts.

Like many writers of bestsellers I often find it's better to go back to the less famous works, or at least the earlier ones, where the reputation was made. That's especially true of Taleb ("Fooled by Randomness" is a pretty good book and gives you the germs of his main ideas; his later books degenerate into repetition and boasting).
W.
John Bogle is not a professional or academic economist. His work has not advanced the state of economic knowledge - we do not know more about the world through his work. What he did was apply the developments of Modern Portfolio Theory to the real world - created a very large company. Might as well give the prize to Henry Kravis or Michael Milliken -- also great creative minds in modern finance (in private equity & junk bonds, respectively). Or Stanley Fink (Blackrock).

Thus he is not a realistic candidate for a Nobel Prize in Economics (it's not actually the Nobel Prize, but we can all look up the distinction).

Might be a better candidate for Nobel Peace Prize ;-).

beardsworth
Posts: 2135
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:02 pm

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by beardsworth » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:41 am

Valuethinker wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:28 am
Wildebeest wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:48 pm
Hi bobcat2,

Every time when the Nobel prize in economics is awarded I am disappointed that the most deserving person John C Bogle has again been bypassed. But what do Swedes know of low cost Index funds which have caused a revolution in how people can retire?
John Bogle is not a professional or academic economist. His work has not advanced the state of economic knowledge - we do not know more about the world through his work. What he did was apply the developments of Modern Portfolio Theory to the real world - created a very large company. . . .

Thus he is not a realistic candidate for a Nobel Prize in Economics (it's not actually the Nobel Prize, but we can all look up the distinction).
I think that's a fair summary of Bogle's contribution. The prize is awarded for contributions to the advancement of economic science, which does not really describe Bogle, even though he's an absolute gentleman, an excellent writer, and the company he created has made an enormous difference in the financial well-being of vast numbers of individual savers.

Here's the official site of this prize. Although colloquially described as "the Nobel Prize in Economics," it was created by a bank endowment in the 1960s, unlike the other Nobel prizes originally endowed by the will of Alfred Nobel himself, and is officially "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel."

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economics/

Valuethinker
Posts: 36722
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:04 am

beardsworth wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:41 am
Valuethinker wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:28 am
Wildebeest wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:48 pm
Hi bobcat2,

Every time when the Nobel prize in economics is awarded I am disappointed that the most deserving person John C Bogle has again been bypassed. But what do Swedes know of low cost Index funds which have caused a revolution in how people can retire?
John Bogle is not a professional or academic economist. His work has not advanced the state of economic knowledge - we do not know more about the world through his work. What he did was apply the developments of Modern Portfolio Theory to the real world - created a very large company. . . .

Thus he is not a realistic candidate for a Nobel Prize in Economics (it's not actually the Nobel Prize, but we can all look up the distinction).
I think that's a fair summary of Bogle's contribution. The prize is awarded for contributions to the advancement of economic science, which does not really describe Bogle, even though he's an absolute gentleman, an excellent writer, and the company he created has made an enormous difference in the financial well-being of vast numbers of individual savers.
On the hypothesis that the utility of a few people rewarded maximally = utility of many people rewarded less per person (i.e. we should be indifferent between giving 1 person $1m and 1000 people $1000) we can say the same of Henry Kravis, the Leveraged Buy Out King, and Michael Milliken, the inventor of the junk bond ;-).** Brilliant financiers who created vast amounts of well being for society (but became very rich doing it)***. Or Booth and Sinquefield (sp?) of Dimensional Fund Advisers.
Here's the official site of this prize. Although colloquially described as "the Nobel Prize in Economics," it was created by a bank endowment in the 1960s, unlike the other Nobel prizes originally endowed by the will of Alfred Nobel himself, and is officially "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel."

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economics/
Usually when some Nobel Prize winner (like Shiller) gets dissed it starts with "but of course he/ she didn't really win the Nobel Prize because there is no Nobel Prize in economics". Which is both trivially true and not interesting.

Neither is accusing the Nobel Prize in economics of having a well-known Swedish bias ;-).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Leijonhufvud is the only famous Swedish economist I know of -- and he did not receive a Nobel Prize.
Elinor Ostrom was of Scandinavian extraction but I think she was an American.


** we laugh. But, of course, say the average benefit of using Vanguard over a lifetime is $50k to the average poster here. From what I read, the average American does not have $50k of retirement savings? So the same principle that says that 20,000 of us is worth more in utility than $1 billion to Michael Milliken, says that $1000 to 50 people is worth more than $50k to one of us ;-).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen#Research_work is then the provocative person to read about in this regard. You quickly wind up in John Rawls' work.

*** you have to take a view whether Leveraged Buy Outs and junk bonds are good things. LBOs create corporate efficiency but may have significant harmful effects - the "revolution in corporate governance" that was unleashed by Michael Jensen in 1976 has gone a very long way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_C._Jensen

the LBO industry is the foremost practitioner of his tenets. Even Jensen, though, has subsequently had negative things to say about CEO pay.

And people invest in junk bond funds, allowing sub investment grade companies to access bond markets. So you'd have to argue that, too, is a social good.

Ari
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 6:59 am

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by Ari » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:15 am

Wildebeest wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:48 pm
But what do Swedes know of low cost Index funds which have caused a revolution in how people can retire?
This made me laugh out loud. It recalls the recent hullabaloo on these forums about Fidelity's zero ER funds. I, being a Swede, have been investing in a zero ER fund for over a decade. And as far as I know, Sweden also has the world's lowest ER on a total world fund open for private individuals, at 0.1%. What do Swedes know, indeed.

But more importantly, the Riksbank prize to the memory of Nobel is about making contributions to the field of economics, not to the pockets of investors. What Bogle has done is certainly laudable, bit it's not what the prize is about.
All in, all the time.

Valuethinker
Posts: 36722
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:50 am

Ari wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:15 am
Wildebeest wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:48 pm
But what do Swedes know of low cost Index funds which have caused a revolution in how people can retire?
This made me laugh out loud. It recalls the recent hullabaloo on these forums about Fidelity's zero ER funds. I, being a Swede, have been investing in a zero ER fund for over a decade. And as far as I know, Sweden also has the world's lowest ER on a total world fund open for private individuals, at 0.1%. What do Swedes know, indeed.

But more importantly, the Riksbank prize to the memory of Nobel is about making contributions to the field of economics, not to the pockets of investors. What Bogle has done is certainly laudable, bit it's not what the prize is about.
There's a laudable desire for John Bogle's work to be recognized publicly.

My father was responsible for the siting of a major project (the largest construction project in North America, for a time). Even within his corporation (that no longer exists in that form) his contribution was later buried by the institutional need to spend millions justifying the choice. So it went with him to his grave. That project has done more to benefit humanity than almost all the political hot air on the subject since (but that political process was both necessary, inevitable, and is not concluded) -- I did manage to tell him that I was proud of him, before he died.

But that's the way of this thing. We no longer remember who deciphered the Zimmerman telegram. The archer who shot Richard the Lionheart. etc.

Bogle applied economic science to a practical problem and created huge human value out of it. He wasn't Salk or Sabin to invent the polio vaccine, he was the guy who took the vaccination programme out to Africa, if you will. We won't remember that man, woman or collective group, but they have profoundly changed the lives of 10s of millions of human beings - an ancient scourge (almost) brought low.

Ari
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 6:59 am

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by Ari » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:14 am

Valuethinker wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:50 am
Bogle applied economic science to a practical problem and created huge human value out of it. He wasn't Salk or Sabin to invent the polio vaccine, he was the guy who took the vaccination programme out to Africa, if you will. We won't remember that man, woman or collective group, but they have profoundly changed the lives of 10s of millions of human beings - an ancient scourge (almost) brought low.
Yes, perhaps there should be another world-reknowned prize for engineering, in the broad sense of applying science to practical applications. Bogle is, to me, a financial engineer rather than a financial scientist. The Nobel Prize is not for him, but it seems there should be a different prize. As an engineer myself it's hard not to agree. :)

(I'm sure there is a different prize, or rather several, and Bogle probably received more than one, but none as famous as the NP.)
All in, all the time.

User avatar
bobcat2
Posts: 5247
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: just barely Outside the Beltway

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by bobcat2 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:22 am

Paul Romer blog post on economic growth.
People are reasonably good at estimating how things add up, but for compounding, which involved repeated multiplication, we fail to appreciate how quickly things grow. As a result, we often lose sight of how important even small changes in the average rate of growth can be.
Link to post - https://paulromer.net/economic-growth/

BobK
In finance risk is defined as uncertainty that is consequential (nontrivial). | The two main methods of dealing with financial risk are the matching of assets to goals & diversifying.

User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 5900
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by bottlecap » Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:58 pm

bobcat2 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:22 am
Paul Romer blog post on economic growth.
People are reasonably good at estimating how things add up, but for compounding, which involved repeated multiplication, we fail to appreciate how quickly things grow. As a result, we often lose sight of how important even small changes in the average rate of growth can be.
Link to post - https://paulromer.net/economic-growth/

BobK
This is a great point that I've often made. Unfortunately, his conclusion is banal and doesn't follow.

JT

User avatar
bobcat2
Posts: 5247
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: just barely Outside the Beltway

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by bobcat2 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:46 pm

bottlecap wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:58 pm
Paul Romer blog post on economic growth.
People are reasonably good at estimating how things add up, but for compounding, which involved repeated multiplication, we fail to appreciate how quickly things grow. As a result, we often lose sight of how important even small changes in the average rate of growth can be.
This is a great point that I've often made. Unfortunately, his conclusion is banal and doesn't follow.
JT



Chad Jones on Paul Romer’s Contribution to Growth Theory
If you add one computer, you make one worker more productive. If you add a new idea — think of the the computer code for the first spreadsheet or word processor or even the internet itself — you can make any number of workers more productive.
The essential contribution of Romer (1990) is its clear understanding of the economics of ideas and how the discovery of new ideas lies at the heart of economic growth. The history behind that paper is fascinating. Romer had been working on growth for around a decade. The words in his 1983 dissertation and in Romer (1986) grapple with the topic and suggest that knowledge and ideas are important to growth. And of course at some level, everyone knew that this must be true (and there is an earlier literature containing these words). However, what Romer didn’t yet have — and what no research had yet fully appreciated — was the precise nature of how this statement comes to be true. By 1990, though, Romer had it, and it is truly beautiful. One piece of evidence that he at last understood growth deeply is that the first two sections of the 1990 paper are written very clearly, almost entirely in text and with the minimum required math serving as the light switch that illuminates a previously dark room.

Here is the key insight: ideas are different from essentially every other good in that they are nonrival. Standard goods in classical economics are rivalrous: my use of a pencil or a seat on an airplane or an accountant means that you cannot use that pencil, airplane seat, or accountant at the same time. This rivalry underlies the scarcity that is at the heart of most of economics and gives rise to the Fundamental Welfare Theorems of Economics.

Ideas, in contrast, are nonrival: my use of the Pythagorean theorem does not in any way mean there is less of the theorem available for you to use simultaneously. Ideas are not depleted by use, and it is technologically feasible for any number of people to use an idea simultaneously once it has been invented. ...

The standard replication argument is a fundamental justification for constant returns to scale in production. How does the nonrivalry of ideas explain economic growth? The key is that nonrivalry gives rise to increasing returns to scale. If we wish to double the production of computers from a factory, one feasible way to do it is to build an equivalent factory across the street and populate it with equivalent workers, materials, and so on. That is, we replicate the factory exactly. This means that production with rivalrous goods is, at least as a useful benchmark, a constant returns process.

What Romer appreciated and stressed is that the nonrivalry of ideas is an integral part of this replication argument: firms do not need to reinvent the idea for a computer each time a new computer factory is built. Instead, the same idea — the detailed set of instructions for how to make a computer — can be used in the new factory, or indeed in any number of factories, because it is nonrivalrous. Since there are constant returns to scale in the rivalrous inputs (the factory, workers, and materials), there are therefore increasing returns to the rivalrous inputs and ideas taken together: if you double the rivalrous inputs and the quality or quantity of the ideas, you will more than double total production.

Once you’ve got increasing returns, growth follows naturally. Output per person then depends on the total stock of knowledge; the stock doesn’t need to be divided up among all the people in the economy. ...

Link - https://growthecon.wordpress.com/2015/1 ... th-theory/

BobK
In finance risk is defined as uncertainty that is consequential (nontrivial). | The two main methods of dealing with financial risk are the matching of assets to goals & diversifying.

User avatar
triceratop
Moderator
Posts: 5757
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:20 pm
Location: la la land

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by triceratop » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:03 pm

Re: Bogle, the best (which is not to say "good") argument for him might lie in his senior thesis, outlining the conflicts in fund management companies. I'm not sure how substantive it is as a matter of economic science, whatever its impact on the practice of financial capitalism has been.
"To play the stock market is to play musical chairs under the chord progression of a bid-ask spread."

User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 5900
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by bottlecap » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:09 pm

bobcat2 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:46 pm
bottlecap wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:58 pm
Paul Romer blog post on economic growth.
People are reasonably good at estimating how things add up, but for compounding, which involved repeated multiplication, we fail to appreciate how quickly things grow. As a result, we often lose sight of how important even small changes in the average rate of growth can be.
This is a great point that I've often made. Unfortunately, his conclusion is banal and doesn't follow.
JT



Chad Jones on Paul Romer’s Contribution to Growth Theory
If you add one computer, you make one worker more productive. If you add a new idea — think of the the computer code for the first spreadsheet or word processor or even the internet itself — you can make any number of workers more productive.
The essential contribution of Romer (1990) is its clear understanding of the economics of ideas and how the discovery of new ideas lies at the heart of economic growth. The history behind that paper is fascinating. Romer had been working on growth for around a decade. The words in his 1983 dissertation and in Romer (1986) grapple with the topic and suggest that knowledge and ideas are important to growth. And of course at some level, everyone knew that this must be true (and there is an earlier literature containing these words). However, what Romer didn’t yet have — and what no research had yet fully appreciated — was the precise nature of how this statement comes to be true. By 1990, though, Romer had it, and it is truly beautiful. One piece of evidence that he at last understood growth deeply is that the first two sections of the 1990 paper are written very clearly, almost entirely in text and with the minimum required math serving as the light switch that illuminates a previously dark room.

Here is the key insight: ideas are different from essentially every other good in that they are nonrival. Standard goods in classical economics are rivalrous: my use of a pencil or a seat on an airplane or an accountant means that you cannot use that pencil, airplane seat, or accountant at the same time. This rivalry underlies the scarcity that is at the heart of most of economics and gives rise to the Fundamental Welfare Theorems of Economics.

Ideas, in contrast, are nonrival: my use of the Pythagorean theorem does not in any way mean there is less of the theorem available for you to use simultaneously. Ideas are not depleted by use, and it is technologically feasible for any number of people to use an idea simultaneously once it has been invented. ...

The standard replication argument is a fundamental justification for constant returns to scale in production. How does the nonrivalry of ideas explain economic growth? The key is that nonrivalry gives rise to increasing returns to scale. If we wish to double the production of computers from a factory, one feasible way to do it is to build an equivalent factory across the street and populate it with equivalent workers, materials, and so on. That is, we replicate the factory exactly. This means that production with rivalrous goods is, at least as a useful benchmark, a constant returns process.

What Romer appreciated and stressed is that the nonrivalry of ideas is an integral part of this replication argument: firms do not need to reinvent the idea for a computer each time a new computer factory is built. Instead, the same idea — the detailed set of instructions for how to make a computer — can be used in the new factory, or indeed in any number of factories, because it is nonrivalrous. Since there are constant returns to scale in the rivalrous inputs (the factory, workers, and materials), there are therefore increasing returns to the rivalrous inputs and ideas taken together: if you double the rivalrous inputs and the quality or quantity of the ideas, you will more than double total production.

Once you’ve got increasing returns, growth follows naturally. Output per person then depends on the total stock of knowledge; the stock doesn’t need to be divided up among all the people in the economy. ...

Link - https://growthecon.wordpress.com/2015/1 ... th-theory/

BobK
Yup. I was talking about his conclusion in the original link.

JT

User avatar
bobcat2
Posts: 5247
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: just barely Outside the Beltway

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by bobcat2 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:34 pm

bottlecap wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:09 pm
Yup. I was talking about his conclusion in the original link.

JT
The conclusion in the two articles is the same. The metaphors employed are the differences in the two articles.

BobK
In finance risk is defined as uncertainty that is consequential (nontrivial). | The two main methods of dealing with financial risk are the matching of assets to goals & diversifying.

User avatar
matjen
Posts: 1992
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:30 pm

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by matjen » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:37 pm

Thanks for posting this summary BobK. Much appreciated. :beer
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.

Valuethinker
Posts: 36722
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by Valuethinker » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:09 pm

Ari wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:14 am
Valuethinker wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:50 am
Bogle applied economic science to a practical problem and created huge human value out of it. He wasn't Salk or Sabin to invent the polio vaccine, he was the guy who took the vaccination programme out to Africa, if you will. We won't remember that man, woman or collective group, but they have profoundly changed the lives of 10s of millions of human beings - an ancient scourge (almost) brought low.
Yes, perhaps there should be another world-reknowned prize for engineering, in the broad sense of applying science to practical applications. Bogle is, to me, a financial engineer rather than a financial scientist. The Nobel Prize is not for him, but it seems there should be a different prize. As an engineer myself it's hard not to agree. :)

(I'm sure there is a different prize, or rather several, and Bogle probably received more than one, but none as famous as the NP.)
As long as you are aware that "financial engineer" now has a particular meaning around the use of advanced mathematics to devise and price financial products. It is (not always fairly, but somewhat fairly) associated with the Great Financial Crisis. Financial Engineering degrees are now taught - stochastic calculus is introduced at the start of the course and used throughout, as well as exact numerical techniques, econometrics, asset pricing theory etc.

https://ieor.columbia.edu/masters/financial-engineering
Core Curriculum
Fall and Spring Required Core and Electives

Fall Requirements (First Fall Term; 12 credits minimum)

IEORE4721 Mathematics for Financial Engineering Bootcamp (0-credit)
IEORE4724 Python for Financial Engineering Bootcamp (0-credit)
IEORE4007 Optimization Models and Methods (FE)
IEORE4701 Stochastic Models (FE)
IEORE4706 Foundations of Financial Engineering
ENGIE4000 Professional Development and Leadership (0-credit)
FE Elective (1 minimum, 3 credits)
Financial Engineering Seminar Series

Spring Requirements (12 credits minimum)

IEORE4703 Monte Carlo Simulation
IEORE4707 Financial Engineering: Continuous Time Models
IEORE4709 Statistical Analysis and Time Series
FE Elective (1 minimum, 3 credits)
Financial Engineering Seminar Series
But I like "financial engineer" rather than "financial scientist" as a distinction, even so ;-).

User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 5900
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Paul Romer & William Nordhaus share Nobel Prize in Economics

Post by bottlecap » Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:42 pm

bobcat2 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:34 pm
bottlecap wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:09 pm
Yup. I was talking about his conclusion in the original link.

JT
The conclusion in the two articles is the same. The metaphors employed are the differences in the two articles.

BobK
Conclusion is different from theory.

JT

Post Reply