Quoting William Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Faustine replies: > > Quoting William Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [David Friedman has published in ...] > > > Journal of Law and Economics (more than once) > > > Journal of Political Economy (more than once) > > > American Economic Review > > > > > > AER is usually considered the top economics > > > journal. JPE is in everyone's top 5 and it > > > would be reasonable to rank it second behind > > > AER. > > > > I'm sure you know that writing a tiny response or > > comment in reply to someone > > else's article isn't the same as having your own > > research published there. [...] > > Seems a little like disingenuous padding to me. > > Well, I found 4 articles of his in JSTOR > (an economics archive) in JPE. None were comments; > although, at least two were rather short. I > found 1 non-comment article and 2 comments (one > not labeled as such in its title) in AER. > > It seems to me that what I said above is right. > At any rate, I hope you'll be kind enough to > imply that I am stupid next time you don't > agree with my presentation of data. The > implication that I am dishonest is both > obnoxious and unfounded. That *is* what > disingenuous means, no? Oh no! I wasn't referring to you at all: I was talking about the CV. You are by no means stupid OR dishonest! My apologies for the confusion. (And my utter lack of clarity.) > > Do you really mean to say you think Friedman is up > > to NBER standards? Maybe I > > just haven't read the right thing yet; let me know > > what you think his best > > stuff is and I'll give it a shot. > > I don't know what it means to be up to NBER > standards. NBER is not a standard-setting > organization. It is more like a club. Clubs have standards: from what I've seen, I have every reason to assume theirs are very high. > How about I point you to a piece of his stuff which > signals strongly that he is a good economist? > See Friedman, D (1987) "Cold houses in warm climates > ..." JPE 95(5): 1089-97. Thanks, I'll read it! > That piece can have little political or > policy motivation. It's interesting and > insightful. It applies economic reasoning in > an unusual context: an unimportant context, even. > > Why would someone write and publish such a thing? > The most plausible explanation is that he > 1) cares a lot about moving phenomena from the > category "stuff I don't understand" to the > category "stuff I understand in terms of > economic incentives." and 2) is reasonably > good at doing what he cares about. A fair > definition of a good economist. > > His piece in JPE 107(6):S259-69 is also nice. > Assuming that this is one of the essays you > think is slack, would it have made you happier > if it had a formal model? I'm not sure about this cite, better look it up and read it before I put my foot in it again... :) > Finally, Machinery of Freedom is quite a nice > bit of advocacy-scholarship. Given the subject > matter and the vintage of the book, it seems > very good to me. > > > For what it's worth, I liked your work MUCH better. > > Well, that's very kind. I don't agree with you, > however. Given that I respect your ability to judge these things, there's nothing left to conclude but that I'm in need of reading a little more Friedman! Thanks for the references. > By the way, you say in another article: > > "Vogt [believes] that [Faustine] didn't know > about economics journals" > > This is not true, and nothing I said even > remotely trenched on implying this. It's what the other author said you implied. >Are there > other people reading this mailing list? Are > they all economists? > Finally, I'm curious about another comment you > made elsewhere. What large impact do you > think Hayek has had on economics? He had an enormous impact on economic policy that actually was implemented, from Thatcher on down. When Economist Magazine calls the 20th c. "The Hayek Century", I'm assuming this is the angle they had in mind. Off to the library, :) ~Faustine. **** 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
