99luftballoons

It sounds like you'd be better served at a public policy school like Wilson at Princeton or Kennedy at Harvard. You should check out some of those.

This should be called "How macroeconomics, which is not all of economics, lost sight of the real world."

Arg! Also, Caltech made top-10 micro! How cool is that?

You can always tell a Harvard man... you just can't tell 'im much. Wait... I think I did it wrong.

I am starting Econonometrica. Does anyone want to be the on editorial board?

I see what you did there. The Cambridge battle will continue.

I rank your ranking of YouTube videos #1.

I hear that Stanford GSB has an excellent heterodox-trade group.

My totally unbiased ranking 1 Stanford GSB 2 Harvard 3 Northwestern 4 NYU 5 Princeton 6 MIT 7 Berkeley 8 Yale 9 Caltech 10 Stanford 11 Yale

I actually quite like Paul Krugman for two reasons, one, he hates the finance community as much as I do and two, he is incredibly snarky in debates, which I find hilarious.

This is what I said, no? The markets clear, which is by itself an interesting property, but the other conditions such as Pareto optimality and inability to "improve" the outcome will not hold. Unless this is what allocative efficiency means in this paper. I don't have access to JSTOR, but I'll try to get it next time I'm around a terminal that does. Very interesting.

This only holds if we assume something akin to rational expectations. If we say something like bounded rationality (or behavioral biases?), then we can no longer draw such inferences. In fact, there is a paper by Herbert Simon in which he shows that given boundedly rational satisficing agents in the "traditional market" situation, the results about demand/supply still hold, but the results about Pareto optimality and the Welfare theorems are bunk.

What is non-mathematical economics?

Dysentery is another matter.

This makes me think of the Scientology South Park episode... "This is what Macroeconomists actually believe!"