hawk30

Depending on how the terms are defined, I would argue that the Fed is pretty much a textbook example of a "Marxist" institution: it exists to serve the economic interests of the ruling capitalist class. I don't think that's what either you or Ron were getting at, but it also fits the definition of a "socialist" institution well: public ownership or control of the means of producing credit. The Austrians' and Ron's view may be wrong, but it is hardly un-articulated on the internet. A quick Google search would spare you the need to "suppose" others' positions while accusing them of lacking understanding. The "natural rate of interest," beginning with Wicksell, formed the centerpiece of much of pre-General Theory macroeconomic thought. Keynes' book is significant precisely because of the way it challenged that model. Its modern analog is simply the real interest rate that corresponds to output equal to potential output or, equivalently, steady state inflation, which shows up in any generic New Keynesian model and trivially in a basic RBC model.

You couldn't have been too bored. This took exactly 1 Google search: http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs2/FacultyReligion07.pdf I'm only a mildly rational person myself, but I think it says no fields have a majority atheists; 28% in science/math, which is slightly more than humanities/social science. Atheists are not even a plurality in any area.

I'd be interested in your elaboration. I still have an offer from UCB on the table.

Berkeley's offer to me was even worse. They won't even let me in!

I got this email and was accepted. However, before I received this email, I received an email from the department chair saying I was recommended for acceptance. I hate to be pedantic, but the email says a decision is being made... which, if you take it at face value, would suggest that a decision isn't made.

Even weirder, I just got one with that subject title but the email was completely blank. I was waitlisted.

I revised my post, but this is still incorrect. You've confused Mises with Hans Sennholz.

Hayek made his name at LSE and won a frickin' Nobel Prize. Mises taught at Vienna and NYU (some small LAC, I guess). You also conveniently neglected Schumpeter and basically every Chicago economist ever (Simons, Viner, Becker, Stigler, Lucas?). (By what definition, other than anarchist, is Friedman not a libertarian?) In any case, the Austrians are irrelevant to the OP's question. He asked about pro-market, freshwater macro. Which basically means Chicago, monetarist, rational expectations macro. If anything, the success of Chicago demonstrates the exact opposite of your point: If your academic rigor is the par of excellence, your political posiitions are irrelevant to your academic standing.

It makes me sad to know that you want to be an economist.

The 2008 SEJ has the most recent rankings, including by field.

January. Applied to all Colorado grad programs plus New Mexico. Getting the scores in wasn't a problem, but not doing as well as I wanted to was.

I took it around the 14th last year and had no issues. If you have all of your other application materials in, I think they assume the GRE scores must be on their way.

GMU has a center, headed up by Vernon Smith, for nueroeconomics: The Center for the Study of Neuroeconomics Don't know anything more than that.

Take the GRE. If you get a 750 or above, apply. If not, wait a year.

You do realize that fallacies apply to arguments, right? All the things you just listed are premises, fragments of arguments. The "straw men fallacy" does not mean "things that are make believe." Rigorous logic indeed.

For such a strong admirer of rigor you're really adept at executing the straw man fallacy.

Quoted for truth.

Not true. You can get funded offers from schools without either, but you'll have to go pretty far down the rankings or even off of them.

Persevere. Fight the good fight. And I strongly recommend you read McCloskey's How to be Human, though an Economist.

Oh hardly. And I read The Republic in my intro philosophy class, so I guess that proves this "paradigm" is Platonic. The Ptolemaic-Aristotelian epistemology and metaphysics were unseated long before with Occam, Copernicus and Descartes. And "shifted" again with Kant and Hegel. There was no Aristotelian paradigm when Wittgenstein was born. Hume and Bacon were far more influential in the development of positivism. Moreover, Marx and Nietzsche "cracked down" the "deep rooted dualism in western philosophy" before Wittgenstein was around.

You're honestly holding up Wittgenstein as an example of "paradigm shift"? With respect to Aristotle? Who, by the way, claimed Smith and Keynes were the creators of economics?

Funny. But what's even funnier is entire generations of macroeconomists who've never read The General Theory or microeconomists who've never opened a Principles book, even the Wealth of Nations, in their lives.

...which totally explains the fetish with mathematics...

And what "school" is that? I'm sorry, but you've drank far too much of the Obama Kool-Aid. You're cut off. McCain is advocating buying up ALL of the bad mortgages out there - essentially socialization. He also ardently supported the bailout. And you want me to believe he's "from the school of never believing gov't can do any good"? Wake up and smell the coffee. McCain believes just the opposite! He believes the gov't can do absolutely no wrong running around the world butting into everyone else's business! He worships at the altar of the United States government and its military. His frickin' role model for crying out loud is Teddy Roosevelt. Stop shadow boxing against some mythical laissez-faire influence in the modern Republican party. Its dead if it was ever there. The basic philosophical difference between McCain and Obama boils down to the difference between spuds and potatoes. Same shit, different piles.

Are you serious? Have you heard Obama talk about trade before? He plays the populist-protectionist card every chance he gets. Though, that doesn't make him a socialist or McCain any better.