yes, I'd say that UCB economists are generally very good; it's one reason why I think that blanket condemnations of "economics" or the "economics profession" should be avoided. Akerlof's economics is curiouser and curiouser, suggesting all sorts of interesting ideas. Even though Reich was my adviser, I think that Akerlof has more stimulating ideas.
One sign that UCB's problems is that they no longer have a graduate course on the history of economic ideas, as far as I can tell. Lakshmi Rhone wrote: > One thing is that the work of of a lot of Berkeley economists is fairly > interesting to non-economists--Pranab Bardhan's work on India and China, > Michael Reich on social structures of accumulation, Akerlof on animal > spirits and identity, of course DeLong's critiques of freshwater economics, > Saez's work on inequality, Brown's history of the microprocessor industry, > DeVries' idea of the industrious revolution,Gourinchas' Congressional > testimony on the financial crisis, Eichengreen's analysis of dollar > politics. Then there are Berkeley or Berkeley trained economists working in > other departments or centers--the business school, real estate research > centers, information systems. -- Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you should at least know the nature of that evil. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
