Articles

Like many economists, I have enjoyed Axel Leijonhufvud’s “Life among the Econ” and nodded appreciatively when he described the social classifications of the Econ as “Grads, Adults and Elders” and chuckled when the young grad tries to impress the elders of the ‘dept’ through adept ‘modl’ building; so when the man himself was holding a glass of champagne and chatting with me at the INET conference, I had to ask how he got that paper started.

Behind all the technical language and the common theme of bashing bankers, there remains the Great Divide between Germans and the rest.

On my way back home from the Brandenburger Tor, I recalled that I already have been there, it must have been in 1988.

Entangling alliances or entangling leagues are nothing to the entanglements of cash owing—Keynes

In his notorious “How Did Economists Get It So Wrong” NYT article in 2009, Paul Krugman relied on the freshwater/saltwater distinction to explain that the economists’ inability to predict and solve the current economics crisis was due to the fact that MIT/Harvard economics lost their long dispute against their Chicagoan counterparts.

The current account still matters, but other things do too, and maybe more. In light of recent focus on gross flows, here and elsewhere, I want to argue for the language of the balance of payments.

In recent years, an increasingly significant part of the history of economics has modeled itself after the methodologies developed by Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholars.

The ECB has always been the protagonist of the eurozone crisis story.

The fact of the matter is that European bank funding markets are collapsing onto the ECB balance sheet.

A recent e-mail conversation I had with Harro Maas concerning one of my latest drafts (shameless self-promotion) made me buy and read Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s, Merchants of Doubts.