NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is the greatest economist of all time?

Adam Smith: Father of Modern Economics. Described the ‘invisible hand’.
David Ricardo: Responsible for Ricardian Equivalence, comparative advantage and the Labour Theory of Value (later used by Marx).
Karl Marx: Discovered that the proletariat were being tricked and oppressed.
Irving Fisher: Discovered just about everything. The first celebrity economist. Was ruined in the Great Depression which he blamed on ‘debt-deflation’ and argued for a program of deliberate inflation.
John Maynard Keynes: Proposed economic pump-priming during the Great Depression.
AW Phillips: Rediscovered the statistical relationship between unemployment and inflation Fisher found 30 years earlier.
Robert Solow: Created the Solow growth model. Famously said “Everything reminds Milton Friedman of the money supply. Everything reminds me of sex, but I try to keep it out of my papers.”
Milton Friedman: Resurrected much of the pre-Keynes thinking (especially that of Fisher). Increased the importance of the money supply in economic theory and attacked the Phillip’s Curves theoretical basis.
John Forbes Nash: Solved the general case of the competitive game. Had a movie made entirely about him.
Robert Lucas: Proposed rational expectations and real business cycle theory. Revolutionised macroeconomics through the “Lucas Critique”, leading to growth of the neo-classical school.

NB: Descriptions may be biased.

My economist of choice is Irving Fisher, simply because the massive scope, and the importance of his work as well as the level of understanding he showed. I am also inclined to agree with his analysis of the cause and cure for the Great Depression.

Poll coming.

I vote for Cheese Helmet.

I voted Friedman, though that's mostly due to his politics.

Keynes, "In the long run, we're all dead."

Mikahil Bakunin, Piotr Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky... =P

voted for Marx though, as the above weren't economists perse... but rather anti-economists

Why are Hayek and Mises not on the list?

http://www.bureaucrash.com/system/files/images/hayek+1024+x+768.preview.gif

Keynes, no doubt about it. Especially not Friedman.

Where's Mises? :(

Nash did game theory and was a mathematician...not sure he counts as an economist?? (I am sure I will be proven wrong LOL)

Game theory is a nasty nasty piece of work.

I can understand von Mises not being on this list (because he is not exactly popular, and for no other reason than that), but what about Hayek? Or Say? Or Cantillon? Hayek is in my opinion the greatest modern economist to have lived, followed closely by Friedman, von Mises and Rothbard (I like Lucas too of course). Of the classicals I like Say, Menger and von Boehm-Bawerk best.

Nash did game theory and was a mathematician...not sure he counts as an economist?? (I am sure I will be proven wrong LOL)

Game theory is a nasty nasty piece of work.
You're correct. I quite enjoyed game theory though. I am partial to theory surrounding oligopolies.

A note to the OP: Many of these so-called "discoveries" are nothing of the sort. They are theories.

Smith is the obvious pick, he is the Babe Ruth of economics.

But I am going to go a different route and take the sleeper, Jean Baptiste Say.

But I am going to go a different route and take the sleeper, Jean Baptiste Say.

The name sounds vaguely familiar.

Smith is the obvious pick, he is the Babe Ruth of economics.

But I am going to go a different route and take the sleeper, Jean Baptiste Say.
Beat you to it. ;)

Marx was more a philosopher than an economist.

Notes:

1) I hate to point out, but I could only put ten options in the poll. I was going to put Hayek in, but decided against it. I felt Ricardo was a bigger figure than Hayek in the wider picture. In hindsight that was a mistake. Say I felt was more obscure than Ricardo, but he would have got a vote.

2) JF Nash is not an economist by trade, but nor was Adam Smith (no one had thought of economists in Smith's time). He had a major impact on economics, worked in economics institutes and has a noble prize in economics. I actually was thinking of using von Neumann, who I consider a greater mind than Nash, but he didn't get a movie.

3) Karl Marx certainly was an economist, but also a philosopher. May I point you to Das Kapital. Many listed are philosophers, perhaps first and foremost.

4) On the use of the word ‘discovered’:
The use of ‘discovered’ with reference to Marx was a vague mockery.
The use of ‘rediscovered’ in reference to AW Phillips is correct, as you discover statistical relationships.
The only other use of discovered was that Fisher “discovered just about everything”. The use in that context is debatable, but it was meant for a broad church. Fisher formulated, observed and invented. Discovered was just a cover all word I chose.

5) I’m surprised no one has voted Lucas.

6) WHY DO YOU ALL HATE IRVING FISHER? YOU’RE ALL JEALOUS OF HIS BRILLIANCE! HE WAS SMARTER THAN KEYNES AND FRIEDMAN COMBINED![/rant]

4) On the use of the word ‘discovered’:
The use of ‘discovered’ with reference to Marx was a vague mockery.
The use of ‘rediscovered’ in reference to AW Phillips is correct, as you discover statistical relationships.
The only other use of discovered was that Fisher “discovered just about everything”. The use in that context is debatable, but it was meant for a broad church. Fisher formulated, observed and invented. Discovered was just a cover all word I chose.
Fair enough.

5) I’m surprised no one has voted Lucas.
Well, I did say I like him. :)

the greatest economist is an oxymoron as no real honest science of economics has as yet been invented. too much emotional attatchments to familiar assumptions to even begin to come up with one.

not that one isn't genuinely needed.

one that takes into account the dependence of all life upon the web of life and nature's cycles of renewal, not just the circular illogic of little green pieces of paper, as if we could somehow bribe nature into giving us air to breathe with them, if we could just keep enough of them kited and circulating fast enough.

marx saw a real need. too bad he had been forced to live in a way that effed up his head. (and led him ulitmately to repeat many of the same mistakes enshrined by the rest of them)

=^^=
.../\...

I don't know enough about economics, really. And in any case, the question is too mixed up in politics: I despise the politics of von Mises and Friedman, but that doesn't make them bad economists.

the greatest economist is an oxymoron as no real honest science of economics has as yet been invented.
Ah, and what would an "honest science of economics" be characterised by?

Indeed, the little tidbits you gave are somewhat biased.

I'll go Ricardo, followed by Keynes and Friedman.

And why the hell isn't Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Marshall) on that list? How many millions of students have to go through drawing demand and supply curves until someone learns his name?

Oh, and before I forget...

Schumpeter?

More people draw Walrasian demand curves than write Marshallian demand curves.

I would have liked to put Walras, Marshall and Pareto on my list. Actually they would have gone ahead of Hayek. But ten options are ten options.

More people draw Walrasian demand curves than write Marshallian demand curves.

I would have liked to put Walras, Marshall and Pareto on my list. Actually they would have gone ahead of Hayek. But ten options are ten options.
Given Hayek's contributions to the calculation debate, knowledge in economics, competition and capital theories and so on, I would say he is on equal standing with any one of those guys.

But ten options are ten options.
Indeed.

Well, I guess all we can do is come to a simple, but satisfying conclusion: Microeconomics > Macroeconomics!

I reckon that 'young' economists like Hayek, Keynes and Friedman have an unfair advantage over Ricardo, Malthus, Walrus, Marshall & JS Mill.

I'm inclined to think that the conclusions of early economists are taken as given to such an extent that their historcal significane is ignored.

Obviously all these economists are thrown into the shadow when compared with the greatness of Irving Fisher.

John Stuart Mill.

"The same persons who cry down Logic will generally warn you against Political Economy. It is unfeeling, they will tell you. It recognises unpleasant facts. For my part, the most unfeeling thing I know of is the law of gravitation: it breaks the neck of the best and most amiable person without scruple, if he forgets for a single moment to give heed to it. The winds and waves too are very unfeeling. Would you advise those who go to sea to deny the winds and waves - or to make use of them, and find the means of guarding against their dangers? My advice to you is to study the great writers on Political Economy, and hold firmly by whatever in them you find true; and depend upon it that if you are not selfish or hard-hearted already, Political Economy will not make you so."

Obviously all these economists are thrown into the shadow when compared with the greatness of Irving Fisher.
Meh, I don't think so.

But asking for the greatest economist is a lot like asking for the greatest physicist: In trying to get to the guy with the most profound insight that was the most original and the least based on previous knowledge, you're bound to go further and further back in history.

So maybe the greatest economist is the caveman who decided that his tribe will swap some furs against some sea shells.

I reckon that 'young' economists like Hayek, Keynes and Friedman have an unfair advantage over Ricardo, Malthus, Walrus, Marshall & JS Mill.
I agree - that is why I separated them in specifying my preferences.

Obviously all these economists are thrown into the shadow when compared with the greatness of Irving Fisher.
Obviously. ;) Do you like Lucas by the way?

Meh, I don't think so.

But asking for the greatest economist is a lot like asking for the greatest physicist: In trying to get to the guy with the most profound insight that was the most original and the least based on previous knowledge, you're bound to go further and further back in history.
I was just about to go back to edit my post and say that, and then I saw this. :D I agree. Maybe an easier way to make such a poll is to ask which is the greatest (say) modern economist.

I'm very fond of the Lucas critique (policy endogeniety). It is the most important piece of economics since the days of Irving Fisher. I'm inclined to think that the only reason Fisher didn't create the Lucas critique is because the fields of macroeconomics and econometrics were not developed. It might of also seemed so obvious to someone as clever as Fisher, that he didn't bother noting it.

Back to Lucas. Rational expectations is a great deal of fun, but I have serious reservations about it. My supervisor calls RE "Model-Consistent Expectations" and wonders why his terminology hasn't caught on. Model Consistent Expectations are a very important tool, even if Lucas hadn't done anything new (the first evidence of such a theory goes back to ?1899?). A paper that summarises my view on RE is:
Maddock & Carter (1982) "A Child's Guide to Rational Expectations" Journal of Economic Literature
NB: My views may have changed since my last reading without informing me.

On Real Business Cycle Theory, the jury is still out. However I am doing some research in that field at the moment.

Definately not Karl Marx. He was way ahead of his time in political ideology, but in terms of ecenomics, he was very impractical and just silly.

But asking for the greatest economist is a lot like asking for the greatest physicist: In trying to get to the guy with the most profound insight that was the most original and the least based on previous knowledge, you're bound to go further and further back in history.

So maybe the greatest economist is the caveman who decided that his tribe will swap some furs against some sea shells.

You have a point, but a precise question and a poll creates discussion and a firm measure.

Looking back over economics, the very first writings in the field seem to be those of Aristotle. Anyone have anything before Aristotle?

I don't think discovering trade would have been a profound insight, I suspect it is intrinsic in humans. Even little children can work out to trade by themselves. I'm sure that it was discovered independently all over the world. The idea of currency I would put down as probably the first major economic discovery.

You have a point, but a precise question and a poll creates discussion and a firm measure.

Looking back over economics, the very first writings in the field seem to be those of Aristotle. Anyone have anything before Aristotle?
Not to my knowledge. Well, Plato (who came before Aristotle, of course) did outline the benefits brought by the division of labour. This was his economic contribution (and though it may seem obvious, it's an important discovery and at the basis of catallactics). Aristotle went further with the concept of property and so on.

I assume you are talking about Plato's division of labour in 'Republic'?
I'm not sure if there is enough there to call it a discussion of economics, and I doubt it was anything new in theoretical discussions of the time. What Plato is doing is applying a concept generally used on a group and applying it to the individual.

But point taken.

I do however believe Aristotle was the first person to connect governance to state prosperity.

I assume you are talking about Plato's division of labour in 'Republic'?
I'm not sure if there is enough there to call it a discussion of economics, and I doubt it was anything new in theoretical discussions of the time. What Plato is doing is applying a concept generally used on a group and applying it to the individual.
Here's an article (http://www.mises.org/story/2490)on it. Quite a friendly one, considering the source (Plato is not too popular in general with us libertarians).

Smith: All others work within the field that he defined, including those who would oppose the system that he defined.

I guess in retrospect, there was a fair bit on division of labour in Plato. Still when discussing division of labour he was simultaneously discussing the division of the soul.

I wasn't a big fan of Plato, no one seemed to be happy in his society. Plato thinks that only wisdom can bring happiness and then says that the wise, who are 'forced' to rule, are made unhappy by this.

I'm not a libertarian either, despite a brief flirt with Nozick. Actually I'm a Hobbesian if anything. *ducks flying tomatos*

I wasn't a big fan of Plato, no one seemed to be happy in his society. Plato thinks that only wisdom can bring happiness and then says that the wise, who are 'forced' to rule, are made unhappy by this.
Plato envisioned this society in trying to show why morality was inherently good in and of itself (and in the process made many rather significant contributions to philosophy, and as it would seem, one to economics). Reason would rule over passion which would in turn rule over desire. It is important to realise The Republic was not a political treatise. Still, it was rather telling of where his inclinations lay.

Levitt pwns all of them :D

Robert Lucas still doesn't have any votes.
And I'm the only person who voted for Irving Fisher.
What is going on?

Actually I'm not that surprised that AW Phillips hasn't gotten any votes.

I vote Marx, though I always considered him more of a sociologist than an economist. I'm not a communist, but I admire that he wrote the common man into history. Along with others he inspired Europeans to gradually shake off the shackles of monarchist slavery.

In terms of actual economists, I choose Keynes. His ideas influenced the creation of the various welfare state models of Europe, which are among the things that make this continent great.

I voted Friedman. Although Friedman had his flaws he was definitely a great economist. I suppose that many of the others have their strengths, however, Friedman definitely did a lot and I agree with his politics to a reasonable extent.

Definitely Friedman.. Not to mention he put Keynes to shame in the debates..

Robert Lucas still doesn't have any votes.
And I'm the only person who voted for Irving Fisher.
What is going on?

Actually I'm not that surprised that AW Phillips hasn't gotten any votes.
It's telling of the knowledge people here have of Economics in general. ;) That said, Phillips was proven wrong, but both Fisher and Lucas could've done better... the latter is particularly important nowadays.

Considering the fact that Friedman seems to get many votes, can someone that voted for him explain why you think his economic theories are good?

I was thinking of not including AW Phillips expecting he would poll badly, because he failed to factor in expectations over time, unlike Friedman-Phelps (and probably many of the economists before Keynes). However every textbook has a Phillips Curve and you can't do much better than that.

AW Phillips' son has actually made a huge contribution to econometrics.

In the communist literature of Karl Marx, Engel's was the economist, Marx the theorist.

In the communist literature of Karl Marx, Engel's was the economist, Marx the theorist.

And that's why Engels wrote Capital.

Oh, wait....

You're correct. I quite enjoyed game theory though. I am partial to theory surrounding oligopolies.



Game theory has been applied to the world and it sucks. It makes a very fundamental assumption about us as individuals....that we are all self competing and will 'do what it takes' to get our way.




2) JF Nash is not an economist by trade, but nor was Adam Smith (no one had thought of economists in Smith's time). He had a major impact on economics, worked in economics institutes and has a noble prize in economics. I actually was thinking of using von Neumann, who I consider a greater mind than Nash, but he didn't get a movie.


Ok...I was not aware he won a Noble Prize in Economics...thanks! I thought it was Mathematics....

I am disturbed though that you limit one person because he did not have a movie made after him though! :p

would say Adam Smith only beacuse hes got his fisog on the new 20 quid note

Game theory has been applied to the world and it sucks. It makes a very fundamental assumption about us as individuals....that we are all self competing and will 'do what it takes' to get our way.
Not really. It all depends on what you put into the cells, as it were. You can build any number of games and model virtually any situation with them. The few assumptions are reasonable enough: That we are self-interested in trying to maximise what we gain, and that the situation described is a zero-sum game.

But I can probably explain these things a lot better in a few weeks time. I'm taking an "Advanced Microeconomics" course right now which builds up all the things we learned in previous courses from a really, really basic level upwards. Very interesting. But game theory won't be a topic until a few weeks time.

Not really. It all depends on what you put into the cells, as it were. You can build any number of games and model virtually any situation with them. The few assumptions are reasonable enough: That we are self-interested in trying to maximise what we gain, and that the situation described is a zero-sum game.

But I can probably explain these things a lot better in a few weeks time. I'm taking an "Advanced Microeconomics" course right now which builds up all the things we learned in previous courses from a really, really basic level upwards. Very interesting. But game theory won't be a topic until a few weeks time.

yes really I'm afraid. How do you think we came to the patently absurd idea of 'market democracy'?

yes really I'm afraid. How do you think we came to the patently absurd idea of 'market democracy'?
I don't think game theory plays all that big a role in it. But then, that depends on what exactly you mean, I suppose.

As it is, the idea that a market is democratic is simple enough: the outcome produced by a market is the aggregate of all the decisions made by everyone who took part in it.

Obviously that doesn't mean that everyone's decision matters equally, which is what we generally connect to the word "democracy", so you're right, the idea is a bit absurd, and I'd put it in the "rhetoric" category.

Keynes seems to have the greatest influence. Smith also very influencial. Tough call.

I don't think game theory plays all that big a role in it. But then, that depends on what exactly you mean, I suppose.

As it is, the idea that a market is democratic is simple enough: the outcome produced by a market is the aggregate of all the decisions made by everyone who took part in it.

Obviously that doesn't mean that everyone's decision matters equally, which is what we generally connect to the word "democracy", so you're right, the idea is a bit absurd, and I'd put it in the "rhetoric" category.

You might find The Trap an interesting documentry...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=trap

This has a decent overview...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series)

The docu is very much worth watching...

The docu is very much worth watching...
Thanks, I'll make sure to have a look. They'll probably show it on SBS at some point.

Nonetheless, I reserve my judgement on game theory until I know more about the basic assumptions of it in a few weeks. If you want, I can explain things in more detail then.

The documentary obviously has the line it wants to get through to the viewer, and it may well be a worthwhile line. But it would be dangerous for you to rely on it alone. Game theory is not a vital part of many economic models, it has occasionally been used to augment it, nothing more. Public Choice Theory is a much broader discipline than the docu wants to make it out to be - game theory is used when its assumptions seem to fit the situation, other forms of decision-making theory are used when they don't.

Furthermore, the assumption that agents want to maximise is not one that can really be questioned. It's very simple to make another person's welfare (even the opposition's welfare) a part of the agent's happiness. You wouldn't be violating the methodology one bit, and you could still calculate outcomes and so on. As I said, it depends on what you put in the cells.

That's what good microeconomics is all about: making the theory so incredibly general that you can go ahead and fill in the blanks with whatever you want and still get meaningful results.

Marx was more a philosopher than an economist.

Ain't that the truth.

Thanks, I'll make sure to have a look. They'll probably show it on SBS at some point.

Nonetheless, I reserve my judgement on game theory until I know more about the basic assumptions of it in a few weeks. If you want, I can explain things in more detail then.

The documentary obviously has the line it wants to get through to the viewer, and it may well be a worthwhile line. But it would be dangerous for you to rely on it alone. Game theory is not a vital part of many economic models, it has occasionally been used to augment it, nothing more. Public Choice Theory is a much broader discipline than the docu wants to make it out to be - game theory is used when its assumptions seem to fit the situation, other forms of decision-making theory are used when they don't.

Furthermore, the assumption that agents want to maximise is not one that can really be questioned. It's very simple to make another person's welfare (even the opposition's welfare) a part of the agent's happiness. You wouldn't be violating the methodology one bit, and you could still calculate outcomes and so on. As I said, it depends on what you put in the cells.

That's what good microeconomics is all about: making the theory so incredibly general that you can go ahead and fill in the blanks with whatever you want and still get meaningful results.

gah!!! so much!

I have no issue in admitting that I am not educated enough to follow an indepth analysis of game theory LOL! But I'd be willing to give it a go.

You are right that there is an agenda. However I am willing to give this thought as I can see the real life impacts of what the program discusses.

Bear in mind...at the end of WWII the US government realised that there was a major mental health issue in the US. They needed to do something. The first thing was the Mental Health Act which provisioned not only treatment of persons but also for society. The fundamental question was how to create a society post war that would not degenerate into chaos. So the government turned to science as a cure. Always a mistake to think research is a cure in and of itself.

So there is precedent to take the easiest fit to apply to the real world. So when the documentry states that game theory was taken up to assist in defining our freedom I am loathed not to believe it.

So taking it from game theory to Public Choice to even Berlins ideas about positive and negative liberty one can see the impact this has had in our western society.

Considering the fact that Friedman seems to get many votes, can someone that voted for him explain why you think his economic theories are good?
Friedman was a promoter of the free market economy. All of those who believe in that free market have good reason to vote Friedman because he essentially was one of the major thinkers who did work to show that markets do work. The reason why we might believe that markets work may be more philosophical as we might believe in the classical liberal ideal of freedom, or it may be that we see that the public sector can fail due to political corruption and stagnant bureaucracies where as we might see the private sector as being full of entrepreneurial change. So to sum it up, Friedman is a free marketer and the biggest one on the list to a great extent as we have no Schumpeter, Mises, or Hayek to vote for so there is less reason to be divided. Friedman might win over most of the previous though given the fact he is a better known intellectual.

Considering the fact that Friedman seems to get many votes, can someone that voted for him explain why you think his economic theories are good?
I could just as easily ask this of Keynes, and be more justified in so doing. However, Friedman was an extremely creative economist. He revived the quantity theory of money, illuminated the correlation between a constant contained in a rewritten equation of the QTOM (Ms = kP, where k = 1/Q) and the money supply, and showed how through the medium of expectations in the labour market expansions in the money supply would lead to inflation - in other words, he contributed in great part to the adaptive expectations hypothesis (less perfect than the rational expectations one, but still vital), which gave a reworked understanding of the Phillips Curve. He also developed the Permanent Income Hypothesis, questioning Keynes' position that money injections into the economy would necessarily be spent and developed his own asset portfolio theory to counter Keynes' limited version.

Alongside the brilliant Hayek and Hazlitt, he was responsible for some of the most devastating critiques of Keynes, and plus he came up with much of his own original theory. He was wrong on some things, but then so are many economists. His contribution to the field is legendary.

Game theory has been applied to the world and it sucks. It makes a very fundamental assumption about us as individuals....that we are all self competing and will 'do what it takes' to get our way.
Yes, a very rational assumption to make. As Neu Leonstein said though, any number of models is possible. It also does a good job in explaining how the ever elusive oligopolies operate.

Ok...I was not aware he won a Noble Prize in Economics...thanks! I thought it was Mathematics....

I am disturbed though that you limit one person because he did not have a movie made after him though! :p
No such thing as a Nobel Prize in Mathematics, so Nash would have had great difficulty getting one.

von Neumann isn't as popular as Nash, dare I say he and his work in co-operative game theory, is barely known, so it didn't seem right to include him in this blatant popularity contest.

Actually let me tell you a story from the Rand Institute when Nash and von Neumann were working there. von Neumann is the father of game theory and had been mainly interested in co-operative game theory, not looking into the general solution for a competitive game.

Nash realised the Brouwers’ Fixed Point Theorem applied to a competitive game would provide the general solution (this is what he won the Nobel Prize for). Nash decided to take this idea to von Neumann to get his opinion on it. von Neumann’s response was now what Nash expected. von Neumann declared “The solution is trivial!” angrily throwing Nash out of his office.” From what I can tell von Neumann, an intellectual titan, thought that Nash was pointing out the obvious (obvious for geniuses at least that gave the issue any attention, which von Neumann hadn’t). Perhaps if von Neumann had bothered more with competitive games, Nash would be a nobody.