Friday, November 07, 2008

Thinking of Getting a Ph.D. in Economics?

If so, here is a website at Davidson College with lots of good information about Ph.D. programs in economics, with many links to other good websites about doctoral programs in economics.


At 11/07/2008 12:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of Economics...

Dr Perry, with all of the smart economists looking daily at all aspects of local, national and world economics, how did the global credit crunch get so out of hand?

Even Queen Elizabeth reportedly asked Professor Luis Garicano at the London School of Economics: "If these things were so large, how come everyone missed them? Why did nobody notice it?"

It's a question I have yet to get an answer that makes sense to me.


At 11/07/2008 2:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A PhD in economics is about the most worthless qualification anyone can get. There is not a single University in the US teaching real economics. If you want to learn, the pick up a copy of this and read it.

You will know more economics than 99.99% of "economists" in the country.

At 11/07/2008 2:52 PM, Blogger like such as said...


I've often wondered the same thing. I'm reminded of a quote from Henry Hazlitt in his Economics in One Lesson.

"It is often sadly remarked that the bad economists present
their errors to the public better than the good economists
present their truths. It is often complained that demagogues
can be more plausible in putting forward economic nonsense
from the platform than the honest men who try to show what is
wrong with it. But the basic reason for this ought not to be
mysterious. The reason is that the demagogues and bad
economists are presenting half-truths. They are speaking only
of the immediate effect of a proposed policy or its effect upon a
single group. As far as they go they may often be right. In these
cases the answer consists in showing that the proposed policy
would also have longer and less desirable effects, or that it could
benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The
answer consists in supplementing and correcting the half-truth
with the other half. But to consider all the chief effects of a
proposed course on everybody often requires a long, complicated,
and dull chain of reasoning. Most of the audience finds
this chain of reasoning difficult to follow and soon becomes
bored and inattentive. The bad economists rationalize this
intellectual debility and laziness by assuring the audience that it
need not even attempt to follow the reasoning or judge it on its
merits because it is only 'classicism' or 'laissez-faire' or
'capitalist apologetics' or whatever other term of abuse may
happen to strike them as effective" (Hazlitt 19).

At 11/07/2008 3:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you want to learn, the pick up a copy of this and read it.

You will know more economics than 99.99% of "economists" in the country."

Really? All the answers to everything in one book? Where have I heard that before? Allahu Akbar...kaboom.

At 11/07/2008 5:08 PM, Blogger notnidiot said...

Somebody send the queen this link.
As comprehensible as any other explanation I have seen.

(note: strong language at the end)

At 11/07/2008 6:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I can only conclude that greed, incompetent or lazy CEOs, Boards of Directors and Feds all missed the build up of one of the largest frauds I've seen. When you grow a few hundred $Billion of bad debt into Unknown $Trillions, without most of the world catching it until too late, it is beyond stunning.

It makes me wonder what may be going on right now under the radar on the global political scene that could send the world back to the
7th century.

At 11/07/2008 6:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you don't want to be behind the curve become a stock trader. Every one of these so called educated fools missed this credit bubble by a mile with a few noted exceptions.

At 11/07/2008 7:05 PM, Blogger Adam said...


There were folks, professional economists and those who keep up with the various Economic theories and policies, who predicted this.

Ron Paul would be an example, and probably the most widely known, but by no means the only. Much in the same way that Friedrich Hayek predicted the crash of '29.

The reason no one listens after wards, at least judging from the experience of Hayek, is that the prescriptions then given allow for the market to correct itself, and that is not a plausible solution to people who think they can control behavior better than markets.

At 11/07/2008 7:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Of course I know you are right, many people saw this coming, but how it was allowed to get so out of hand is amazing.

At 11/08/2008 8:58 AM, Blogger SJWillis said...

Does anyone have any insight into the Masters in Financial Economics?


Post a Comment

<< Home