My peeve - math and social sciences. The NYT has this article about the new Nobel laureates. What you take from the article is that the two are just excellent at math.
They have shown that fiscal and monetary policy are inextricably linked, and their research reflects the broad shift in economics from words to numbers — toward a level of empirical analysis that few outside the profession can readily grasp.
If I understand right Sargent and Sims have worked on a theory that somewhat shows that expectations influence results.... the theory of rational expectations — which maintains that people use all the information available in making economic decision.
(Good morning! What is a bubble? but the widespread use of the information available at a certain moment and that is considered true because of its extensive popularity. The more accepted this bubbled info, the truer it appears, the more solid the reasons to act.)
Their only merit might be the demonstration that both Keynes and Friedman had large holes in their theories. Sargent even says that Keynes was an excellent economist but his math was not where it should have been.
So these guys feed data that is regurgitated by models that use complex math tools. But advancing the tools of analysis not necessarily leads you to..
The prize is for empirical work. Yep. Fancy observations. Use of mathematical tools seems a proof in itself of high reliability of findings. It is only a patina.
A microscope shows you lots of things, but it has been available since the 1600s. When did modern medicine start?
