<p>Robert Schiller (BA Economics, class of 1967) was one of three recipients of the prize earlier today. Schiller is the 8th alum (5th undergrad) and 20th university affiliate to win the Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>Another Keynesian riding the coattail of successful economists from more realistic economic school of thoughts.</p>
<p>Although on the flip side, Fama is one of those hacks that blabs about EMT… so not sure which one of them deserve the nobel prize less.</p>
<p>btw Alexandre, Shiller has often publicly credited MIT for his “success”.</p>
<p>Bearcat, I was merely pointing out that an alum has won the nobel prize. It is alright to show some school pride once in a while. And regardless of which institution(s) Schiller credits for winning the Nobel Prize (I have seen absolutely zero evidence that he favors MIT over Michigan or Yale in this regard, so feel free to share a few links that prove otherwise), the fact of the matter is, he laid his foundation in Economics at the University of Michigan. Without Michigan, there would have been no MIT for Schiller.</p>
<p>^^he transferred to UofM from Kalamazoo College so he probably took his first econ class at K… but as we say to the young folk, it’s not where you started it’s where you graduate.</p>
<p>momofthreeboys, are you sure he attended Kalamazoo College? I have not seen it mentioned in any of his bio pages. Even then, he would have taken the majority of his undergraduate econ courses at the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>“It is alright to show some school pride once in a while.”</p>
<p>bearcats would have shown some school pride…if he attended Wharton.</p>
<p>I went looking for bio, also, Alexandre and it is not remarked, but then most people only use the college where they are graduated which in this case is UofM which is certainly something to be proud about.</p>
<p>i show plenty of school pride; my username is bearcats afterall</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OP-Ha, and what are your qualifications to degrade Shiller’s theories? BTW, unless you’ve won a Nobel prize you’re going to come up short.</p>
<p>BTW-Fama’s investment theory using ETF’s is spot on. Also. EMT seems to be back on track with the recovery in the stock market and partial recovery in housing.</p>
<p>^That kind of ridiculous logic is analogous to saying “What is everyone’s qualifications to degrade the dysfunctional US Congress? BTW, unless you’ve been a congressman before you’re going to come up short”</p>
<p>Newsflash for you, there are theorists and there are do-ers. The former sits on their hands and theorize all day and the latter weed through these theories and find the ones that actually work and apply them. Shiller falls in the former group. He’s the kind of person who would churn out theories after theories but never have a penny on the line in the market. </p>
<p>It is my job as part of the latter group to judge these theories to see if they make sense and try to make a buck out of it. I didn’t “degrade Shiller’s theories” in particular, because frankly it’s more theoretical than practical (read: won’t make you money) so I have absolutely no interest in it. What I do know is Shiller is a Keynesian, and Keynesian does not work.</p>
<p>What I did degrade is Fama’s EMH, but almost every active hedge fund manager outside of DFA would agree with me, most of these vastly more successful and impressive than academia hacks like Fama and Shiller</p>
<p>Occasionally you will have real successful people who belong in both the former and latter group like James Simons (RenTech) and David Shaw (DE Shaw) who came from a research/academia background but can actually put the money where their mouth is. Shiller is not part of this group.</p>
<p>It’s great a Umich alum won a Nobel prize; however, Umich alums need to start winning the Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine…I always check the background of these recipients.</p>
<p>As bearcats demonstrated, you can always argue about economic theory. Whatever side you are on, there will always be some truth to the arguments. I’m closer to being a Keynesian… the government is desperately needed in recessions…at least most types of recessions …our great recession being one of them…</p>
<p>The Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine seem clearer cut as to whether the award is deserved, and you can always point to the results of the contributions in these cases. This is usually the case; however, I still have doubts about the Higgs award. My reading of this was that they still needed more verification and study of the particle they found.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ridiculous logic? No, the closer the person if of education and experience to the congressman in question then the more informed will be the criticism. Of course this is much different than the fundamental right to criticize a public servant. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not fair, you do not know what Shiller’s business interest’s are (direct and indirect). As a Yale prof, writer and of course prize winner, I would guess that he has, at the very least, a nice little bankroll tucked away. But I admit I’m guessing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why won’t Keynesian economics work? BTW, every argument you list will be more of a factor of greed and corruption than a failing of demand-side theory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fama based on the work of Markowitz theorizes allocated portfolio return within an acceptable level of risk. By design most Private Hedge fund managers don’t practice portfolio allocation such as the French/Farma method. They can’t since most have to make double digit gains to stay in business, and they can’t make such gains without taking on a lot of risk. Public Hedge funds likely can’t outperform the S&P, which again is by design since their modeled level of risk is very low. Public Hedge funds likely are run by direct disciples of Farma.</p>
<p>Jack, 2 Michigan alums have won the Nobel Prize in Physics (Politzer, BS LSA, 1969, won it in 2004), 2 have won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Smalley, BS LSA, 1965, won it in 1996) and 3 have won the Nobel Prize in Medicine. I agree that it would be nice to have more, but the University has done well in that front. Only a half a dozen universities have produced more undergraduate alumni that have won the Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>oh god…</p>
<p>here goes the great and mighty Bearcats</p>
<p>will you still be on here when you’re like 28?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but it might…Perhaps the Nobel Prize selection committee is just tipping its hat to a post-capitalist dystopian future ;)</p>
<p>Kalamazoo College claims Robert Schiller too. Refers U-M as “a large university in Ann Arbor”.</p>
<p><a href=“https://www.facebook.com/KalamazooCollege/posts/10151707714140849[/url]”>https://www.facebook.com/KalamazooCollege/posts/10151707714140849</a></p>
<p>A good article by Schiller in the NYtimes today…</p>
<p><a href=“Sharing Nobel Honors, and Agreeing to Disagree - The New York Times”>Sharing Nobel Honors, and Agreeing to Disagree - The New York Times;
<p>The points he makes</p>
<p>-He disagrees with the other two recipients of his Nobel prize.</p>
<p>-Market prices are not worth much and prone to major errors.</p>
<p>Makes sense to me.</p>
<p>Capitalism works… Its tinkering with markets too much that leads to big F*** ups</p>