Tag: Stanley Fischer

M.I.T. Analysis in Wonderland. Graduate Student Skit, 1975

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-09-02

The annual skit party was a huge social event in the economics department at MIT in the 1970s and presumably before and after. Each of the cohorts was expected to write and perform its own skit in which economics and economics professors were the principal targets. Faculty written skits were often a part of the festivities. Here in this posting for the historical record, a parody of Alice in Wonderland set in the Wonderland Institute of Technology in 1975 written by the first-year class of 1974-75. But first I provide a list of my classmates with links to some biographical information where I was able to find something…whatever happened to Paul Krugman? Not everybody participated in the preparation and performance so there remains a presumption of comic innocence for the majority of the following.

In 1978 many of this cohort were involved in Casablank, a parody of the movie Casablanca. That script has been transcribed and posted at the highlighted link.

__________________

First Year Economics Graduate Students, 1974-75
M.I.T. (Spring 1975)

Abel, Andrew B.
Aspe, Pedro A.
Begg, David K. H.
Beleza, Luis Miguel C. P.
Bookstaber, Richard M.
Collier, Irwin L., Jr.
Datcher, Linda P.
Daula, Thomas V.
Desormeaux, Jorge J.
Donnelly, John F.
Duarte, Virgulino
Klorza, Santiago C.
Feiger, Margaret C.
Frankel, Jeffrey A.
Geehan, Randall R.
Giavazzi, Francesco
Halpern, Janice D.[sic, H.?]
Helms, L. Jay
Hill, Raymond D.
Krasker, William S.
Krugman, Paul R.
Malveaux, Julianne M.
Mincy, Ronald B.
Mooney, Patricia D.
Mork, Knut A.
Nagatani, Hiroaki
Neuer, Margaret R.
Smith, David A. [Alton]
Startz, Richard
Winicker, Mary K.

Source: M.I.T. Archives. MIT Department of Economics Records, Box 1, Folder “Women & Minorities”.

__________________

While transcribing this skit from my own days as a graduate student, I discovered how much I had indeed forgotten. The mapping of many a character to the corresponding faculty member was no longer obvious to me. I have added a listing of Dramatis Personae with annotations based on the combined incomplete memories of myself, Jeff Frankel, Dick Startz, Andy Abel, Ray Hill and Jay Helms. Perhaps some long-lost member of the troupe will stumble across this page and help me fill in the blanks, especially with respect to casting (20 characters!).

______________________

ANALYSIS IN WONDERLAND

Composed and performed by the first-year economics graduate students at M.I.T.
Second term, 1974-75

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

Narrator: played by Richard Bookstaber
Alice (Representative Graduate Student): played by Margaret (née Agnew) Feiger
Advisor (presumably the actual first-year advisor, Peter Diamond): actor unknown
Cheshire Cat (Jagdish Bhagwati): actor unknown
Micro: (Hal Varian?): actor unknown
Macro: (Stanley Fischer?): actor unknown
Quick & Dirty (Martin Weitzman): actor unknown
Palmer (Palmer, an actual Sloan School graduate student): actor unknown
Dormouse (Evsey Domar?): actor unknown
Mad Hatter (Charles Kindleberger): played by Jeffrey Frankel
March Hare (Robert Engle?): actor unknown
Tweedledee (Jerry Hausman): possibly played by Jay Helms
Tweedledum (Robert Hall): possibly played by Bud Collier
Knave of Hearts (Franco Modigliani): actor unknown
Knave of Clubs (Arthur Burns): actor unknown
Knave of Spades (William McChesney Martin): actor unknown
Knave Alan (Allan Greenspan): actor unknown
King (President Gerald Ford): actor unknown
Joker (Paul Samuelson): possibly played by Ray Hill
White Rabbit (Robert Bishop?): actor unknown

ACT I

Narrator:	The first year class presents… Analysis in Wonderland, a tragicomedy in four unnatural acts. Any resemblance to faculty members living or otherwise should be inferred from the initials worn by the characters. Act I, Alice enters Wonderland and meets the Cheshire cat.
(Alice is sitting at a table reading Samuelson’s Economics.)
Narrator:	One day Alice was reading a book, but she was getting very bored, for the book had no conversations or jokes in it.
Alice:	And what is the use of a book without conversations or jokes?
Narrator:	And so she began to drift off. And eventually she noticed that there was someone on the other side of the desk…
Advisor:	Hi! Welcome to the Wonderland Institute of Technology. You must be a first year graduate student. I’m your first year advisor, and it’s my job to talk to you and give you a feeling that someone cares about you personally. Now, let me see your schedule (grabs book). Well, uh, (looks at book then says with emphasis) Paul, this schedule looks fine to me (signs it) and remember to turn in your roll cards on the first day of each class. (Through all this Alice keeps going “uh” and “but”…but can’t manage to say anything) Remember that if you have any questions or problems, just come in and talk to me, I have plenty of time. Excuse me! (The advisor gets up and runs out. Alice runs after, then comes back)
Alice:	What a strange place! But where should I go from here? Why there’s a Cheshire Cat. (Enter Cheshire cat) Excuse me, sir, but can you tell me where I ought to go from here?
Cheshire Cat:	Why, I’m wery [sic] glad you asked me that. You should go to the optimal point, of course.
Alice:	But how long will that take me?
Cheshire Cat:	I can’t tell you that, listen to this. (Turns on radio, which produces static. Turns it off.) You see! Our economic theories are all static.
Alice:	I would like to see some faculty.
Cheshire Cat:	Well, you could go to Harward [sic], but it’s wery rare that anyone sees any faculty there. Or you could stay here, but everyone here has completely lost their faculties. They’re all mad, you know.
Alice:	But I don’t want to go among mad people.
Cheshire Cat:	Oh, you can’t help that; we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.
Alice:	How do you know I’m mad?
Cheshire Cat:	Well, a physicist’s not mad, you grant that? Now, a physicist starts with facts and tries to find theories that fit them. I start with theories and don’t bother with facts. Therefore I’m mad. Yes?
Alice:	But what are your theories about?
Cheshire Cat:	Do they have to be about anything?
Alice:	Well, I’ve often seen a subject without a theory, but a theory without a subject? It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life! (Alice suddenly starts)
Cheshire Cat:	Don’t worry, it’s just the inwisible hand.
(Enter two characters with paper hats (?) on which are cross diagrams. One has a potato chip taped to his shoulder.)
Cheshire Cat:	They’re Mike and Mac Ro
Micro:	Someone must stop him! It’s shameful! Look at that silly diagram he’s wearing! It’s a disgrace to the profession.
Macro:	It’s a perfectly good diagram. Not like that ridiculous diagram you’re wearing!
Alice:	But the diagrams look just the same.
Cheshire Cat:	Shhh! You’ll only get them more upset.
Alice:	Why don’t you try to talk your differences over?
Micro:	Well, we microeconomists believe in logic, so I’m willing to reason it out.
Macro:	You can’t expect me to be reasonable. Can’t you see I’ve got a chip on my shoulder?
Alice:	Why, yes—it’s a potato chip in fact.
Macro:	I wear it in honor of our founder, Cain’s. So prepare to defend yourself.
Micro:	I warn you, I’m a master of the Marshallian arts.
Macro:	But I’m armed with the most deadly tool of macroeconomics: (pulls out several pairs of pliers)…Multi-pliers!
Micro:	And I have the most dangerous concept of microeconomics. (pulls out a slingshot) Elasticity!
Alice:	Oh no, they’re going to have a duel and micro is a semi-strict under dog! (Mike and Mac turn back to back) (enter panting, the Quick and Dirty banker, carrying a money bag and a calculator)
Q&D:	Wait! You can’t have a duel without a primal.
Alice:	Who are you?
Q&D:	I’m duh quick and doity bankuh. And by my quick and doity bankuh’s calculation, I find dat what you need is more liquidity which I will now provide. (out of the moneybag he pulls a waterpistol, shoots everyone, then runs)
Macro:	Now we’re all wet. What are we going to do?
Alice:	It’s all right, I know just what to do. Here’s the driest thing I know. (begins reading from Bishop [notes])
Micro:	This isn’t getting me dry at all.
Macro:	Now there’s only one way to get dry, and this will prove to you that macroeconomics is good for something.
Alice:	What are you going to do?
Macro:	I’m going to do some hand-waving! Macroeconomists are always drying things out by waving their hands.
Alice:	They are?
Macro:	Of course! That’s why none of their theories will hold water. Now, watch this! (He begins to draw a diagram)
Alice:	What do those lines mean?
Macro:	Oh, I don’t know. But they’re pretty good lines, and Lord knows I have the right to a few good lines in this ridiculous skit.
Palmer:	Haven’t you got the A line drawn wrong?
Macro:	(Going very fast) Well, that line doesn’t really matter. (erases it)
Palmer:	But then shouldn’t you erase the k line, too?
Macro:	Well, all right (erases).
Palmer:	What do X and Y stand for?
Macro:	Oh, don’t worry about the axes (erases them). Actually, these are not quite like this anyway. (erases remaining lines) And, as you can see, equilibrium is at the intersection.
Alice:	Well, I’ve often seen lines without an intersection, but an intersection without lines? It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in my whole life.
Narrator:	You’re repeating yourself, Alice.
Alice:	What do you expect, Mel Brooks?
Micro:	You think that’s hand-waving! Why, I have seen hand-waving, compared with which that is no better than eternal bliss.
Alice:	But what is better than eternal bliss?
Micro:	Well, a ham sandwich, for instance.
Alice:	But nothing’s better than eternal bliss.
Micro:	And a ham sandwich is better than nothing. So, by transitivity, there you are!
Alice:	(ignoring Micro as she turns to the Cheshire Cat) Isn’t there anyone here who isn’t mad?
Cheshire Cat:	You might try an assistant professor.
Alice:	Which one should I try?
Cheshire Cat:	It doesn’t matter—pick one at random.
Alice:	How do I do that?
Cheshire Cat:	Just draw one from an assistant professor urn.
Alice:	What’s an assistant professor urn?
Micro, Macro, Cheshire Cat, Narrator (in unison)	About eleven thousand a year!
(pause)
Narrator:	…and a copy of Bishop’s notes.
Alice:	Curiouser and curiouser.
(exeunt all)

ACT II

Narrator:

Act II. The Mad Boston Tea Party

(Dormouse sleeps throughout. Mad Hatter stuttering throughout; price keeps going up on hat.)

Mad Hatter:

What’s your liquidity preference my dear?

Alice:

It looks like you have nothing but tea.

Mad Hatter:

That is all we have.

Alice:

Then why did you ask?

Mad Hatter:

Consumer sovereignty. (gives Alice tea) I would like to suggest to you that that will be eight pence (takes shilling from Alice.)

Alice:

No cover charge?

Mad Hatter:

A gentleman never takes cover, as we say in the old country.

Alice:

Hey, I gave you a shilling and you only gave me two pence change back!

Mad Hatter:

A gentleman never counts his change.

Hare:

Gentleperson!

Alice:

This sounds like a liquidity trap to me.

Mad Hatter:

Alright, I’ll put it down on the T-account…(gets book)

Alice:

There is something floating in my tea.

March Hare:

(looking) Exchange rates.

Mad Hatter:

… two pence… (fiddling with T-accounts)

Alice:

No it’s ice.

Mad Hatter:

…under frozen assets.

Hare:

Gary Becker! (general laughter)

Mad Hatter:

Why is the Poisson distribution like a temperature of 102?

Alice:

Well, let’s see… I suppose you would have to integrate e to the…

Mad Hatter:

Integration! They only do that in South Boston.

March Hare:

No, that’s disintegration.

Alice:

I suppose you have to differentiate between…

Mad Hatter:

Differentiate? The first derivative is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Alice:

I give up, why is the Poisson distribution like a temperature of 102?

Mad Hatter:

I haven’t the slightest idea.

Alice:

That’s not very funny.

Mad Hatter:

Funny?

March Hare:

She wants to hear a joke.

Mad Hatter:

A joke, a joke!

March Hare:

…Fogel and Engerman! (general laughter)

Alice:

I’m afraid I don’t get it.

Mad Hatter:

Well, you see, certain names are standing jokes around here, like…Walt Whitman Rostow! (laughter)

Alice:

Can I try one?

Mad Hatter:

Go right ahead.

Alice:

Milton Friedman! (silence among the actors who look sour a moment after the audience’s laughter dies down.)

Mad Hatter:

Try another one.

Alice:

Jay Forrester….(more silence).

Alice:

I don’t understand. What’s wrong?

Mad Hatter:

Well, some people just can’t tell a joke.

March Hare:

Perhaps you’d like to see a proof?

Mad Hatter:

A proof! A proof!

March Hare:

This is a proof I recited before the Queen of Hearts. (goes to board)

Twiddle Twiddle lambda star
Alpha hat, beta hat times X bar.
Alpha hat, beta hat sigma X_i

One over n, equals mean of Y.

[writes on board:]:
$\begin{array}{l}\mathop{{\tilde{\tilde{\lambda }}}}^{*}=\hat{\alpha }+\hat{\beta }\cdot \bar{X}\\=\hat{\alpha }+\hat{\beta }\cdot \sum{{{X}_{i}}}\left( \frac{1}{n} \right)=\bar{Y}\end{array}$

Mad Hatter:

Time to move on to the next place.
(everybody gets up to move)

Alice:

What?! You mean you just move on to the next place without erasing?

March Hare:

We don’t have to erase; we just relabel the axes.

Mad Hatter:

I always erase twice, once before the period and once afterward. (erases)

(everyone moves down one, and relabels axes and curve)

Alice:

And I suppose when you use up all the places you just start again at the beginning of the circle?

Mad Hatter:

Yes. It’s called recycling.

March Hare:

You better wake up the Dormouse.

(Mad Hatter and March Hare exit)

Alice:

(To Dormouse) Wake up, wake up. (shakes him)

Dormouse:

(waking) Whaaaaat?

Alice:

Wake up. It’s over.

Dormouse:

(Pause…) Can I Xerox your notes?

Alice:

(starts to leave. turns and says) Why is a Poisson distribution like a temperature of 102? (Pause. Alice exits)

Dormouse:

(alone) Because it’s not normal.

ACT III

Narrator:	Act III. Alice meets Tweedledum and Tweedledee, who have a battle.
(Alice enters and sits down. Dum and Dee enter, arm-in-arm, prancing. Dee sits down; Dum goes to the board and begins. Throughout, Dee is frantic, pacing, and talking very fast. Dum is red-faced, slow-talking, constantly looking at the floor; arms folded, with noticeably short pants and a turtleneck.)
Dum:	So, to conclude yesterday’s talk, we can see that it’s entirely possible that for the two sub-groups, say, men and women, you could have different parameters in the regression…
Dee:	(jumping up to interrupt) I think I can draw a picture that will make that all clear. Wish I had my colored chalk… [draws pictures].

	…so you see that while the slope in the pooled regression is zero, contrariwise; it’s actually negative for men and positive for women.
Dum:	…Sort of, different slopes for different folks, which tells us…
Dee:	[interrupting] …and contrariwise, I can clear this up by drawing a picture that would show…[draws picture]

Dum:	[interrupting]…that there could be kinky behavior in some subgroups….
Dee:	Right. (sits down)
Dum:	But, as I was going to say, this illustrates the 287^th “Iron Law” of econometrics, which states that….
Dee:	(again jumping up to interrupt)…Contrariwise,…I think I can make that clear with a picture in four dimensions. Damn, I just wish I had my colored chalk…(draws pictures)

	…which shows that…
Dum:	(getting very irritated, interrupting) Nohow! The time has come, the Walras said to talk of many things, of matrices and error terms of cabbages and kings, and keeping out your pictures that keep complicating things.
Dee:	Contrariwise! In my way of showing things I’m better far than you, Your talk is like an old dead horse– It’s slow, not unlike glue.
Dum:	Now wait a second…
(Dum and Dee break into a general dispute, yelling at one another.)
Dum:	….you’re not consistent…
Dee:	…you’re almost surely driving me to the p-limit…
Dum:	…you’re a homoscedastic deviate…
(While Tweeledum and Tweedledee continue arguing, the Narrator breaks in…)
Narrator:	So Tweedledum and Tweedledee Agreed to have a fight For Tweedledum said Tweedledee Couldn’t prove Gauss-Markov right.
Dum:	Of course we must have a fight. What time is it?
Dee:	10:40—We’re late getting started, so we better hurry up.
Dum:	Let’s fight ‘till noon, then have lunch.
Narrator:	So they agreed to fight and, as Alice watched, they began to see who could prove the theorem better.
(Dum and Dee give lectures simultaneously, beginning and ending at the same time with the same words.)
Dee:	[simultaneously with Dum] I CLAIM THAT OLS IS BLUE. Basically, we want to prove that ${{\sum{\left( \mathbf{{X}'Y} \right)}}^{-1}}\mathbf{{Z}'}\beta \le {{\sum{\left( \mathbf{{X}'\tilde{Y}} \right)}}^{-1}}\mathbf{{Z}'}\gamma$ Now just take the inverse of the antilog of the Jacobian and delete the fourth row. Let little x be the square root of big X, and let medium-sized x be measured from its mean; substitute back in and we have ${{\sum{\left( \mathbf{{X}'}\left[ \begin{matrix} \mathbf{Y} \\ \mathbf{Z} \\ \end{matrix} \right] \right)}}^{-1}}{\left\| J \right\|\cdot \Pi \cdot {{R}^{2}}}/{\text{hat size}}\;$ which you will recall from 14.381. Then, as I promised, you can use this by transposing Z and x, deleting R and reversing the inequality…..OH SHIT…I’ve screwed up…Well, just change every medium-sized x in your notes to big X, delete all sigmas, and reverse the third and fourth steps of the proof I gave last week which was right here on the board. Or look in Tahl’s [Theil with an West Virginian accent] book. Everyone should understand this perfectly—and of course the notation is clear. Then, adding the obvious steps we learned in 14.381 to this proof completes the argument. SO OLS IS BLUE, as promised.
Dum:	[simultaneously with Dum] I CLAIM THAT OLS IS BLUE. Well….a lot of people go around proving the Gauss-Markov….Theorem….but the literature is full of cases….where what’s done is wrong….Take matrix addition for example….Some people just add element-by-element….while often the more interesting thing to do…..is to use the Choleski factorization of one of the matrices….And recalling that Tweedledum and I are the final arbiters of econometrics at W.I.T. (at least until Fisher gets back off leave) you’d better do it this way, or consider dropping the course. SO OLS IS BLUE, as promised.
Palmer:	Shouldn’t you invert that Jacobian before proceeding to expansion in Lambert spaces….
Dee:	[interrupting] If it was so, it might be; If it WERE so, it could be; But as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.
Narrator:	Alice couldn’t figure out just who had won the fight, although Tweedledee HAD used a lot more words….
[exeunt]

ACT IV

Tweedledee:	Act Four, “The trahl”.
Narrator:	Within a few moments Alice will witness the trial of the Knave of Hearts who is in deep trouble now because the King of Hearts is flying all the way from the Capital of Wonderland to preside at the trial. You are undoubtedly familiar with the Knave of Hearts most important contribution to economic analysis, “A Life-Cycle Built for Two”. But now he has been accused of starting the latest Wonderland inflation and depression—or as they say in the seminar rooms down by the River Chuck—“inflession”. The economic experts of the King—Knave Arthur of Clubs, Knave William of Spades, and Knave Alan of Diamonds—have all convinced him that economic voodoo has been practiced on models on the Wonderland economy in the hallowed halls of W.I.T. Since the King of Hearts has never played with a full-deck in his life, he was easily deceived by these rascals. Fortunately for the Knave of Hearts the Queen was unable to come to the trial due to a prior speaking engagement before the Veterans of Foreign Business Cycles.
	(Enter Knaves of C.S. &D. They play “Hail to the Chief” on kazoos for a few bars and end with “Pop goes the weasel.” Then the King enters wearing a helmet and carrying a football. A WIN button is conspicuous. King bends over, hikes the ball to Knave of Clubs. King sits down on throne in middle of stage.)
Knave of Clubs.	Where’s the jury?
King of Hearts.	(points at the Knaves) You. (Knaves turn around but no one is behind them. King continues…) Yes, you. You are his peers. And for a proper trial before we cut off his grant, we must have a jury of his peers.
Knight of Diamonds.	(tossing a coin à la [George] Rath) We know what to do.
	(Enter all the other characters from Wonderland, except Joker and reporters)
King:	What are the charges?
Knave of Clubs:	Eleven dollars a barrel.
White Rabbit:	The King of Hearts, he has no smartz But Unemployment yes. The Knave of Hearts has played his part To make inflation worse.
Knaves in the jury-box:	Boo, Hiss, Boo!
King:	It is a pretty despicable offense isn’t it?
Knave of Spades:	Are you kidding? The charges don’t even rhyme.
King:	Will the defendant rise?
Knave of Hearts:	If I had known you were going to ask me that question I would have built it into my model.
King:	I’ll hold you in contempt!
Knave of Hearts:	I don’t suppose I’ll become overly fond of you either.
King:	Let the jury note the defendant’s behavior.
Knave of Hearts:	Which reminds me of my 1944 paper, but that is of course a secondary issue given the gravity of the problems which we now face. While I can’t formally defend the following equation to my own satisfaction, I think that it does make some economic sense. But first I should say that things will be getting much worse before they will get better, I can give you the latest predictions…..
King:	(fuming through all of the above) Bind the bearer of bad tidings or he’ll talk us to death…
Knave of Clubs:	But what shall we bind him with?
King:	Bearer bonds, naturally!
	(The Knaves come out of the jury box and use first-aid gauze to tie the knave of Hearts by body and legs & gag him—leaving only one arm free. Knave of Hearts has been talking with his hands throughout his testimony, and he continues gesturing with his free hand while occasional grunts can be heard under his gag.)
King:	May it be noted that in the tradition of Wonderland jurisprudence we have left the defendant with one degree of freedom in spite of his lack of respect for this court. Are there any witnesses?
Mad Hatter:	I am.
King:	Take the stand.
Knave of Clubs (to Mad Hatter):	Did the defendant do it?
Mad Hatter:	Certainly not.
Knave of Spades:	And you witnessed this with your own eyes?
Mad Hatter:	And I didn’t hear or smell him do it either.
Knave of Diamonds:	But how strong was your prior?
Mad Hatter:	Well, I don’t like to boast but when I was a young man working for the OSS during the War, I once spent a week in bed with a….
Knave of Clubs:	No, no, no. How much could new data affect your prior beliefs, and if considerably, what was your posterior judgment?
Mad Hatter:	I don’t now, that’s a good one. But I’ve got one for you. What weighs 12,000 pounds and has a twice differentiable indifference map over hay and peanuts?
King:	That’s irrelevant!
Mad Hatter:	That’s right.
King:	Give your evidence, or I’ll cut your grant off on the spot!
Mad Hatter:	(stutters) I’m a poor man your majesty.
King:	You’re a very poor speaker. (knaves laugh) I thought that was a pretty good one too. I’m in the mood for a few laughs (to White Rabbit) Call in the Joker.
White Rabbit:	The Joker.
(Enter Joker, attended by secretary, fans seeking autographs, and reporters taking pictures)
Joker:	It’s great to be back in Wonderland folks. A funny thing happened on my way…
King:	(interrupting) You have been called here to testify. What is the Keynesian viewpoint?
Joker:	As Uncle Miltie Friedman would say, only blindmen use Keynes. Hey, that’s a pretty good one. (To secretary) Write that down for my textbook—Better yet, put out a new edition. But, seriously folks just the other day I was leafing through a volume of Ricardo’s letters in the Sraffa collection when I came across a letter from Ricardo to James Mill describing the following encounter between Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. Ricardo was walking down the street one day when he ran into the good Reverend who was, much to Ricardo’s surprise, sporting a banana in his left ear. Ricardo was surprised because Malthus was always the last of the political economists to adopt a new fashion. Finally Ricardo’s curiosity got the better of him and he asked, “I say Tom, why is that banana in your ear?” Malthus didn’t seem to understand—but that was hardly unusual as Malthus, more often than not, couldn’t understand what his friend was saying. In fact, old Malthus personally thought that Ricardo couldn’t optimize his way out of a paper sack, much less a Lambert space. Finally Malthus said, “I’m sorry Dave, but I can’t hear you, you see, I have this banana in my ear.” (everyone in the courtroom is sleeping) And now….ahem…ahem (everyone wakes up). A few of your favorite impressions: Francois Quesnay! (He covers his face with his hands; removes hands; expression unchanged) Böhm-Bawerk! (same routine)
King:	Enough!
Joker:	Nassau Senior! (same routine)
King:	Take him away. (White rabbit and knaves carry Joker off, still doing impressions. e.g. Stanley Jevons, Joseph Schumpeter, Vilfredo Pareto….)
King:	Who is the next witness?
Rabbit:	Alice!
Alice:	Here! (she goes to the witness stand)
King:	What do you know about this business?
Alice:	Nothing.
King:	If you say anything, I’ll give you part credit. Otherwise….
Alice:	But I don’t need part credit!
King:	Young lady, I’m growing impatient. Either tell us something about this business or I’ll cut off your grant.
Alice:	(crying) But I don’t have a grant.
King:	Then why are you so upset, indeed.
Alice:	What sort of….(alarm clock goes off in the jury box and the knaves wake up).
Knaves:	(in unison) Verdict time!!
Knave of Spades:	(To Knave of Diamonds) Do you have the coin?
Knave of Diamonds:	Yes I do. (to Spades). You’re innocence, (to Clubs) you’re guilt. Call it innocence. (he tosses the coin high in air)
Alice:	What kind of trial is this?
King:	Don’t be a stupid child. It’s a Bernoulli trial.
Knave of Spades:	Tails.
Knave of Diamonds:	Sorry it’s heads. He’s guilty!
Alice:	May I see the coin? (it’s tossed to her) This coin has two heads.
King:	Did anyone say p equaled one half?
	(Lights out. Everyone leaves but Alice. Lights on she has book and wakes up.)
Alice:	I’m glad I woke up before I had to take generals. (She leaves)
Audience:	(Deafening applause) Bravo. Cheers. Whoopee.

Source: Transcribed by Irwin Collier from personal copy.

Tags Abel, Aspe, Begg, Beleza, Bhagwati, Bishop, Bookstaber, Collier, Datcher, Daula, Desormeaux, Diamond, Domar, Donnelly, Duarte, Feiger, Frankel, Giavazzi, Hall, Halpern, Hausman, Helms, Hill, Kindleberger, Klorza, Krasker, Krugman, Malveaux, Meehan, Mincy, Modigliani, Mooney, Mork, Nagatani, Neuer, Samuelson, SmithDA, Stanley Fischer, Startz, Weitzman, Winicker

Chicago Curriculum Fields

Chicago. Gordon, Fischer and Friedman Memos on Money Core Courses. 1972

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-09-11

When Milton Friedman went on leave from the University of Chicago in 1971-72, two assistant professors who had received their Ph.D.’s from M.I.T. were left minding the two core courses in “money” (a.k.a. “macroeconomics”) at Chicago. In this post I first provide the course listings and staffing for the core fields and then the transcription of an exchange of memos between Robert J. Gordon and Stanley Fischer (the two assistant professors just mentioned) on the one hand and their senior colleague Milton Friedman on the other.

The (then) young colleagues have tread most gingerly in the matter of overhauling the Chicago money courses. Friedman for his part has given them a “revise-and-resubmit” sort of response for their efforts. Perhaps Economics in the Rear-View Mirror will get lucky and receive a comment from Messrs. Gordon and Fischer about their memos’ ultimate impact on the Chicago core.

______________________________

Graduate Courses in 1971-72
Core Fields and Faculty

PRICE THEORY

300. Price Theory. McCloskey.
301. Price Theory. Becker, Evenson, Harberger.
302. Price Theory. Becker, H. Johnson
303. General Equilibrium Theory. Mundell.
307. Mathematical Methods in the Social and Administrative Sciences. Theil.
309. The Theory of the Allocation of Time. Ghez, Becker.

THEORY OF INCOME, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE PRICE LEVEL

330. Money: The Supply Side. Gordon
331. Money. Fischer, Telser.
332. Theory of Income, Employment, and the Price Level. Sjaastad, Zecher.
337. Special Topics in Monetary Theory. Fischer.

Becker, Gary (Ph.D., Chicago, 1955; John Bates Clark Medal Winner, 1967). University Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1970).
Recent research: Investment in human capital; the allocation of time; household production functions and non-market behavior; marriage and fertility; law and economics.

Evenson, Robert E. [visiting faculty] (Ph.D., Chicago, 1968; Associate Professor of Economics, Yale).
Recent research: economic development and agriculture.

Fischer, Stanley (Ph.D., M.I.T., 1969). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1969).
Recent Research: Monetary growth models; lags and stabilization policy; trade and capital flows.

Friedman, Milton [on leave, 1971-72] (Ph.D., Columbia, 1946; John Bates Clark Medal Winner, 1951; President of A.E.A., 1967). Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service, Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1946).
Recent Research: The optimum quantity of money; secular and cyclical changes in money and income; a theoretical framework for monetary analysis.

Ghez, Gilbert (Ph.D., Columbia, 1970). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1969).
Recent Research: A theory of life-cycle consumption; consumption and labor force participation; effects of education on consumption patterns.

Gordon, Robert J. (Ph.D., M.I.T., 1967). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1968).
Recent Research: Labor market theory and inflation; econometric models of wage and price determination; problems in measurement of capital.

Harberger, Arnold C. (Ph.D., Chicago, 1950). Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1953).
Recent Research. Applied welfare economics; measurement of social opportunity costs of labor, capital, and foreign exchange; taxation and resource allocation.

Johnson, Harry G. (Ph.D., Harvard, 1958). Professor of Economics (Joint appointment with London School of Economics) (at Chicago since 1959).

Recent Research: Theory of international inflation; theory of effective protection; the two-sector model of general equilibrium; Keynesianism and monetarism.

McCloskey, Donald (Ph.D., Harvard, 1970). Assistant Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1968).
Recent Research: Topics in the application of economics to British economic history; the Old Poor Law as a negative income tax; the economic effects of Britain’s move to free international trade.

Mundell, Robert (Ph.D., M.I.T., 1956). Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1965).
Recent Research: Monetary systems and economic development; world inflation and unemployment; African currency systems; global trade policy.

Sjaastad, Larry A. (Ph.D., Chicago, 1961). Associate Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1962).
Recent research: Project evaluation in underdeveloped countries; economics of research.

Telser, Lester (Ph.D., Chicago, 1956). Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1958).
Recent research: Theory of competitive markets; game theory; the theory of the core; economics of information; determinants of the returns to manufacturing industries; equilibrium price distributions.

Theil, Henri (Ph.D., Amsterdam, 1951). University Professor of Economics (at Chicago since 1965).
Recent research: Econometric methodology and applications; mathematical and statistical methods in other social and administrative sciences.

Zecher, Joseph Richard (Ph.D., Ohio State, 1969). Assistant Professor of Economics and Director of the Undergraduate Program (at Chicago since 1968).
Recent research: Models of commercial banking; interest rates and expectations.

Source: Economics at Chicago (Departmental Brochure, 1971-72), p. 23, 26-30. This copy of the brochure found in the Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 194, Folder 4.

______________________________

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

May 22, 1972

To: Department of Economics Faculty
From: R. J. Gordon

Re: First Year Money Sequence

Stan Fischer, Dick Zecher, and I would like to propose the following reorganization of the topics taught in the first year graduate money-macro sequence. We have long felt that the present organization is suboptimal because (1) the student is taught two approaches to static income determination, one in 331 and one in 332, without sufficient coordination and integration of the two approaches, and (2) the separation between money supply in 330 and money demand in 331 does not work well, because money demand is involved in most of the topics covered in 330. The following reorganization puts static income determination of both the Quantity Theory and Keynesian varieties into course no. 1, in the sequence, then combines the money demand theory from the present 331 with the most important topics in the present 330 in course no. 2, and creates a third course devoted to dynamic topics.

We would like reactions, suggestions, and ideas. Presumably each course would be given twice on a staggered schedule.

COURSE NO. 1, to be called 331
taught in Fall and Winter

Static Income Determination in the style of Bailey and Patinkin
Elements of National Income Accounting
Doctrinal history and issues: General Theory, Patinkin vs. Friedman, Leijonhufvud
Theory of Consumption Function
Theory of Investment Behavior from Wicksell to Jorgenson

COURSE NO. 2, to be called 330
taught in Fall and Spring

Money demand theory
Tobin-Markowitz approach to portfolio allocation
Money supply theory
Financial intermediaries
Term structure and debt management
Modigliani-Miller and other issues in capital market theory

COURSE NO. 3, to be called 332
taught in Winter and Spring

Neoclassical nonmonetary growth models
Monetary growth models in the style of Foley-Sidrauski
Optimum Quantity of Money and welfare economics of inflation
Stability of inflation in Cagan-Mundell-type models
Multiplier-accelerator cycle models, simple inventory models
Models of Labor Market and Inflation
Simple models of open economies (could go in course no. 1)

______________________________

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date: July 20, 1972

To: Professor Robert J. Gordon, Department of Economics
From: Milton Friedman, Department of Economics

In re: Your Memo of May 22 on First-Year Money Sequence

I have been hesitant to react to your schedule of topics both because I believe a teacher must decide for himself what he is going to teach but also because my reactions naturally derive from my own experience in teaching these courses and I have not re-thought the question afresh, particularly not in the light of 330.

Nonetheless for what they are worth, let me give my offhand reactions. The basic thing that disturbs me about all three courses is that they are set up as a series of separate topics with no organizational structure in them. For both the monetary approach and the income expenditure approach there is a clear logical structure which it seems to me it is desirable to use in organizing the material. For money as for price theory the obvious structure is the demand for money, the supply of money and the equilibrium produced by their interaction. In Course 2 called 330 you have the elements of money demand theory and money supply theory, but they are put in as if they were on the same level as approaches to portfolio allocation, financial intermediaries, term structures, and the like. Obviously they are not. If financial intermediaries have any relevance to the theory of money it is because they partly enter into the money supply process; it is partly because they may affect the demand for money. Similarly, the Tobin-Markowitz approach to portfolio allocation is simply a fuller exploration of the individual decisions that underlie the demand for money. Similarly, in the income expenditure approach the logical organization has to do with aggregate demand on the one hand and aggregate supply on the other side and their interactions. Consumption theory and investment theories of income then become components of aggregate demand.

I can understand elements of national income accounting and institutional and descriptive material about the monetary and banking system coming early in the courses and preceding the kind of formal theoretical apparatus that I have been talking about, but I find it hard to see the optional history and issues coming where they do in your outline. It seems to me that the desirable thing in these courses is to teach, as best we can, the substance of what we know and believe to be the correct theory. The history of the thought enters in both in introducing and motivating the discussion; also it has always seemed to me desirable that so far as possible we should use the writings of the great men in the field to develop the points that remain valid out of their writings, and finally at the very end I can see where in discussing where we go from here and what the open issues are it is desirable to bring out the question of current and past controversies.

In connection with Course 3, that also seems to be a collection of topics. It is very hard for me to see the organizational structure that underlies it. Presumably what really is in the back of this is the notion that Courses 1 and 2 will deal with static equilibria opposition and Course 3 will deal with dynamic change. But yet that doesn’t quite fit the role of the optimum quantity of money and the welfare economics of inflation. What precisely is a logical structure underlying this? Indeed let me repeat that question for all three courses.

Needless to say, there is more than one organization that would be logically coherent and would be effective in teaching the material within these three courses, so I don’t mean to put any special weight on the one I outlined above, but I do believe that you need to bring the skeleton of your organization more clearly in the open than it is brought in the list of topics in these three courses. Incidentally, one minor item is that I do not see anywhere in any of the topics where quantity equations à la Irving Fisher, Marshall, and the early Keynes would be discussed at all.

(Dictated but not read)

MF:gv

______________________________

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date: July 26, 1972

To: Milton Friedman, Department of Economics
From: Bob Gordon and Stan Fischer, Department of Economics

In re: First Year Money Sequence

Thanks for your memo to Bob of July 20^th. Before reacting to your comments in more detail, let us attempt to restate the aims of the proposed revision. There were two major problems with the previous arrangement: (i) overlap of material in 330 and 331, (ii) 332 as a separate course was taught either as a hodge-podge of topics or as Keynesian multipliers run riot – by the time students had got through 331 the excuse for a separate income-determination course was slim.

The basic organizational structure, which the memo admittedly did not spell out, is based on the use of a common static model, as in Patinkin, Bailey, and equations (9) – (14) of your 1970 piece – as a starting point for discussion of both monetary and income-expenditure approaches (in 331). Once the basic issues are discussed in the framework of the common model – and this will occupy much of the 331 course – the examination of the building blocks of the model will begin. Since more time is needed for the building blocks than remains in 331, some pieces had to be placed in another course and it seemed sensible to separate out money supply and money demand. This makes 330 a self-contained course with the unifying principle that each topic contributes to a model of the monetary and financial markets, whereas the building blocks allocated to 331 are those of the commodity market. The placement of the labor market in the third course is the most arbitrary decision; it should probably be shifted to 331 so that the interaction between aggregate supply and demand can be adequately developed. (Incidentally, we apologize for giving the impression that each topic mentioned is to be given equal weight – we had in mind precisely the considerations mentioned in the second half of your second paragraph in writing, for instance, “Money demand theory” followed by “Tobin-Markowitz….”)

The idea in course 3 is indeed to emphasize dynamic elements. Here the intention is to use a simple common dynamic model, which has naturally to involve expectations and intertemporal maximization, and examine its behavior under a variety of assumptions on expectations etc. This leads naturally into the other topics mentioned in 3 – with the exception of the multiplier-accelerator and inventory models which tend to be sui generis and hard to fit into the overall scheme. (The open economy models also do not fit in very well.)

On your specific comments:

We also realize that each teacher decides what he wants to teach, but in view of the facts that these are the basic money courses and that students take them from different people, we feel it important to try to have some uniformity of coverage.
On the history of thought: we too use this to introduce and motivate the theories and we intend that it permeate the courses rather than be discussed in the middle of 331, as our memo now indicates.
The optimum quantity of money comes right out of discussions of intertemporal optimization by individuals (as in your article) and it does seem that the “Dynamic” course is a good place to discuss it.
The early quantity theorist’ views will obviously be discussed in great detail in the demand for money side of 330, and also in 331; this was one of the sub-topics we intended to be included under the 331 heading “doctrinal history.”

We would very much appreciate your commenting on this since we ourselves discussed several alternative organizations for the courses, and are far from certain that our proposal is optimal. Indeed, in the light of the fact that, as you say, everyone teaches what he wants, we felt some diffidence in making our proposal. But we do think it important to have some generally-greed-upon division of material for the three courses, if only to be fair to the students faced with the Core exam.

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 194, Folder 5.

Image Source: Milton Friedman (undated). University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06230, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags Friedman, GordonRJ, Stanley Fischer, Zecher

Economists M.I.T.

MIT. Department of Economics Group Photo, 1976

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-04-12

Back Row: Harold FREEMAN, Hal VARIAN, Jerome ROTHENBERG, Peter DIAMOND, Jerry HAUSMAN

4th Row: Paul JOSKOW, Anne FRIEDLAENDER, JOHN R. MORONEY (VISITOR TO DEPARTMENT)

3rd Row: Stanley FISCHER, Jagdish BHAGWATI, Rudiger DORNBUSCH, Robert SOLOW, Robert HALL

2nd Row: Edward KUH, Morris ADELMAN, Abraham J. SIEGEL, Richard ECKAUS, Martin WEITZMAN

1st Row: Evsey DOMAR, Paul SAMUELSON, Charles KINDLEBERGER, E. Cary BROWN, Franco MODIGLIANI, Sydney ALEXANDER, Robert BISHOP

Apparently didn’t get the memo and/or not pictured: Michael PIORE, Frank FISHER, Peter TEMIN.

Thanks to Robert Solow, the photo-bomber standing to Solow’s left in the picture has been identified as a guest from Tulane University, John Moroney. It is possible that I forgot some other person not included in this faculty picture.

I note that the entire front row has gone to that great Department of Economics in the Cloud.

Source: A graduate student buddy of mine who entered the MIT Ph.D. program in 1975/76.

______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled of which this is the 250th. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

Tags Adelman, Bhagwati, Bishop, BrownEC, Diamond, Domar, Dornbusch, Eckaus, Franklin Fisher, FreemanHA, Friedlaender, Hall, Hausman, Joskow, Kindleberger, Kuh, Modigliani, Piore, Rothenberg, Samuelson, Siegel, Solow, Stanley Fischer, Temin, Varian, Weitzman

Economists Exam Questions M.I.T.

MIT. Final Exam in Graduate Macro I. Stanley Fischer, 1975

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-03-08

Welcome to my blog, Economics in the Rear-View Mirror. If you find this posting interesting, here is the list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have already assembled for you to sample or click on the search icon in the upper right to explore by name, university, or category. You can subscribe to my blog below. There is also an opportunity to comment below….

______________________

Today another posting from the more recent history of economics for that professor who succeeded where others had failed before him, namely in first teaching me the economic intuition behind macroeconomic models, Stanley Fischer. While James Tobin had succeeded in convincing the undergraduate me of the utter importance of getting macroeconomic policy right, I was still much too immature to “receive wisdom” as a sophomore…but enough about me.

I thought of Stan Fisher this morning as I read his marvelous summary of his own 55 years of experience with macroeconomics.

I earlier posted Fischer’s reading list for his undergraduate course at the University of Chicago in 1973. Below is the exam from the first half-semester course in the required four quarter sequence in macroeconomics for the cohort that entered MIT in the Fall of 1974, the cohort that included Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Frankel, Francesco Giavazzi, Andrew Abel, Dick Startz, to name only a few, sandwiched between Olivier Blanchard’s and Ben Bernanke’s respective cohorts.

_________________________________

Spring 1975

Final Exam 14.451

Stanley Fischer

Time available is two hours. Answer all questions. You have a choice on question 2.

(50 points) it is sometimes asserted that the key to the effectiveness of monetary policy is the fixed nominal return on money. Suppose that means were devised of paying interest on money and that the nominal bond interest rate were fixed in an arbitrary level.
1. Using any convenient variant of a three asset (money, bonds, capital) model, explain the determination of asset market equilibrium and then of the overall equilibrium of the economy, under the assumption of a fixed bond interest and a rate market-determined money interest rate. (Maintain this assumption here after.)
2. Analyze the consequences of an open market purchase for the interest rate on money and other endogenous variables. What are the differences between your results and those in the more usual model in which the bond interest rate varies?
3. Suppose a helicopter dropped bonds on the populace. What happens to the interest rate on money and other endogenous variables?
4. What do you make of the assertion mentioned in the first sentence of this question in the light of your answers to (ii) and (iii) and/or in the light of any other relevant considerations?
5. Extra credit (5 points max). Can you envision any type of institutional arrangements which make the premise of this question — fixed bond interest rate and market determined interest rate on money — empirically reasonable?

Answer A or B (30 points each)

What theoretical reasons are there to assume the demand for money is a function of the interest rate?
Why does it matter?
Review relevant empirical evidence.
Discuss any econometric difficulties of the empirical work.

A household has the utility of wealth function

U(W) = W (b/2)W².

Its initial wealth is W₀.
It can hold in its portfolio a safe asset paying a safe rate of return of our r_B in the risky asset paying r_E+g, where r_E is the expected return and s_g² is the variance of return.

Derive demand functions as a function of r_B, r_E, s_g², and W₀.
Suppose that a tax on next period’s wealth is announced, at rate t, i.e. t% of wealth at the beginning of next period will be paid to the government. What effect does this have on the asset demands? Can you give an intuitive explanation?
Suppose instead that positive returns on the risky assets are taxed at a rate t, but not negative returns. Thus if A₂ is the holding of the risky asset, the tax is tA₂(r_E + g) if r_E +g > 0 and zero otherwise. The return on the safe asset is not taxed. What effect does this have on asset demands?

(20 points)

Source: Irwin Collier.

Image Source: MIT Museum.

Tags Abel, Bernanke, Blanchard, Frankel, Giavazzi, Krugman, Stanley Fischer, Startz, Tobin

ERVM

Visitors to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-10-12

The past week was the first full-week that I looked at feedback from Google Analytics where I learned something about the geographic distribution of visitors to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror (ERVM). There was a marked surge in page visits due to the coincidence of the Stanley Fischer posting getting New York Times mention in David Leonhardt’s The Upshot under the heading “Best of the Web…Stuff We Liked” and a Joseph Schumpeter posting getting almost two full days of front-page status at the subreddit: Reddit/r/economics.

By the way, apparently the Reddit algorithm for ranking links is based on a 1927 paper by Edwin B. Wilson! For a 1930 lecture by Wilson at the U.S. Department of Agriculture graduate school, see this posting.

What I glean from the map above is that you visitors are the world which is pretty gratifying for a blog going into only its sixth month of existence. What is striking from the actual numbers behind the map is that the number of page visits is dominated by the U.S. with Canada/UK/Germany constituting the next group with the rest of the 70-some countries registering generally fewer than ten visits and only about two dozen countries in double digits.

Like Adam Smith wrote “The Division of Labour is Limited by the Extent of the Market”, so with the global connectivity of today it makes sense to Specialize in one’s own blog content. I certainly take comfort in seeing that those of us interested in the story of the development of economics in the twentieth century, while few in a relative sense, are hardly alone. Hope you do too.

Tags Schumpeter, Stanley Fischer, Wilson

Chicago Courses Economists

Chicago. Undergraduate Macro. Stanley Fischer, 1973

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-09-24

While organizing my material from George Stigler’s papers, I ran across this reading list for an undergraduate macro course taught in 1973 at the University of Chicago by the then thirty year-old future professor of the so-called MIT gang that included Ben Bernanke, Mario Draghi, Olivier Blanchard, Maurice Obstfeld, and Paul Krugman (yes, there were others… worth another post). Learn this stuff (and I mean really learn this stuff) and you too might become chief economist of the World Bank, or first managing director of the IMF, or vice chairman of Citigroup, or governor of the Bank of Israel, or Vice Chairman of the Fed. Excuse me, I mean “and/or”.

_____________________________

Winter 1973

Stanley Fischer

ECONOMICS 202
Reading List

Texts:

Branson: Macroeconomic Theory and Policy, Harper and Row, 1972.

Friedman: An Economist’s Protest, Thomas Horton, 1972.

I. Introductory

Friedman, M. “A Theoretical Framework for Monetary Analysis,” JPE, March/April, 1970, 193-238.

Johnson, H. G. “The Keynesian Revolution and the Monetarist Counter-Revolution,” AER Papers and Proceedings, May, 1971, 1-14.

Leijonhufvud, A. “Keynes and the Classics: Two Lectures on Keynes’ Contribution to Economic Theory,” London, Institute of Economic Affairs, 1969. Occasional Paper 30.

Tobin, J. Manuscript on Monetary Theory, Chapter 1. (This is on reserve in the library.)

II. Quantity Equation

Fisher, I. The Purchasing Power of Money, Macmillan, 1913, Chaps. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8.

Keynes, J. M., Tract on Monetary Reform, Macmillan, 1924, Chaps. 2, 3.

Patinkin, D. “The Chicago Tradition, the Quantity Theory, and Friedman,” JMCB, Feb., 1969, 46-70.

Pigou, A. C. “The Value of Money,” originally in Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1917, reprinted in Lutz and Mints.

III. The Demand for Money

Baumol, W. J. “The Transactions Demand for Cash: An Inventory Theoretic Approach,” QJE, Nov., 1952, reprinted in Thorn.

Cagan, P. “The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation” in Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money, M. Friedman (ed.), University of Chicago Press, 1956.

Friedman, M. “The Quantity Theory of Money: A Restatement,” in OQM (also in Thorn and in Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money).

Keynes, J. M. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan, 1935, Chaps. 13, 15, 17.

Laidler, D. E. W. “Some Evidence on the Demand for Money,” JPE, Feb., 1966, 55-68.

Latané, H. A. “Cash Balances and the Interest Rate—A Pragmatic Approach,” RE and Sta., Nov., 1954, 456-60.

Tobin, J. “Liquidity Preference as Behavior Toward Risk,” RES, Feb., 1958, 65-86, reprinted in Thorn.

IV. The Supply of Money

Cagan, P. Determinants and Effects of Changes in the Money Stock, 1875-1960, Columbia University Press, 1965.

V. Inflation

Friedman, M. “The Role of Monetary Policy, “ AER, March 1968, 1-17, reprinted in OQM.

Phillips, A. W. “The Relation between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wages in the U.K., 1862-1957,” Economica, Nov., 1958, 283-99.

_____________________________

[References completed]

Lutz and Mints. Lutz, Friedrich A. and Mints, Lloyd W. Readings in Monetary Economics.Volume 5 of The series of republished articles on economics. R.D. Irwin, 1951.

Thorn. [probably] Money and banking: theory, analysis, and policy; a textbook of readings. Edited with introd. by S. Mittra. [Consulting editor: Richard S. Thorn]. New York, Random House [1970]

OQM. Friedman, Milton. Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1969.

_____________________________

Source: Source: Stigler, George. Papers, Box 3, Folder “U of C Other, Miscellaneous, Corresp. w. Pres., etc”, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Image Source: MIT Museum.

Tags Stanley Fischer

First Year Economics Graduate Students, 1974-75 M.I.T. (Spring 1975)

ANALYSIS IN WONDERLAND

Composed and performed by the first-year economics graduate students at M.I.T. Second term, 1974-75

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

ACT I

ACT II

ACT III

ACT IV

Graduate Courses in 1971-72 Core Fields and Faculty

PRICE THEORY

THEORY OF INCOME, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE PRICE LEVEL

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

COURSE NO. 1, to be called 331 taught in Fall and Winter

COURSE NO. 2, to be called 330 taught in Fall and Spring

COURSE NO. 3, to be called 332 taught in Winter and Spring

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Spring 1975

Final Exam 14.451

Stanley Fischer

ECONOMICS 202 Reading List

First Year Economics Graduate Students, 1974-75
M.I.T. (Spring 1975)

Composed and performed by the first-year economics graduate students at M.I.T.
Second term, 1974-75

Graduate Courses in 1971-72
Core Fields and Faculty

COURSE NO. 1, to be called 331
taught in Fall and Winter

COURSE NO. 2, to be called 330
taught in Fall and Spring

COURSE NO. 3, to be called 332
taught in Winter and Spring

ECONOMICS 202
Reading List