
Akerlof and Schiller on the limits of markets - kostandin_k
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/29/this-kardashian-headline-shows-why-two-nobel-winners-say-the-economy-is-broken/?tid=sm_fb
======
henrik_w
Good HN discussion of a review of the book:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10330280](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10330280)

------
camillomiller
"I did a Google N-grams search [how often a word appears in books] for
wantability. The term enjoyed some popularity in the 1920s and 1930s, then
exponentially decayed. After the Reagan-Thatcher revolution the term was
gone."

Sorry to steer off topic, but how much can we trust google N-gram researches?
Are they accepted in scientific papers? Just a curiosity of mine.

~~~
kostandin_k
Here you have a discussion:

[http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/questions/2469/should-...](http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/questions/2469/should-
we-allow-google-ngrams-to-be-presented-as-statistical-evidence-without-qu)

------
microcolonel
The way they introduce the positions of Akerlof and Schiller seems to indicate
that markets are not irrational, but insufficiently informed.

~~~
danharaj
We are not rational agents but agents of bounded, imperfect rationality. Even
if all the information is out there, our bounded natures invite the ideas in
this article.

------
kitschpatrol
Shiller, not Schiller.

------
acconrad
Really click-baity title from the Post, which ironically enough, seems to be
the point the article is trying to argue. It's mostly about the morality of
free markets and it's strengths/weaknesses.

~~~
dang
Yes, beyond lame. Changed.

But an interesting article.

