Talk:John Muth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| Start | rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as low-importance on the importance scale |
John Muth was later affiliated with Michigan State University from 1964 to 1969 and Indiana University from 1969 until his retirement in 1994.
[edit] Legacy?
The legacy part says:
It has hard to point to one substantial area of economic research which has not changed as a result of the publication of Muth's works at GSIA. Almost paradoxically, the only viable alternative to Muth's hypothesis is the research agenda put forward by Herb Simon and his concept of "bounded rationality".
The article doesn't describe the relevance of rational expectations to game theory. Is there any connection? If not, the first sentence seems unjustified, given the huge impact of game theory on many branches of economics, including say, Industrial Organization. (I can't see how expectations play any role Harsanyi's Bayesian games, which is the usual way of modeling beliefs and uncertainty in game theory.)
Secondly, why would bounded rationality be a relevant (let alone the only viable) alternative? Wouldn't the obvious first step be to introduce more moments (e.g. variance)?
--Clausen 15:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
