0/ A holiday economic theory reading list. Some of my favorite pieces on theory that can be read with minimal sweat, but with the maximal intellectual reward. In no particular order:

1/ Myerson 1999. "Nash equilibrium & history of economic theory." JEL. Written with characteristic Myersonian elegance. "how a few short papers by a young mathematician achieved one of the great watershed breakthroughs in the history of social science."
https://t.co/XqDtKBcrAD
2/ Blackwell & DeGroot 1986. “A conversation with David Blackwell.” Stat Science. After his PhD at 21, "There were 105 black colleges at that time & I wrote 105 letters of application." Beautiful discussion on a gamut of ideas & his intellectual life. https://t.co/vfjbPpf21B
3/ Geanakoplos 1992. “Common Knowledge.” JEP. Zuper piece, lucidly written. Lots of interesting puzzles, great for teaching. When Moriarty says "All I have to say has already crossed your mind," Holmes retorts "then possibly my answer has crossed yours." https://t.co/JQOUsPipDn
4/ Morris 1995. "The common prior assumption in economic theory.” E&P. This beauty was Stephen's first chap of PhD thesis! Does rationality imply CP? Does relaxing CP make theorizing uninteresting? Is failure of CP a failure of information processing?
https://t.co/RnCg0JIl07.
5/ Aumann & Hart 2005. “An interview with Robert Aumann." Macro Dyn. To be savored with a steaming cup of chai (or whisky on rocks). Brimming with deep moments. Aumann's view on the folk theorem, how agree to disagree came about, religion, much more.
https://t.co/xO2BnIYlhw?
6/ Rubinstein 2006. “Dilemmas of an economic theorist.” Ecmta. What are we all trying to do writing models? Rubinstein at his insightful (and provocative) best. "I do think we are simply the tellers of fables, but is that not wonderful?"
https://t.co/bYPAsWbJ8G
7/ Gilboa, Postlewaite & Schmeidler 2008. "Probability & uncertainty in economic modeling." JEP. Beautiful overview of subjective probabilities, Savage's theory of choice, limits of the sure thing principle, Ellsberg paradox, and multiple priors approach. https://t.co/HPi5pFrwf4
7/ cont See also a valiantly argued and thoughtful critique of the ambiguity/MP approach by Al-Najjar & Weinstein.
https://t.co/3jDTnzdt3c
8/ Ostrom 1999 "Coping with the tragedy of commons." Ann Rev Pol Sc. Hardin's idea arguably one of greatest insights of recent times. Ostrom elegantly & persuasively recasts the question in view of evidence from the field and the lab. Research ideas here! https://t.co/r2WEl6cUpg
9/ Rabin 1998. “Psychology and economics" JEL. A fantastic documentation of the "first wave" of behavioral economics. Heuristics, biases and their impact of decision making, and the broader quest to incorporate more psychology into economic theory.
https://t.co/OtwEP9pyks
10/ Read everything by/on Joan Robinson. Remarkable economic theorist of 20th cntry. Found a beautiful essay by her in Cambridge library "Economics is a serious subject (1932)" hard to find copy. Here is NYT on her in 1972 & thread by @Undercoverhist https://t.co/kPdnBnnH6n
11/ Haile 2020, “Structural vs. reduced form: Language, confusion, and models in empirical economics." working slides. Superb deck to understand (amongst other things) role of models in empirical work. Hope @PhilHaile can do a Zoom lecture on this soon!
https://t.co/uVTHNnTAMc
12/ Extra credit! The Economist's "School briefs". Lucidly written summaries of some great ideas of modern economics. https://t.co/Ep9PAHXCS2. And, "A mathematician's apology (1940)" by GH Hardy-- on the value of abstraction beyond immediate applications
https://t.co/PRpTdpURDM
13(end)/ Here is hoping we all continue to theorize as we end this painful year for mankind. In addition to the putting that critical structure on data, it may provide us "narratives that make us look at reality differently" (David Pearce). A promise for our polarized times.

More from Economy

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.