Do you think so? As in wholesale change where one re-evaluates and perchance stops teaching / publishing the core of the syllabus as it stands, or is it more in the sense that small changes - which are happening - will slowly but surely change the focus of the field?
I'd love to see more work on the functioning of instruments, market interaction and market understanding (e.g. the money markets actual functions, rather than the various theoretical ideas based on anything but central bank manuals), but I am concerned that the long publication cycle in journals and the bias of the discipline away from 'field work' or at least reality will hamper such impulses... That might just be my cynicism though.
epic... Now to spread the gospel and explain this to everyone. I particularly liked the bit about "do you know what that means?..." ... "no"
Benjamin, it's a great piece, really well done, and given who wrote it, a good sign that things might be about to change in financial economics.
Do you think so? As in wholesale change where one re-evaluates and perchance stops teaching / publishing the core of the syllabus as it stands, or is it more in the sense that small changes - which are happening - will slowly but surely change the focus of the field?
I'd love to see more work on the functioning of instruments, market interaction and market understanding (e.g. the money markets actual functions, rather than the various theoretical ideas based on anything but central bank manuals), but I am concerned that the long publication cycle in journals and the bias of the discipline away from 'field work' or at least reality will hamper such impulses... That might just be my cynicism though.
Well, maybe not quite so wholesale, but these things do take generations!