Why is economists being interested in learning general lessons about cause and effect from specific incidents a 'fixation'? That makes it sound like some kind of weird irrational thing, when as far as I can see it's a totally reasonable thing for economists to be concerned with. Like, you seem to be implying that Card as well as Borjas made some kind of error here, but it's not very clear from the text what this is.
The link in this sentence: "In the first wave of globalization in the nineteenth century, we have robust evidence..." takes me to something called The Reporter Archive and not to any specific link. Any help finding the robust evidence?
Why is economists being interested in learning general lessons about cause and effect from specific incidents a 'fixation'? That makes it sound like some kind of weird irrational thing, when as far as I can see it's a totally reasonable thing for economists to be concerned with. Like, you seem to be implying that Card as well as Borjas made some kind of error here, but it's not very clear from the text what this is.
What will it take to make those who write about economics and economists to recognize that there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in Economics?
The Prize in Economics was initiated and is funded by the Swedish Central Bank (Sweden's Fed)and has no funding from the Nobel Foundation.
The certicates and medals do not mention the phrase "Nobel Prize."
The link in this sentence: "In the first wave of globalization in the nineteenth century, we have robust evidence..." takes me to something called The Reporter Archive and not to any specific link. Any help finding the robust evidence?