19.74 (car) Gunnar Myrdal and Friedrich August von Hayek

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1974 Gunnar Myrdal and Friedrich August von Hayek "for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena"

19.73 (Cameo) Wassily Leontief

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1973 Wassily Leontief "for the development of the input-output method and for its application to important economic problems"

19.72 (Can) John R. Hicks & Kenneth J. Arrow

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1972 John R. Hicks and Kenneth J. Arrow

"for their pioneering contributions to general economic equilibrium theory and welfare theory"

Sir John Richard Hicks (8 April 1904 – 20 May 1989) was a British economist and one of the most important and influential economists of the twentieth century. The most familiar of his many contributions in the field of economics were his statement of consumer demand theory in microeconomics, and the IS/LM model (1937), which summarised a Keynesian view of macroeconomics. His book Value and Capital (1939) significantly extended general-equilibrium and value theory. The compensated demand function is named the Hicksian demand function in memory of him.

In 1972 he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (jointly) for his pioneering contributions to general equilibrium theory and welfare theory

19.71 (Cat) Simon Kuznets

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

1971

Simon Kuznets

"for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development"

Simon Smith Kuznets (April 30, 1901 – July 8, 1985) was an American economist, statistician, demographer, and economic historian who won the 1971 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences "for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development."

A THEORY OF ECONOMIC GROWTH

Research program that involved extensive empirical studies on the four key elements of economic growth. In fact, the demographic growth, the growth of knowledge, in-country adaptation to growth factors and external economic relations between the countries. The general theory of economic growth should explain the development of advanced industrial countries, and the reasons that prevent the development of less developed countries, It should include the differences between both market and planned economies, large and small, developed and developing countries, consider the impact on growth of foreign economic relations.

19,70 (Case) Paul A. Samuelson

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1970 Paul A. Samuelson "for the scientific work through which he has developed static and dynamic economic theory and actively contributed to raising the level of analysis in economic science"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelson

19. Nobel Prize winners in Economics

Nobel Prize winners in Economics The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

1971

Simon Kuznets "for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development" 1970 - Paul A Samuelson. 1969 - Tinbergen

18. Per Bylund on Inflation

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/08/per-bylund/inflation-research-as-propaganda/

There should be no surprise to readers of LewRockwell.com that the State statistics on inflation seek to cover up most of the problem. However, this article is not on government statistics (or propaganda, which is probably a better word for it) but on economics research on the phenomenon of inflation. Libertarians as well as Austrian economists would agree that inflation is a problem that needs to be dealt with (i.e., government needs to stop meddling with the economy), and we often tell the story of how inflation "eats up" wealth and creates imbalances in the market place while offering great opportunities for the State to increase its powers and further strengthen its hold on our society.

We often stress that the definition of inflation used by both the State and the economics profession is "incorrect" and that the "general increase in price levels" definition should be replaced by the Austrian "increase in money supply" definition. It is true that the latter is a whole lot more correct in both explaining and describing the problem while pinpointing what is really going on and how these problems could be overcome. However, it is not simply the fact that the generally accepted definition is "wrong" — it is also "evil" in that it includes quite a bit of propaganda for State control of the marketplace and the rest of society.

It should be clear to anyone with some knowledge in how the economy works that all the individuals in it work together like an invisible hand to produce goods and services and that they tend to do so ever more efficiently. This is true even in a regulated market, which is why even monstrous welfare states talk about the importance of and try to "encourage" economic growth. The concept is a bit confusing, though, since the economy doesn’t only grow — "it" strives to get increasingly efficient in the use of resources in order to produce goods and services of [even greater] value to consumers. Such increased efficiency is generally achieved by entrepreneurs, be they capital owners or labor workers, and innovators finding new ingenious ways of using the resources available.

In such a market the natural tendency is for prices to fall — anything else would be incomprehensible. Even in the world of neo-classical economics this is a fact despite the endless calculations on fixed cost functions and production technologies. Competition spurs cost-cutting and efficiency-increasing measures for the actors to gain advantages in the market through satisfying consumers’ wants by offering better products at lower cost. So how could prices ever increase in such a setting?

Yet the definition used for inflation is the general increase in prices. Of course, even those trained in mainstream neo-classical economics should realize such a phenomenon is a symptom of something being wrong. But what is commonly overlooked or not understood (or at least not mentioned) is that inflation is not something going wrong as shown in price increases — it is wrong because prices don’t fall. In other words, if inflation is taken as only the price increase the statistic necessarily and systematically overlooks the natural price fall that is also a part of inflation.

If prices in the market would naturally fall by 5% in a specific year but we instead experience a 5% increase in prices, the real "price increase inflation" isn’t the experienced 5% increase compared to the level of prices the previous year but the new level compared to what the level would have been, i.e. 105%/95% = 10.5%. In this simple example the official inflation statistic would only take into account less than half of the real price increase inflation.

The inflation statistic of 5% in the example doesn’t take into account that the market is never static; it simply compares the price level of one year with the price level of another year as if nothing has happened: the cost and production functions are the same (i.e., competition has no effect), the money supply is exogenous or unimportant (i.e., printing more money has no effect), and time has a "reverse" effect (it would obviously be better to always sell goods at a later time while producing as early as possible since all prices go up — the best thing you can do is horde and "never" sell).

It is true that such a world as the one implied by the inflation statistic is very neo-classical in that it is so oversimplified that it doesn’t make sense at all (but allows for taking nice derivatives to optimize abstract functions). It is also true that it is literally impossible to tell how much prices would have fallen, which means the inflation statistic is nowhere close to the real inflation rate and also that it is impossible to even guess how wrong it is.

For obvious reasons the State benefits quite a lot from using this definition of inflation. After all, it covers up most of the effects of its tampering with the market. But why in the world would anyone doing economic research use such a statistic that is so totally flawed? One possible answer to this question is that the economics profession (generally speaking) is not about economic truths, but aim to serve the State through providing research on how it can "optimize" its policies to best take advantage of the market processes. If this is the case, then the economics profession overall should know little about how the market really works — and what would cause it to fail.

Per Bylund [send him mail] is a Ph.D. student in economics at the University of Missouri and the founder of Anarchism.net. Visit his website www.PerBylund.com or his blog where he comments on this article and more.