Nobel Laureates Offer Views on the Economy
Which economy do you expect to be biggest 75 years from now: the U.S., the European Union or China?
George A. Akerlof, Koshland professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley: The European Union. It has more people than the U.S. and per capita income should not be that much different. I think the current gap between China and the U.S. and the EU is probably too large to make up.
Kenneth J. Arrow, professor of economics emeritus at Stanford University: Unless there is a radical change in growth rates, China will be the largest economy in the world. I don't expect, however, per capita income in China to be as much as half the European level.
Ronald H. Coase, Clinton R. Musser professor of economics emeritus at the University of Chicago: I have little doubt that in 75 years, China will have a bigger economy than either the U.S. or the European Community.
Milton Friedman, senior research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace: China.
Clive W.J. Granger, professor of economics emeritus at the University of California, San Diego: In order: U.S., China, EU.
ECONOMIC ROUNDTABLE
Which economy do you expect to be biggest 75 years from now? Join the discussion. Plus, the full transcripts of interviews with Nobel laureates in economics (Akerlof, Friedman, Klein, Solow, Smith, Stiglitz).
Lawrence R. Klein, Benjamin Franklin professor of economics emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania: The largest economy in the world, 75 years from now, is most likely to be China. This answer is not on a per capita basis. China is growing fast, has an extremely large population, and is likely to ease the restraints on family size, in order to avoid having a large dependency ratio (e.g. as in the case of Japan). On a per capita basis, I would reply that the U.S. will be the highest.
Harry M. Markowitz, research professor at the University of California, San Diego: China.
John F. Nash Jr., senior research mathematician at Princeton University: Well, since the European Union is an undefined area, as of the year 2079, if it then includes Russia, it should be the largest. If not, the U.S. would be likely, even though China and the U.S. have similar land area.
William F. Sharpe, Stanco 25 professor of finance emeritus at Stanford University: 50% chance: China; 30% chance: EU; 20% chance: U.S.
Vernon L. Smith, professor of economics and law at George Mason University: U.S.
Robert M. Solow, Institute professor emeritus and professor of economics emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: In total output, probably China. In output per person, probably the U.S.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, University professor at Columbia University: It's too difficult to make a projection 75 years from now on those issues. We don't know what other countries will be joining the European Union and how it will expand in terms of size. Secondly, the question that one has to recognize is that even if China is not the biggest, China will continue to have a lot more population. Even if growth doesn't remain at the rapid growth levels of the last 25 years, the disparity between China and the EU and the U.S. will be greatly reduced. The result is that it is likely that there will be a different balance of economic powers.
Which country comes closest to getting economic policy right today, and why?
George A. Akerlof: Sweden, because it takes care to support those who are in need, and it maintains near full employment.
Kenneth J. Arrow: Good principles are one thing, and facts are another. One must say, on the basis of experience, that China, Taiwan, and South Korea are doing the best at economic policy, in spite of all their violations of sound economic principles.
Milton Friedman: Hong Kong, thanks to the legacy of the British administration.
Clive W.J. Granger: Norway. It has oil and spends the proceeds sensibly.
Lawrence R. Klein: I choose Norway, whose socio-politico-economic policies I admire for their fairness among many segments of the population. The country is well endowed with beautiful resources and important economic materials. Their endowments are well utilized in the interests of economic welfare.
Harry M. Markowitz: U.S. most "free market," but China now runs a close second.
John F. Nash Jr.: Switzerland, of course. At least a part of why is that they don't do wrong things that are SUPPOSED to enhance the economy of a country but that fail, perhaps, to be beneficial on a long-term basis.
William F. Sharpe: Possibly the U.K., almost certainly not the U.S.
Vernon L. Smith: U.S...still has a measure of freedom. EU is going deeper into the socioeconomic gridlock tubes. China is moving ever slowly in the right direction.
Robert M. Solow: I can't answer this, because different countries have different problems. I think the U.S. is ahead of the other large advanced economies in many respects, but not nearly all. Not clear that Denmark or the Netherlands -- both generally better -- are really comparable.
Joseph E. Stiglitz: The problems of each country are quite different. It's very hard to answer that question because it's like they're each taking a different exam and therefore you're trying to grade them on a different exam. In the last three or four years, it's quite clear that the U.S. has done very poorly. Europe has not done very well in macroeconomic policy. The Growth and Stability pact is not working, and the European Central Bank has not done its job well. Economic performance has not been stellar.
Judging by performance, clearly China is the one large country that has performed the best and has shown the best management skills in getting through the East Asian crisis. It's always an ongoing thing. There are always new challenges -- you're always evaluating how they're responding. In terms of performance and agility, China's performance has been very impressive. And Korea's comeback from the 1997 crisis has been extremely impressive. Korea and China stand out on the positive side.
Who was the most important economist of the 20th century besides you?
George A. Akerlof: John Maynard Keynes.
Kenneth J. Arrow: The question is not simple, because in this century most lasting ideas have been the results of the work of many people (e.g., national income accounting, the economics of asymmetric information, or game theory). If I had to identify one person, it would be Ragnar Frisch, who, more than anyone else, began the combination of theoretical models and empirical research which is the dominant mode of analysis today. If I had to add one more, it would be Simon Kuznets, who both brought national income accounting into practice and brought economic growth into the forefront of the profession's interests.
Milton Friedman: J.M. Keynes.
Clive W.J. Granger: Milton Friedman -- he kept everyone awake.
Lawrence R. Klein: My choice is Paul A. Samuelson, and John Maynard Keynes is close behind. The former for building an extremely revealing theoretical specification of the neoclassical-Keynesian synthesis and the latter for his specification of macroeconomics.
Harry M. Markowitz: Milton Friedman.
John F. Nash Jr.: The MOST IMPORTANT economist might not have been the economist with the best teachings. So Keynes is a good choice, easily.
William F. Sharpe: Kenneth Arrow or Paul Samuelson.
Vernon L. Smith: Hayek.
Robert M. Solow: J.M. Keynes.
Joseph E. Stiglitz: Are you actually getting people to answer these questions? I don't think one can identify one person. There are a large number of people who have made various contributions. You said 20th century. One has to think of Keynes, Samuelson and Arrow. They have had enormous amounts of influence. I hesitate because there are people who have had enormous influence in their own branch of economics.
There are for the most part not revolutions but evolutions in economics. Ideas get established. Keynes said the economy can get stuck in an unemployment equilibrium. Before that many said there was always full employment. He helped economists think about the persistence of unemployment. Even if not everyone uses the Keynesian model, the research into this question was a critical breakthrough.
Keynes's ideas were established about 70 years ago, but the macroeconomic management that derives from Keynes's ideas has resulted in shorter and shallower downturns than they would have been without Keynes. It is this single idea that has had the most impact.
Who deserved the Nobel but didn't get it?
George A. Akerlof: Joan Robinson, Amos Tversky, Zvi Griliches.
Kenneth J. Arrow: Number one, by a long shot, is George B. Dantzig, the creator of linear programming. I must also mention Roy Harrod and Robert J. Aumann (the game theorist).
Milton Friedman: Joan Robinson, Peter Bauer.
Clive W.J. Granger: Oskar Morgenstern.
Lawrence R. Klein: Edmond Malinvaud of Collège de France and former director of INSéE has often been nominated but never selected. Both Sir Roy Harrod and Joan Robinson are deceased, without having been selected in their lifetimes. They both merited favorable consideration while they were alive.
Harry M. Markowitz: George Dantzig.
John F. Nash Jr.: It is fairly easy to find persons who died early and therefore could not get a Nobel prize. In economics there is "Black-Scholes" but Black died too early to get Nobel recognition.
William F. Sharpe: I'll pass on this one.
Vernon L. Smith: Seymore Benzer, but he is still in the running for the award in Physiology and Medicine.
Robert M. Solow: Edmond Malinvaud.
What single breakthrough in economic thought in the past 50 years has had the most significant impact on the everyday lives of people, and why?
George A. Akerlof: The use of game theory. It allows economists to analyze problems in greater detail, and thus yields a better correspondence between the situation and the theory.
Kenneth J. Arrow: I don't exactly know what a "single breakthrough" is. I would rather say that the idea of modeling the implications of alternative policies, made possible by theoretical development, the revolution in computing, and the increased volume of data, has had a salutary effect on policy. The use of models does not necessarily lead to good policies, but it does avoid the worst possibilities.
Milton Friedman: Acceptance of the idea that inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Why? Because it has produced by now more than two decades of relatively low inflation in most developed countries, relatively stable economic output, a high level of employment and of well-being.
Clive W.J. Granger: The ability to control inflation.
Lawrence R. Klein: It is no surprise that Jan Tinbergen was awarded the first economic prize (shared). His work on econometric model building was completed far ahead of its time, with few resources of the sort that are used today. He formulated the principles of economic policy formation and laid the groundwork for implementation through econometric inference. Also, his early (second) model built for the League of Nations had many insightful ideas about income distribution, the wealth effect, and wage determination. Models stemming from his breakthrough of the 1930s are used over and over again throughout the world.
Harry M. Markowitz: I'd say portfolio theory, but I'm biased.
John F. Nash Jr.: I don't know what to choose for that; it can take rather longer than 50 years for a good economic theory to become fully effective.
William F. Sharpe: Tie: Friedman's monetary theory and Keynes's macroeconomic theory (strange bedfellows, to be sure).
Vernon L. Smith: Hayek's theme, on the utilization of knowledge, that the dispersed information required to organize an economy cannot be given to any one mind; that command and control systems must therefore fail; and this theme brought down or forced liberalization of the Chilean, Soviet, Eastern European, Chinese, etc. central control of their economies.
Robert M. Solow: Not sure. Possibly our improved understanding of international trade, exchange rates, and open-economy macroeconomics. (Large numbers affected.)
George A. Akerlof: The penal and justice system (and also the military). This includes private running of jails.
Kenneth J. Arrow: There are many, but, because of both quantitative importance and depth of implication, the field of health policy requires (and gets) the most limitation of market forces.
In what sphere of life, if any, do you think it most important to limit the influence of market forces?
Milton Friedman: Self-ownership of human beings.
Clive W.J. Granger: Original research in mathematics and science.
Lawrence R. Klein: It is well known that there have been many market failures and corrupt behavior under the market system unless there is strong political oversight and leadership. The effects of such excesses are fairly evident in many respects, but the most serious is in the resulting skewness of the income and wealth distributions both within and among national economies.
Harry M. Markowitz: Pollution.
John F. Nash Jr.: The code-speak phrase "limit the influence of market forces" really means to arrange things OTHERWISE by leaving everything to free-market equilibration. A simple illustration is where a state wishes simply to defend its existence. This may call for various concepts of national self-sufficiency so that, for example, Japan may choose not to become entirely an importer of rice!
William F. Sharpe: Extreme concentration of economic and political power.
Vernon L. Smith: None, because "markets" are about recognizing that information is dispersed in all social systems, and that the problem of society is to find, devise and discover institutions that incentivize and enable people to make the right decisions without anyone having to tell them what to do. The idea that market forces should be limited stems from a fundamental error in beliefs about markets. This is the wrong question.
Robert M. Solow: In the advanced economies, I would say: To avoid mass unemployment, poverty and widening inequality.
Joseph E. Stiglitz: Economists' usual list begins with distribution of income. There is no reason to believe that the distribution of income that emerges out of market processes is desirable or acceptable. Unbridled market forces without any role of government might lead to a large number of people living under subsistence. This is an area for government to do something. We know that unbridled economic forces can lead to big booms and big recessions. We need to do something about that. We know that a market can lead to pollution -- and there's an important role for government there. We know that there will be under-investment in public goods. As we think about the innovation economy, we should remember that most of the innovation in the private sector is based on research financed by the government, such as its role in developing the Internet.
What do you consider the world's single greatest economic challenge today?
George A. Akerlof: How to deal with global warming.
Kenneth J. Arrow: The extreme poverty of sub-Saharan Africa and some states in south Asia.
Milton Friedman: Holding down the size and scope of government.
Clive W.J. Granger: Replacing declining resources by innovative technology at an appropriate rate.
Lawrence R. Klein: The joint reduction of poverty and disease in a peaceful political environment is the challenge of our lifetime.
Harry M. Markowitz: Reducing tariffs against developing nations.
John F. Nash Jr.: An inevitable challenge is how to at least SEEM to have increasing standards of living while the amount of the Earth's surface area that there is, PER CAPITA, is always decreasing, because of the continual growth of the human population. In many ways it is miraculous that we have been able to feel that living standards are improving.
William F. Sharpe: Financing health care; financing retirement income.
Vernon L. Smith: To reduce all subsidies and barriers to free trade and migration, and thus maximize wealth creation and the reduction of poverty in the only way that is sustainable.
Robert M. Solow: Achieving cumulative development among poor countries of the world.
Joseph E. Stiglitz: It's not possible to single out any one thing. Obviously, maintaining global economic stability is a big challenge -- not just maintaining full employment. There's also exchange rate and capital flow instability.
As economies have become more interdependent, the necessity of maintaining an effective global system increases.
The second problem is with development and the disparity between rich and poor countries. We've not made a lot of progress on that issue in the last quarter of a century. If we don't make more progress, it will have profound implications on society.
Do you think the fruits of the global economy will be distributed more evenly 50 years from now, or less evenly, and why?
George A. Akerlof: More evenly, because, hopefully China and India will have caught up to the West.
Kenneth J. Arrow: I think incomes will be more equally distributed in the future, if only because some large countries, China, India, and Indonesia, are growing more rapidly (per capita) than the advanced countries.
Milton Friedman: More evenly. Why? The major sources of income difference today are between the developed and the undeveloped countries. This intercountry difference will decline as globalization spreads and more and more countries find a way to achieve economic growth and prosperity.
Clive W.J. Granger: About the same. If population growth is not controlled, there will always be many poor people in the world.
Lawrence R. Klein: New major players on the global economic scene are already contributing to poverty reduction. India and China are so large and so promising in growth that there has already been a large reduction in poverty. Russia is gaining economic strength and contributing to this development.
John F. Nash Jr.: Here I must admit that I don't know. Of course the issue is not simply an issue of economic efficiencies. A form of communism COULD equalize the distribution of the fruits of human labor, BUT a side effect could be a great decrease in the quantity of produced utility as a result of a disturbance of the motivation for productive labor.
William F. Sharpe: 60% chance: more evenly. 30% chance: similar to today.
Vernon L. Smith: We will always be poorer in proportion to programs attempting to implement redistribution of the fruits of the global economy so that income is more even. Taking from those who have produced the fruits to give to others can only be sustained by force and disserves and demeans both the producer and the recipient.
Robert M. Solow: Toss-up. The relative lot of the unskilled and uneducated will probably worsen, but there is the possibility of improved nutrition, population control and education as democracy spreads.
Joseph E. Stiglitz: In 50 years, some countries in the developing world will have caught up, but there's a very high risk of a wider gap for others unless we do something markedly different about the disparity between Africa and the industrial countries. What we will see is a world in which the differences between the top and the bottom are larger. In China, a majority of people will see income increases and will see the gap reduced.
诺贝尔奖得主畅言全球经济
从现在算起，75年后世界上最大的经济体可能是美国、欧盟，还是中国呢？
美国加州大学伯克利分校(University of California, Berkeley)经济学Koshland荣誉教授乔治?亚克洛夫(George A. Akerlof)：欧盟。欧盟比美国人口多，但人均收入的差距却不像人口差距那么大。我认为目前中国和美国、中国和欧盟之间的差距75年内可能是赶不上来的。
斯坦福大学(Stanford University)经济学荣誉退休教授肯尼斯?约瑟夫?阿罗(Kenneth J.Arrow)：除非经济增长状况发生根本改变，中国将在75年后成为世界上最大的经济体。但中国的人均收入可能还不及欧盟的一半。
芝加哥大学(University of Chicago)经济学Clinton R. Musser荣誉退休教授罗纳德?科斯(Ronald H. Coase)：中国将在75年后超越美国和欧盟，我对此深信不疑。
斯坦福大学胡佛战争、革命与和平研究所(Hoover Institution on War Revolution and Peace)高级研究员密尔顿?弗里德曼(Milton Friedman)：中国。
加州大学圣地牙哥分校(University of California, San Diego)经济学荣誉退休教授格兰杰(Clive WJ Granger)：这三者在75年后的经济实力排序应当是：美国、中国和欧
盟。
宾夕法尼亚大学(University of Pennsylvania)经济学本杰明?富兰克林(Benjamin Franklin)荣誉退休教授劳伦斯?R?克莱恩(Lawrence R. Klein)：75年后世界最大的经济体很可能是中国。这个回答不是基于人均收入。中国正在迅速增长，但人口数量庞大。而且，为了避免出现像日本那样的高赡养比率，中国有可能会放宽对家庭人口数量的限制。从人均的角度看，我觉得美国是75年后最强的经济体。
加州大学圣地牙哥分校科研教授哈里?马科维茨(Harry M. Markowitz)：中国。
普林斯顿大学(Princeton University)高级科研数学家约翰?纳什(John F. Nash Jr.)：欧元区所包括的范围还在不断的变化，如果到2079年俄罗斯也加入了欧盟，那它
肯定是当时世界最大的经济体。否则，尽管中国和美国的领土面积相当，美国仍将是最大经济体。
斯坦福大学金融学Stanco 25荣誉退休教授威廉?夏普(William F. Sharpe)：中国75年后成为头号经济强国的概率是50%、欧盟是30%、美国是20%。
乔治梅森大学(George Mason University)经济学及法学教授弗农?史密斯(Vernon L.Smith)：美国
麻省理工学院(Massachusetts Institute of Technology)学院荣誉退休教授和经济学荣誉退休教授罗伯特?索洛(Robert M. Solow)：按经济总值算，可能是中国。按人均值算，应当是美国。
哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)教授约瑟夫?E?斯蒂格利茨(Joseph E.Stiglitz)：现在很难对75年之后的事情作出判断。首先，我们不知道还有什么国家会加入欧元区，欧元区会以怎样的速度扩张。其次，我们必须承认也许中国到时候不是人口第一大国，但该国的人口只会有增无减。不过，即使中国的经济增长率无法再保持像过去25年那样的势头，中国与欧盟和美国之间的差距也会大幅缩小。其结果是，很有可能出现另一种经济力量的均衡。
哪个国家或地区目前所采用的经济政策最合理？为什么？
乔治?亚克洛夫：瑞典。瑞典政府积极扶持那些真正需要帮助的人，这个国家基本处于充分就业状态。
肯尼斯?约瑟夫?阿罗：好的政策是一回事，效果怎样是另一回事。我们不得不说，从经验看来，尽管中国、台湾和韩国所实行的经济政策有些违反经济学准则，但它们的政策的确是很合理的。
密尔顿?弗里德曼：香港，主要得以于英国遗留下来的管理体系。
格兰杰：挪威。尽管挪威有石油，但这个国家却能够很理智地管理石油收入。
劳伦斯?R?克莱恩：我选择挪威。这个国家所采取的社会-政治-经济政策让不同层次的人得到公正待遇。挪威有优良的天然条件和重要的经济资源。挪威政府从整体经济福利的角度考虑，很合理地利用著这些资源。
哈里?马科维茨：美国的“自由市场”是最好的政策，紧随其后的是中国。
约翰?纳什：当然是瑞士了。至少瑞士没有走错路，这个国家没有实施意在刺激经济增长但在长期却事与愿违的政策。
威廉?夏普：可能是英国，肯定不是美国。
弗农?史密斯：美国...拥有一定的自由度。欧盟越来越像是搞社会经济学了。中国迈向正确方向迈进的步伐非常缓慢。
罗伯特?索洛：我无法回答这个问题，不同的国家有不同的问题。美国在很多方面要比其他发达国家强，但并不是在所有方面都这样。很难说像丹麦或荷兰 -- 两国整体上都非常不错 -- 是否具有可比性。
约瑟夫?E?斯蒂格利茨：每个国家的问题各异。这个问题很难回答，就好像它们都在考试，但考题却不一样，在这种情况下是很难打分的。最近三四年，美国所采取的政策显然很差劲。欧洲的宏观经济政策不太合理。稳定及增长协定(Growth and Stability)并没有发挥作用，欧洲央行(European Central Bank)也没有做好自己的工作。欧洲的经济发展一直不大稳定。
如果从经济的整体表现上看，显然中国的表现是最好的，而且在东亚经济危机(East Asian crisis)中也表现出了高超的经济管理能力。事物总是不断发展变化。总会有新的挑战出现 -- 你得不断去衡量各国驾驭新形势的能力。从经济增长的速度和灵活性方面，中国的确给人留下了深刻的印象。韩国从1997年的危机中复苏也令人刮目相看。所以，韩国和中国制定的政策应当说是很不错的。
包括您在内，谁是二十世纪最杰出的经济学家？
乔治?亚克洛夫：凯恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)。
肯尼斯?约瑟夫?阿罗：这个问题不好回答，因为二十世纪最重要的一些经济理论都是很多人的工作成果（比如：国民收入核算、信息不对称理论和博弈理论等）。如果非要点出一个人，我会选择拉格纳?弗里希(Ragnar Frisch)。和其他经济学家不同的是，他开始将理论模型和实证研究结合起来，后者现在已经是经济学领域的主要研究方法。如果再点到一个人，那就是西门?库兹列茨(Simon Kuznets)，他将国民收入核算理论发展到实际运用当中，使一个国家的经济增长成为经济学领域的最受关注的问题。
密尔顿?弗里德曼：凯恩斯。
格兰杰：密尔顿?弗里德曼--他让所有的人清醒。
劳伦斯?R?克莱恩：我选保罗?萨缪尔森(Paul Samuelson)，然后是凯恩斯。
哈里?马科维茨：密尔顿?弗里德曼。
约翰?纳什：凯恩斯。
威廉?夏普：肯尼斯?约瑟夫?阿罗或保罗?萨缪尔森。
弗农?史密斯：哈耶克(Hayek)。
罗伯特?索洛：凯恩斯。
约瑟夫?E?斯蒂格利茨：你真想让人回答这个问题么？我觉得恐怕很难说出一个最杰出的经济学家。很多人作出了不同的卓越贡献。说到二十世纪，人们会想到凯恩斯、萨缪尔森和阿罗。他们具有非常巨大的影响力。我之所以在回答这个问题时有些犹豫，那是因为很多人在其各自的经济领域内都有重大影响力。
虽然谈不上是革命，但至少很多人都促进了经济学的发展。新的理论得以建立。凯恩斯说，在有失业的情况下也能实现经济均衡。而在那之前，很多人都说只有充分就业的经济均衡。他帮助经济学家认识到了失业问题的持续性。虽然不是所有的人都会用凯恩斯的模型，但对这个问题的研究是经济学上的重大突破。
凯恩斯的理论是在大约70年前确立的，从他的理论中发展而来的宏观经济管理，使经济危机持续的时间缩短，危害性降低。这一点对经济的影响最为深远。
哪位经济学家也应当获得诺贝尔经济学家但却没有获得？
乔治?亚克洛夫：琼?罗宾逊(Joan Robinson)、阿莫司?特沃斯基(Amos Tversky)、兹维?格里利克斯(Zvi Griliches)。
肯尼斯?约瑟夫?阿罗：线性规划的创造者乔治?旦兹格(George B. Dantzig)，还有博弈论者罗伊?哈洛德(Roy Harrod)和(Robert J. Aumann).
密尔顿?弗里德曼：琼?罗宾逊和彼得?鲍尔(Peter Bauer)。
格兰杰：奥斯卡?摩根斯特恩(Oskar Morgenstern)。
劳伦斯?R?克莱恩：法兰西学院(College de France)和法国国家统计局(INSEE)的经济学家埃蒙德?马兰沃(Edmond Malinvaud)。他多次获得诺贝尔奖提名，可惜一直没能获奖。还有已故的罗伊?哈洛德和琼?罗宾逊，他们在有生之年也未能获奖。
哈里?马科维茨：乔治?旦兹格。
约翰?纳什：因为英年早世而未能获得诺贝尔奖的人可不少。在经济领域，布莱克-舒尔斯(Black-Scholes)模型的创造者之一的弗希尔?布莱克(Fisher Black)就由于提早离开人世而与诺贝尔奖擦肩而过。
威廉?夏普：我还是不回答这个问题吧。
弗农?史密斯：西墨?班赛(Seymore Benzer)，他现在正角逐诺贝尔生理医学奖(Physiology and Medicine)。
罗伯特?索洛：埃蒙德?马兰沃
在过去50年中，您认为经济理论界的哪一项突破对人们的日常生活产生著最深刻的影响？为什么？
乔治?亚克洛夫：博弈论的应用。它使经济学家能够更细致的研究问题，使理论研究更好的符合实际情况。
肯尼斯?约瑟夫?阿罗：我真不知道什么是“一项突破”。我认为，运用模型分析对不同政策的影响加以分析这对于制定政策最为有益，理论的发展、计算的革命以及数据量的增大已经使之成为可能。模型分析不一定可以制定出正确的政策，但至少可以避免做出错误决策的可能性。
密尔顿?弗里德曼：人们接受通货膨胀是一种货币现象的观点。为什么是这个呢？因为以这种思想为基础的经济政策已经使一些发达国家将低通货膨胀保持了20多年，同时有相对稳定的经济产出、高水平的就业和生活条件。
格兰杰：控制通货膨胀的能力。
劳伦斯?R?克莱恩：简?丁伯根(Jan Tinbergen)成为首届诺贝尔经济学奖得主之一并不奇怪。他在建造计量经济学模型领域的研究已经远远超出当时的时代，而那时几乎没有今天所使用的这些资源。他用公式来表达制定经济政策所依据的主要理论，并且通过计量经济学的推论为它们在实际中的运用奠定基础。此外，他早期为国际联盟(League of Nations)建造的模型中包涵很多有关收入分配、财富效应和工资决定论的精辟见解。他的研究在二十世纪三十年代取得突破性进展，此后，在他的研究基础上建造的模式在世界上得到广泛运用。
哈里?马科维茨：我认为是投资组合理论，当然我可能有些偏颇。
约翰?纳什：我不知道该如何做出选择；一项伟大的经济理论需要超长于50年的时间来证明它的意义。
威廉?夏普：弗里德曼的货币理论和凯恩斯的宏观经济理论。
弗农?史密斯：哈耶克的理论谈到，管理经济所需要的各种信息是分散存在的，一个主体不可能全面掌握所有的信息；靠命令统一指挥经济的体系最终肯定会失败；这使智利、苏联、东欧和中国等都放松了对其经济的集中控制。
罗伯特?索洛：这不好说。对国际贸易、外汇汇率和开放经济的进一步了解可能算得上吧。(从数字上考虑。)
乔治?亚克洛夫：刑事和司法体系（还有军队）。这其中也包括私人运营监狱。
肯尼斯?约瑟夫?阿罗：有很多，但从影响的规模和深度看，医疗政策领域受到市场力量的制约最大。
你觉得什么最能够限制市场的力量？
密尔顿?弗里德曼：人类的自主。
格兰杰：数学和科学的原研工作。
劳伦斯?R?克莱恩：如果没有强有力的政治监管和领导，市场体系下会有很多市场失灵和腐败行为发生，这反映在很多方面，而表现最明显的就是国家内部以及国家之间收入和财富分配的不平等。
哈里?马科维茨：污染。
约翰?纳什：“限制市场的力量”的说法意思是要人为的安排而不是让市场平衡来决定事态的发展。简单来说就是一个国家捍卫它自身的存在。这可能引出关于国家自给自足的众多概念，比如说，日本可能会选择不要让所有的大米都靠进口取得！
威廉?夏普：经济和政治力量的过度集中。
弗农?史密斯：没有，因为“市场”本身就承认信息分散于社会体系的各处，社会所面临的问题就是找到、设计并发现下面这种制度：该制度激励并使人们能够在无需他人引导的情况下作出正确的决定。要控制市场力量的想法是源于一种对市场观念根本性的错误理解。这个提问本身就不对。
罗伯特?索洛：发达国家应当主要避免大范围失业、贫穷及不平等差别的扩大。
约瑟夫?E?斯蒂格利茨：经济学家通常会把收入的分配列在前面。我们完全没有理由认为在市场力量驱使下形成的收入分配就是最合理或最能接受的。如果没有政府干预，任由市场机制发挥作用，那会造成大量人口难以生存。这就是需要政府有所作为的地方。我们知道，单单靠市场机制发挥作用会导致经济的大起大落。我们需要采取一些措施来改善这种状况。我们还知道，市场效应会造成环境污染--所以就要政府制定政策措施来加以规范。还有，公共设施通常都面临投资不足的困境。当想到创新经济的时候，我们不应忘记大多数私营领域的创新都是基于政府资助的研究工作成果，比如互联网就是个很好的例子。
你认为当今世界面临的最大经济挑战是什么？
乔治?亚克洛夫：如何应对全球变暖。
肯尼斯?约瑟夫?阿罗：附属于撒哈拉沙漠的非洲地区以及南亚一些地区的极度贫穷。
密尔顿?弗里德曼：缩减政府机构的规模和权力范围。
格兰杰：以适当的速度用创新技术替代不断耗减的资源。
劳伦斯?R?克莱恩：在一个和平的政治环境中共同努力减少贫穷和疾病，将是我们所在年代的主要挑战。
哈里?马科维茨：降低针对发展中国家的关税。
约翰?纳什：人们无法回避的一个挑战是在地球人均面积随著人口不断增长而下降的情况下，如何提高或至少是在感觉上提高人类的生活水平。在很多方面，人们都感到生活水平正在提高，令人不可思议。
威廉?夏普：为医疗和养老支出融资。
弗农?史密斯：去除补贴和壁垒等所有阻碍自由贸易和资源流动的措施，以唯一可持续的方式最大化地创造财富和消灭贫穷。
罗伯特?索洛：世界上贫穷的国家实现共同发展。
约瑟夫?E?斯蒂格利茨：很难说哪一项挑战是最严峻的。保持全球经济的稳定发展 --不仅仅是保证充分就业，显示是一项巨大挑战。除此之外，汇率和资本流动的不稳定性也是棘手问题。
世界各个经济体之间已经更加相互依赖，因此更有必要建立一个有效的全球合作体系。
第二个问题是贫富国家的发展和差距。在过去25年中，这个问题已经有所好转。但如果不能继续改善，它将对社会造成巨大影响。
您认为经济全球化的成果50年后会更加平均地分配，还是分配更加不均呢？为什么?
乔治?亚克洛夫：更加均匀，因为中国和印度可能将赶上西方发达国家。
肯尼斯?约瑟夫?阿罗：如果中国、印度和印尼等国家人均收入的增长速度超过发达国家，我觉得收入的分配未来会更加平均。
密尔顿?弗里德曼：更平均。造成收入差距的主要原因是发达国家和发展中国家的收入差距较大。随著经济全球化的深入，越来越多的国家会找到促进经济增长和繁荣的道路，这样国家之间的差距就会逐渐缩小。
格兰杰：不会有太大变化。如果不控制人口的增长，世界上的穷人总是很多。
劳伦斯?R?克莱恩：在全球经济中新出现的一些强国已经在为消灭贫穷而付出努力。印度和中国人口众多，经济增长迅速，已经大大减少了一部分贫穷人口。俄罗斯的经济实力正在增强，也在为解决这一问题作出贡献。
约翰?纳什：我必须承认我不知道。这个问题并不是一个简单的经济效率的问题。某种形式的共产主义可能会使人类劳动成果平等分配，但是，其负面影响是产出数量可能会大幅减少，因为人们到时会缺乏劳动的动机。
威廉?夏普：60%的概率是更平均，30%的概率是和目前差不多。
弗农?史密斯：相对于人们为重新配置经济全球化的成果以使收入分配更平均所付出的努力而言，收获总是不成比例地减少。要让创造成果的一方将成果分享给别人，这可能只有靠武力才能实现，而且这不管对创造者还是接受者都是一种危害和贬低。
罗伯特?索洛：这很难说。相对缺乏专业技能和教育的人的境遇可能会更差，但随著民主的发展，营养、人口控制和以及教育状况可能会有进步。
约瑟夫?E?斯蒂格利茨：50年后，一些发展中国家将会追赶上来，但很有可能其它国家之间的差距会越来越大，除非我们为缩小非洲与工业国家之间的差距作出一些特别的努力，否则我们将看到一个贫富差距更大的世界。在中国，大部分人的收入会增长，贫富差距可能有所缩小。
