News media stimulate bubbles, since stories about them boost their audience.

Can a controlled experiment explain why people like Kewpie dolls in one year, Beanie Babies in another, and American Girl dolls this year? Yet social scientists are asked to answer analogous questions. We economists and perhaps psychologists shouldn't overreact to the derision. That is, we shouldn't try to overlay a false sense of precision on our admittedly squooshy work.

News media stimulate bubbles, since stories about them boost their audience.

Consider our difficulties avoiding junk food and overspending. Such addictions were carefully planned-for by professional marketing teams.

Some of the best theorizing comes after collecting data because then you become aware of another reality.

The good news is that, at least in economics, I've seen movement away from its overemphasis on mathematical models of purely rational behavior to a more eclectic and commonsense approach: research that is, among other things, more respectful of insights from psychology.

There is more uncertainty than usual about job futures because computers are replacing more and more human intelligence, and globalization is proceeding at an accelerating pace.