新一届美联储主席无奖大猜想

    经济学家们绝大多数都站在耶伦一边，特别是女性经济学家。但是我们从经济危机中已经认识到的，也是华盛顿共识的是，经济学家们往往并不清楚他们自己在说什么，特别是涉及到经济的时候。

    真正、真正重要的是谁声明支持萨默斯或耶伦，不是有多少人。下面是我的科学量化回归分析：我搜集了萨默斯和耶伦的所有支持者，给予他们影响力评分。分值范围为0-1。

    比如，我给予奥巴马总统最高的影响力分值1——毕竟最终的选择他说了算——至少目前，他似乎站在萨默斯这边。前奥巴马官员们的评分也相对较高。经济学家们的常驻地距离华盛顿越远，影响力得分就越低，事实就是如此。

    记者们与通常一样，得分接近垫底。罗恩•保罗即使给我回电的话，他的影响力得分也只有0，我估计他对伯南克接班人的回答可能是没人。

    然后，我将所有这些数值输入了Excel，我们知道这不会有错，下面就是我得到的结论：下届美联储主席将是拉里•萨默斯先生，他的得分是4.9。以微弱优势获胜：耶伦的最终得分是4.7。祝贺你，拉里！给我打电话。（财富中文网）  

    Economists are overwhelmingly in Yellen's camp, especially female ones. But what we learned from the financial crisis, and what is dogma in Washington, is that economists often don't know what they are talking about, especially when it comes to economics.

    What really, really matters is who has come out for Summers vs. Yellen, not how many. Here's where my scientific, quantitative, regression analysis comes into play: I took all the supporters of Summers and Yellen, and gave them an influence score. The scores range from 1 to 0.

    I gave President Obama, for instance, the top influence score of 1 -- he makes the choice after all -- and at least for now he seems in Summers' corner. Former Obama officials got relatively high scores. Economists got lower and lower influence scores the further they are geographically from Washington, because that makes sense.

    Journalists, as always, were near the bottom. Ron Paul, if he had called me back, would have got an influence score of 0, because I assume his answer for whom Bernanke's successor would be no one.

    I then plugged all those numbers into Excel, which we know is infallible, and here's what I got: The next head of the Fed will be Mr. Larry Summers, who got a score of 4.9. But it was a squeaker. Yellen's final tally was 4.7. Congrats, Larry. Call me.