Don Boudreaux has done a reasonable job of highlighting Akerlof and Shiller's dishonesty in their latest book: http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/phoolishly-against-

Don Boudreaux has done a reasonable job of highlighting Akerlof and Shiller's dishonesty in their latest book: http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/phoolishly-against-phreedom-of-speech.html http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/phoolishly-against-phreedom-of-... http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/a-baseless-charge.html http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/a-baseless-charge.html http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/daffy-elitists.html http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/daffy-elitists.html http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/mostly-exaggerated.html http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/mostly-exaggerated.html http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/more-on-phishing-for-phools.html http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/more-on-phishing-for-phools.htm... http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/the-role-of-market-forces-in-protecting-against-phishing.html http://cafehayek.com/2015/12/the-role-of-market-forces-in-pr... I would also like to note that anyone criticizing neoclassical economics (and it's full of dubious assumptions, don't get me wrong) based on straw men about "rationality" is fighting windmills. But don't take it from me, take it from a heterodox post-Keynesian: https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/how-not-to-criticise-economics/ https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/how-not... And, unsurprisingly, Akerlof and Shiller stop at yelling "market failure" without proposing a theory of government and ignoring the very fruitful area of government failures. Anyone who argues for intervention on basis of asymmetrical information without having read up on public choice is in no position to speak of anything, since their model is stuck in assuming government is a mystical exogenous equilibrator and that all of its constituents have virtually no expectations whatsoever (which is an even worse assumption than full rationality). Akerlof and Shiller are obviously well aware, but their book is little more than a political polemic.