????經(jīng)濟學(xué)家們絕大多數(shù)都站在耶倫一邊，特別是女性經(jīng)濟學(xué)家。但是我們從經(jīng)濟危機中已經(jīng)認識到的，也是華盛頓共識的是，經(jīng)濟學(xué)家們往往并不清楚他們自己在說什么，特別是涉及到經(jīng)濟的時候。

????真正、真正重要的是誰聲明支持薩默斯或耶倫，不是有多少人。下面是我的科學(xué)量化回歸分析：我搜集了薩默斯和耶倫的所有支持者，給予他們影響力評分。分值范圍為0-1。

????比如，我給予奧巴馬總統(tǒng)最高的影響力分值1——畢竟最終的選擇他說了算——至少目前，他似乎站在薩默斯這邊。前奧巴馬官員們的評分也相對較高。經(jīng)濟學(xué)家們的常駐地距離華盛頓越遠，影響力得分就越低，事實就是如此。

????記者們與通常一樣，得分接近墊底。羅恩?保羅即使給我回電的話，他的影響力得分也只有0，我估計他對伯南克接班人的回答可能是沒人。

????然后，我將所有這些數(shù)值輸入了Excel，我們知道這不會有錯，下面就是我得到的結(jié)論：下屆美聯(lián)儲主席將是拉里?薩默斯先生，他的得分是4.9。以微弱優(yōu)勢獲勝：耶倫的最終得分是4.7。祝賀你，拉里！給我打電話。（財富中文網(wǎng)）??

????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.