1) Historically Keynes is certainly known for profiting on foreign exchange bets, Irving Fisher on the other hand is notorious for predicting multiple times that the recovery of the 1929 crash was about to begin - and his funds followed his predictions into oblivion.
2) It was Fredrik Mishkin - and he was paid well over $100,000 for it.
This is the report, and it's worth reading because it encapsulates just about everything that is wrong with macro-economics, from theory to corruption. Understand that all anybody had to do at the time to understand how badly off the rails the Icelandic Banks were was to look at their balance sheets in their annual reports.
So in most science, if someone comes out with a study saying that (say, for example) climate change isn't real, they'll be buried under the remaining 99% that came to consensus in the other direction.
Sure, Industry will bankroll lobbyists to fight any potential change in government, and fund crackpot theories, but ultimately, the evidence that will accrue will be damning.
Why wasn't that the case for Iceland? Why doesn't that happen more for economics as a whole?
Is it a function of time? In economics, people are more focused on sub 10 year plot lines? Perhaps our understanding of macroeconomics is so poor that we're surprised by "big changes" every few years, and evidence doesn't get a chance to accrue? Whereas evidence for climate change can accrue year after year?
2) It was Fredrik Mishkin - and he was paid well over $100,000 for it.
https://www.utanrikisraduneyti.is/media/Raedurogerindi/Finan...
This is the report, and it's worth reading because it encapsulates just about everything that is wrong with macro-economics, from theory to corruption. Understand that all anybody had to do at the time to understand how badly off the rails the Icelandic Banks were was to look at their balance sheets in their annual reports.