Subscribe to Dollars & Sense magazine. Recent articles related to the financial crisis. The Future of Economics (BBC Business Daily)The BBC radio program Business Daily had a good segment on the future of economics, with good discussions of Keynesianism and behavioral economics (though not quite enough on heterodox approaches). The main off note (to my mind) was the bit with Michael Sandel, with his emphasis on the "normative" foundations of economics. I don't think economics needs to rediscover its ethical foundations (in Adam Smith) as much as it's political foundations (in Marx). But otherwise I thought this was worth a listen.Listen to it here. Labels: economics, economics profession, heterodox economics Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?From tomorrow's NYT magazine, apparently (though the dateline on the web version says Sept. 2nd); hat-tip to Arpita B.How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? By Paul Krugman I. MISTAKING BEAUTY FOR TRUTH It's hard to believe now, but not long ago economists were congratulating themselves over the success of their field. Those successes—or so they believed—were both theoretical and practical, leading to a golden era for the profession. On the theoretical side, they thought that they had resolved their internal disputes. Thus, in a 2008 paper titled "The State of Macro" (that is, macroeconomics, the study of big-picture issues like recessions), Olivier Blanchard of M.I.T., now the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, declared that "the state of macro is good." The battles of yesteryear, he said, were over, and there had been a "broad convergence of vision." And in the real world, economists believed they had things under control: the "central problem of depression-prevention has been solved," declared Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago in his 2003 presidential address to the American Economic Association. In 2004, Ben Bernanke, a former Princeton professor who is now the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, celebrated the Great Moderation in economic performance over the previous two decades, which he attributed in part to improved economic policy making. Last year, everything came apart. Few economists saw our current crisis coming, but this predictive failure was the least of the field's problems. More important was the profession's blindness to the very possibility of catastrophic failures in a market economy. During the golden years, financial economists came to believe that markets were inherently stable—indeed, that stocks and other assets were always priced just right. There was nothing in the prevailing models suggesting the possibility of the kind of collapse that happened last year. Meanwhile, macroeconomists were divided in their views. But the main division was between those who insisted that free-market economies never go astray and those who believed that economies may stray now and then but that any major deviations from the path of prosperity could and would be corrected by the all-powerful Fed. Neither side was prepared to cope with an economy that went off the rails despite the Fed's best efforts. And in the wake of the crisis, the fault lines in the economics profession have yawned wider than ever. Lucas says the Obama administration's stimulus plans are "schlock economics," and his Chicago colleague John Cochrane says they're based on discredited "fairy tales." In response, Brad DeLong of the University of California, Berkeley, writes of the "intellectual collapse" of the Chicago School, and I myself have written that comments from Chicago economists are the product of a Dark Age of macroeconomics in which hard-won knowledge has been forgotten. What happened to the economics profession? And where does it go from here? As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth. Until the Great Depression, most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn't sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets, this time gussied up with fancy equations. The renewed romance with the idealized market was, to be sure, partly a response to shifting political winds, partly a response to financial incentives. But while sabbaticals at the Hoover Institution and job opportunities on Wall Street are nothing to sneeze at, the central cause of the profession's failure was the desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that also gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess. Unfortunately, this romanticized and sanitized vision of the economy led most economists to ignore all the things that can go wrong. They turned a blind eye to the limitations of human rationality that often lead to bubbles and busts; to the problems of institutions that run amok; to the imperfections of markets—especially financial markets—that can cause the economy's operating system to undergo sudden, unpredictable crashes; and to the dangers created when regulators don't believe in regulation. It's much harder to say where the economics profession goes from here. But what's almost certain is that economists will have to learn to live with messiness. That is, they will have to acknowledge the importance of irrational and often unpredictable behavior, face up to the often idiosyncratic imperfections of markets and accept that an elegant economic "theory of everything" is a long way off. In practical terms, this will translate into more cautious policy advice—and a reduced willingness to dismantle economic safeguards in the faith that markets will solve all problems. II. FROM SMITH TO KEYNES AND BACK The birth of economics as a discipline is usually credited to Adam Smith, who published "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. Over the next 160 years an extensive body of economic theory was developed, whose central message was: Trust the market. Yes, economists admitted that there were cases in which markets might fail, of which the most important was the case of "externalities"—costs that people impose on others without paying the price, like traffic congestion or pollution. But the basic presumption of "neoclassical" economics (named after the late-19th-century theorists who elaborated on the concepts of their "classical" predecessors) was that we should have faith in the market system. This faith was, however, shattered by the Great Depression. Actually, even in the face of total collapse some economists insisted that whatever happens in a market economy must be right: "Depressions are not simply evils," declared Joseph Schumpeter in 1934—1934! They are, he added, "forms of something which has to be done." But many, and eventually most, economists turned to the insights of John Maynard Keynes for both an explanation of what had happened and a solution to future depressions. Keynes did not, despite what you may have heard, want the government to run the economy. He described his analysis in his 1936 masterwork, "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money," as "moderately conservative in its implications." He wanted to fix capitalism, not replace it. But he did challenge the notion that free-market economies can function without a minder, expressing particular contempt for financial markets, which he viewed as being dominated by short-term speculation with little regard for fundamentals. And he called for active government intervention—printing more money and, if necessary, spending heavily on public works—to fight unemployment during slumps. Read the rest of the article. Labels: Adam Smith, depression, economics profession, Keynes, Paul Krugman, recession Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). Re-Examining Capitalism (Jamie Galbraith)National Journal Online had an interesting forum under the title Re-Examining Capitalism. Here is the introduction to the forum, from John Maggs:Do recent events suggest that the tenets of capitalism and free market theory need to be re-examined? The New York Times has suggested that not much soul-searching is happening yet at economics departments. Does the financial meltdown, the housing bubble, or the over-leveraging of businesses and consumers, point to fundamental flaws in market-based capitalism? Does it point to particular alterations? Here's Jamie Galbraith's response (it's from a few weeks ago--h-t to LF for letting me know about it): Responded on March 19, 2009 9:32 PM James K. Galbraith, Professor of Economics, University of Texas (This is all of his comment, but you can find the full forum here.} Labels: economics profession, financial crisis, heterodox economics, James K. Galbraith Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). |
