Posts Tagged ‘economists’


Mainstream economics has been a disaster, especially since the crash of 2007-08. It wasn’t able to predict the onset of the crisis. It didn’t even include the possibility of such a crisis. And it certainly hasn’t been a reliable guide to getting out of the crisis.

And yet economist after economist has been stepping forward—even on the liberal side of things—to try to convince us that things are pretty much OK in the land of mainstream economics.

Just the other day, Paul Krugman tried to convince us that, leaving aside the failure to predict the crisis or even envisioning the possibility of a crisis occurring, mainstream models “did a pretty good job of predicting how things would play out in the aftermath.” The problem, for Krugman, all comes down to the “bad behavior” of some economists who have been more interested in defending partisan turf than in getting things right.

Now, Mark Thoma wants to argue that the macroeconomic models—including the “dynamic stochastic general equilibrium” models that have become the stock-in-trade of mainstream macroeconomics for the past couple of decades—are just fine. The problem, as Thoma sees it, is not with the theory or the models but with the questions economists have been asking.

What neither Krugman nor Thoma wants to admit is those very same models—hydraulic IS-LM in the case of Krugman, the rational expectations, dynamic optimizing, and representative agents of DSGE—actually direct the behavior of economists and delimit the questions they can ask. Those models are so many theoretical lenses on the world, which determine how the economists who use them interpret the world.

I understand: Krugman and Thoma desperately want to keep the precious baby. But that also means we’re stuck with the increasingly dirty bathwater.



You know the story: Xi and his San tribe are “living well off the land.” They are happy because of their belief that the gods have provided plenty of everything, and no one among them has any wants. One day, a Coca-Cola bottle is thrown out of an airplane and falls to Earth unbroken. But the bottle eventually causes unhappiness within the tribe, leading the elders to believe it’s an “evil thing” which the gods were “absent-minded” to send them. Xi then travels to  the edge of the world and throws the bottle off the cliff. He then returns to his tribe and receives a warm welcome from his family.

I wonder if Paul Krugman expects to receive a warm welcome from the economics family after throwing the prediction bottle over the cliff.

Hardly anyone predicted the 2008 crisis, but that in itself is arguably excusable in a complicated world. More damning was the widespread conviction among economists that such a crisis couldn’t happen. Underlying this complacency was the dominance of an idealized vision of capitalism, in which individuals are always rational and markets always function perfectly.

I actually agree with Krugman on this point. Economic prediction is, in fact, impossible and the really crazy feature of mainstream economic models is the fact that endogenous crises simply can’t occur. Exogenous factors, sure, but nothing internal to the models can lead to a crash. Their idealized vision of capitalism, absent an external event (such as a credit crunch or an increase in the price of oil), simply leads to a full-employment, price-stable equilibrium.

But, wait, doesn’t the entire edifice fall when—on its own terms—the ability to correct predict is dispensed with? The whole rationale of giving up realistic assumptions about the economic system has been the ability to accurately and correctly predict the movements of the economy. That’s the mantle of predictive science that has been used, since at least the mid-1950s, to expunge all other economic theories and approaches from the discipline.

Mainstream economists can’t have it both ways: to celebrate their models for their predictive ability and then to dispense with prediction when, as in 2007-08 (just as in 1929), their models clearly failed. We need something better.

As for their track record since the crisis broke out, well, they haven’t fared much better—at least to judge by where we stand right now. Krugman, for his part, wants to stick with the hydraulic mechanisms of the textbook economic models, which “did a pretty good job of predicting how things would play out in the aftermath,” and declare that “too many influential” economists must be crazy.


The Rethinking Economics conference starts this morning in New York City.

Here’s a link [pdf] to the schedule. The live-stream can be found here.


Fringeli has a suggestion in the comments section on Phillip Inman’s article:

“In the Bavarian town of Lindau, where 18 Nobel-winning economists gathered last week along with 450 graduate economics students from around the world..”

close the building, set it on fire and the world would be all better off…

Heinrich Kley, "Sabotage" (Betriebsstorung)

Heinrich Kley, “Sabotage” (Betriebsstorung)

I have long argued (e.g., here and here) that capitalism involves a kind of pact with the devil: control over the surplus is reluctantly given over to the top 1 percent in return for certain promises, such as just deserts, economic stability, and full employment.

In recent years, as so often in the past, we’ve witnessed those at the top sabotaging the pact (simply because they have the means and interest to do so) and now, once again, they’ve undermined their legitimacy to run things.

First, they broke their promise of just deserts, as the distribution of income has become increasingly (and, to describe it accurately, grotesquely) unequal and the tendency toward high concentrations of wealth has returned, threatening to create a new class of coupon-clippers. Then, they ended the Great Moderation with speculative decisions that ushered in the worst economic crisis since the First Great Depression. And, now, the promise of full employment appears to be falling prey to the prospect of secular stagnation.

That’s the worry expressed in a new ebook edited by Richard Baldwin and Coen Teulings published by Vox. While secular stagnation can be defined in different ways, the basic idea is that, for the foreseeable future, economic growth—and therefore the prospect of full employment—is probably going to be much lower than it was in the decades leading up to the global crises of 2007-08. Moreover, what little growth is expected will most likely be accompanied by great inequality and financial stability.

If it becomes a reality, secular stagnation represents the end of the pact with the devil. It’s going to be impossible to keep any of the promises—just deserts, economic stability, and full employment—that have maintained capitalism’s legitimacy.

I don’t know if the members of the 1 percent are aware of or concerned about the extent to which secular stagnation may be their undoing (because, in fact, they may hold out the hope that more austerity can successfully be imposed to keep pumping out the surplus). But, to judge from many of the contributions to the Vox volume, the prospect of secular stagnation certainly appears to be worrying mainstream macroeconomists.

Why? Because their own promise was to analyze the uneven and shifting patterns of the macroeconomy and to devise the appropriate set of monetary and fiscal policies to ensure the continuation of the pact with the devil. However, secular stagnation—including the idea that the real rate of interest would have to be negative to maintain an equilibrium of savings and investment—calls into question the efficacy of the kinds of macroeconomic policies that have long held sway among mainstream macroeconomists. Now, they’re not sure they’ll be able to maintain the promise of creating a just distribution of income, avoiding financial instability, and creating enough jobs to ensure every able-bodied person who wants a decent, well-paying job can have one.

Actually, as we’ve seen, they haven’t been able to fulfill that promise for the past 7 years. And now, the threat of secular stagnation means they won’t able to do it anytime in the near future.

There just may not be a happy Disney ending to this one. . .


Right now, mainstream economists are both congratulating themselves and bemoaning their fate.

Mainstream economists (such as Justin Wolfers and Paul Krugman) are congratulating themselves for having achieved a virtual consensus on the positive effects of fiscal stimulus. But they’re also complaining about the fact that the rest of the world (such as politicians, central bankers, and others) doesn’t seem to be listening to their expert advice.

Just two quick comments on this approach to consensual economics:

First, of course there’s a consensus among mainstream economics! That’s what their theories and models are supposed to do: produce and reproduce a consensus in terms of the basic analysis of macroeconomic events (although, of course, there can still be disagreements about particular aspects, such as the exact size of the fiscal multiplier and so on). And anyone who doesn’t use those models, and therefore reaches a different set of conclusions, is declared to be outside the mainstream, and therefore not worth reading or being listened to.

Second, how is it possible to declare—in the midst of the Second Great Depression—that mainstream economics has been an unqualified success? To arrive at such a conclusion would mean to overlook, at a minimum, the role that mainstream economics played in creating the conditions for the crash of 2007-08, in failing to include even the possibility of such a crash in their models, and in confining themselves to a package of monetary and fiscal policy measures—and not to even consider the possibility of larger, structural changes—as tens of millions of people lost their jobs, were stripped of their wealth, and were pushed further and further down the economic ladder.

Those engaged in consensual economics are, it seems, too busy congratulating themselves and bemoaning their fate to want to recognize the gorilla in the room.



This, according to the Obama administration, is what “a broad array of ideological views” [ht: br] looks like:

  • Paul Krugman (Princeton University), Alan Blinder (Princeton University), Claudia Goldin (Harvard University), Anat Admati (Stanford University), Erik Brynjolfsson (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and Roland Fryer (Harvard University), who were among the economists invited to have lunch with President Obama on 18 June; and
  • Martin Feldstein (Harvard University), Robert Hall (Stanford University), Ben Bernanke (former Federal Reserve Chairman), Edward Glaesar (Harvard University), Luigi Zingales (University of Chicago), Kevin Hassett (American Enterprise Institute), and Melissa Kearney (the Hamilton Project), who were invited for lunch yesterday.

Apparently, that’s what we’ve come to in this country, when “consulting a wide variety of perspectives” is in fact limited to a discussion within a narrow range, from the extreme right to mainstream liberalism. No one who actually offered a real sense of the impending crisis before 2007-08. Nor anyone who is critical of capitalism and is seriously thinking about alternative economic institutions.

The problem is not just that Obama is only listening to a narrow set of views. The list of invitees to the two gatherings also serves as an official stamp of approval—that these economists’ views are worth listening to, and all other approaches to economic analysis can be safely marginalized.