2012-10-27 18:15:00
By Paul Krugman
Brad DeLong points us to Howard Davies, who accuses economists of being in denial, and of having had nothing useful to say in the crisis. The first part is definitely true for much of the profession; the second charge is just false. The truth is that basic macroeconomics, the stuff that is still taught in textbooks, has been very, very useful in this crisis. The problem is that half the profession and most policy makers turned their back on this kind of economics.
It’s especially ironic that Davies starts his piece by quoting Jean-Claude Trichet, of all people, complaining that the available tools were of no use. Trichet, some readers may recall, was one of the high priests of expansionary austerity, the assertion that slashing government spending in a depressed economy actually wouldn’t make the depression deeper:
As regards the economy, the idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect.”
Incorrect?
“Yes. In fact, in these circumstances, everything that helps to increase the confidence of households, firms and investors in the sustainability of public finances is good for the consolidation of growth and job creation.
So standard economics told him that austerity would depress economies; he chose not to believe that, and go with the confidence fairy; and he was wrong, wrong, wrong. How is that a problem with the inadequacy of economics?
Now, what is true is that efficient markets and equilibrium business cycle theory have suffered what should be fatal blows to their credibility — but essentially nobody in that camp is even willing to admit that there is a problem. What that says, however, is that while we obviously need new thinking — we always do! — the biggest problem these days has been the rejection of knowledge we used to have.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/denial-of-economics/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
Brad DeLong points us to Howard Davies, who accuses economists of being in denial, and of having had nothing useful to say in the crisis. The first part is definitely true for much of the profession; the second charge is just false. The truth is that basic macroeconomics, the stuff that is still taught in textbooks, has been very, very useful in this crisis. The problem is that half the profession and most policy makers turned their back on this kind of economics.
It’s especially ironic that Davies starts his piece by quoting Jean-Claude Trichet, of all people, complaining that the available tools were of no use. Trichet, some readers may recall, was one of the high priests of expansionary austerity, the assertion that slashing government spending in a depressed economy actually wouldn’t make the depression deeper:
As regards the economy, the idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect.”
Incorrect?
“Yes. In fact, in these circumstances, everything that helps to increase the confidence of households, firms and investors in the sustainability of public finances is good for the consolidation of growth and job creation.
So standard economics told him that austerity would depress economies; he chose not to believe that, and go with the confidence fairy; and he was wrong, wrong, wrong. How is that a problem with the inadequacy of economics?
Now, what is true is that efficient markets and equilibrium business cycle theory have suffered what should be fatal blows to their credibility — but essentially nobody in that camp is even willing to admit that there is a problem. What that says, however, is that while we obviously need new thinking — we always do! — the biggest problem these days has been the rejection of knowledge we used to have.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/denial-of-economics/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
ΜΟΙΡΑΣΤΕΙΤΕ
ΔΕΙΤΕ ΑΚΟΜΑ
ΠΡΟΗΓΟΥΜΕΝΟ ΑΡΘΡΟ
600.000 ευρώ η αμοιβή του “Φούχτελου”
ΕΠΟΜΕΝΟ ΑΡΘΡΟ
Της φυλακής τα σίδερα είναι για τον Μπερλουσκόνι
ΣΧΟΛΙΑΣΤΕ
