Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
To the contrary, conventional economic theory, for all its faults, has been pretty clear all along that the Euro would be problematic for some European countries, and it has pretty clear solutions now -- let some Eurozone countries free of the Euro, and let defaults occur so that bankers bear the costs, not workers in indebted countries.

I'll have to look at that review, but what I see occurring, as Krugman and many others have pointed out, is a stubborn refusal to accept basic, textbook economic theory in the present situation in Europe as well as the US. Force banks to accept the losses on their balance sheets thus and relieve everyone, countries and individuals alike, from a significant portion of their debts. It's not theory that's holding things up -- it's the power of banks to stop any progress regardless of the facts.  

The whole "blame the economists" narrative takes pressure off the people who are really problem -- bankers. They're completely replaceable but have somehow convinced policymakers and much of the public that they are critical to everyone's well being.

by santiago on Fri Oct 21st, 2011 at 08:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hi, Santiago! Long time no see. I see that we still have areas of agreement and disagreement:
It's not theory that's holding things up -- it's the power of banks to stop any progress regardless of the facts.

Well, there is that whole Efficient Market thing combined with Modern Portfolio Theory and the Gaussian Copula theory that was such a major part of economic practice from the '90s on. I will grant you that most of this might not have existed when you were in grad school, but it sure has been prominent over the last two decades. And it was these sorts of theories that were used to justify the dismantling of regulation that set the stage for the GFC of 2008 to whenever the final collapse of the current system is acknowledged.

But I certainly agree about the problem of governmental capture by bankers and the need to break that control and impose the costs of the collapse on those who caused it. Any suggestions on how that might be accomplished, other than something like a neutron bomb over Wall Street, if even that would break the grip, unlikely and unwanted as that seems?

The only positive I see is that the awareness of the extent of the problem is starting to spread out of the blogosphere and into the general public consciousness. But the problem of the 99% forcing their interests onto the agenda still seems daunting, even if a majority of that 99% can agree on some common desiderata.

To the contrary, conventional economic theory, for all its faults, has been pretty clear all along that the Euro would be problematic for some European countries, and it has pretty clear solutions now -- let some Eurozone countries free of the Euro, and let defaults occur so that bankers bear the costs, not workers in indebted countries.

Granted. I recall seeing some US grad school course work, (not mine), in 1999 that went into all of the problems with the Euro in apocalyptic detail, but then the Euro wasn't a US dream, so perhaps the weaknesses in that system were more apparent to us, especially as those flaws served to delegitimate a potential currency rival.

On the other hand, the rise of the neo-liberal/neo-classical project with its emphasis on privatization, globalization and "reform" and its infiltration into the EU administrative apparatus, culminating in a Brussels Consensus similar to the Washington Consensus has not helped the situation in the Euro-zone either. And much of that thrust was bound up with the same magic market mentality described above.

Then there is the problem that the role of debt in US mainstream economic analysis was denied, for instance, by Bernanke, and, even now, cannot be dealt with from the inside of the DSGE model and is not incorporated into "mainstream" theory except, perhaps, occasionally on an ad hoc basis. Nor does the mainstream theory include a mechanism for endogenous money creation or provide a means of dealing with stock and flow problems.

Finally, I would argue that the whole intellectual foundation of NCE, resting as it does on assertion of axioms and deduction of consequences, is adequate to support a science based analysis of the existing behavior of the economy. While I agree with you that we need a system capable of dealing with moral and political implications, to me it does not follow that such a system flows more reasonably from an axiomatic, deductive system than from an observational and inductive approach more typical of the evolutionary sciences.  


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Oct 21st, 2011 at 10:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Finally, I would argue that the whole intellectual foundation of NCE, resting as it does on assertion of axioms and deduction of consequences, is adequate to support a science based analysis of the existing behavior of the economy. While I agree with you that we need a system capable of dealing with moral and political implications, to me it does not follow that such a system flows more reasonably from an axiomatic, deductive system than from an observational and inductive approach more typical of the evolutionary sciences.

I think there's a lot of truth in this statement, and behavioral economics approaches like that of Robert Schiller of the Case-Schiller housing index offer a hopeful new way of thinking about these things for many new economists.

The axiomatic approaches are derived from the fact that economics is an evolved species of the field of moral philosophy, not of natural philsophy (i.e, natural science).  And abstract axiomatic arguments are the stock and trade of philosophy (not just theoretical physics), as anyone who has tried to read Wittgenstein can attest.

Policy implications taken from economic analysis therefore are, by definition, moral arguments, and, rightly or wrongly, an argument that can connect a moral argument to one observable in nature simply carries more weight in political discourse because it provides a clearer narrative regarding what people might collectively do about problems, thus encouraging better cooperation to do it. (Why? Because political discourse is an entirely moral discourse too.)  

Arguments that allow for more ambiguity between the moral sphere and the naturally observable one just aren't very useful in getting a group of people to all get on the same page and coordinate their activities toward the same end, even if they are objectively more true.

NCE has been able to assert a compelling, widely held moral claim about humanity -- that of individual liberty and the primacy of the individual over the community within a narrative of rights (which is so compelling because of the self-evidence that only individuals can experience our own, unique deaths -- the community cannot experience it for us).  Once accepted as a given that individual liberty takes precedence over community outcomes, ceteris paribus, the set of implications from observable outcomes is naturally reduced to the Venn diagram of the intersection of the set of observable outcomes and the set of morally acceptable outcomes (i.e., that individual liberty is upheld first and foremost). This allows for essentially algebraically eliminating a lot of things that actually do occur but should not be allowed to occur, thus providing the means of apparently solving social conundrums in neat, mathematical arguments for which economics is both famous and infamous.

by santiago on Fri Oct 28th, 2011 at 11:55:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series