Brad DeLong makes an odd claim:
So the big lesson is simple: trust those who work in the tradition of Walter Bagehot, Hyman Minsky, and Charles Kindleberger. That means trusting economists like Paul Krugman, Paul Romer, Gary Gorton, Carmen Reinhart, Ken Rogoff, Raghuram Rajan, Larry Summers, Barry Eichengreen, Olivier Blanchard, and their peers. Just as they got the recent past right, so they are the ones most likely to get the distribution of possible futures right.
Larry Summers? If we’re going to base our economic policy on trusting in Larry Summers, should we not reappoint Greenspan as Fed Chairman? Or — better yet — appoint Charles Ponzi as head of the SEC? Or a fox to guard the henhouse? Or a tax cheat as Treasury Secretary? Or a war criminal as a peace ambassador? (Yes — reality is more surreal than anything I could imagine).
The bigger point though, as Steve Keen and Randall Wray
have alluded to, is that DeLong’s list is the left-wing of the
neoclassical school of economics — all the same people who (to a greater
or lesser extent) believed that we were in a Great Moderation, and that
thanks to the wonders of modernity we had escaped the old world of
depressions and mass unemployment. People to whom this depression —
judging by their pre-2008 output — was something of a surprise.
Now the left-wing neoclassicists may have done less badly than the
right-wing neoclassicists Fama, Cochrane and Greenspan, but that’s not
saying much.
Steve Keen pointed out:People like Wynne Godley, Ann Pettifors, Randall Wray, Nouriel Roubini, Dean Baker, Peter Schiff and I had spent years warning that a huge crisis was coming, and had a variety of debt-based explanations as to why it was inevitable. By then, Godley, Wray and I and many other Post Keynesian economists had spent decades imbibing and developing the work of Hyman Minsky.
To my knowledge, of Delong’s motley crew, only Raghuram Rajan was in print with any warnings of an imminent crisis before it began.
DeLong is, in my view, trying to whitewash his contemporaries who did
not see the crisis coming, and inaccurately trying to associate them
with Hyman Minsky whose theory of debt deflation
anticipated many dimensions of the crisis. Adding insult to injury,
DeLong seems unwilling to credit those like Schiff and Keen (not to
mention Ron Paul) who saw the housing bubble and the excessive debt
mountain for what it was — a disaster waiting to happen.
The most disturbing thing about his thesis is that all of the
left-neoclassicists he is trying to whitewash have not really been very
right about the last four years at all, as DeLong freely admits:
But we – or at least I – have got significant components of the last four years wrong. Three things surprised me (and still do). The first is the failure of central banks to adopt a rule like nominal GDP targeting or its equivalent. Second, I expected wage inflation in the North Atlantic to fall even farther than it has – towards, even if not to, zero. Finally, the yield curve did not steepen sharply for the United States: federal funds rates at zero I expected, but 30-year US Treasury bonds at a nominal rate of 2.7% I did not.
Yet we are supposed to take seriously the widely proposed solution?
Throw money at the problem, and assume that just by raising aggregate
demand all the other problems will just go away?
As I wrote back in August 2011:
These troubles are non-monetary: military overspending, political and financial corruption, public indebtedness, withering infrastructure, oil dependence, deindustrialisation, the withered remains of multiple bubbles, bailout culture, systemic fragility, and so forth.
These problems won’t just go away — throwing money around may boost
figures in the short term, but the underlying problems will remain.
I believe that the only real way out is to unleash the free market
and the spirit of entrepreneurialism. And the only way to do that is to
end corporate welfare, end the bailouts (let failed institutions fail), end American imperialism, and slash barriers to entry. Certainly, cleaning up the profligate financial sector would help too (perhaps mandatory gladiatorial sentences for financial crimes would help? No more paying £200 million for manipulating a $350 trillion market — fight a lion in the arena instead!),
as would incentives to create the infrastructure people need, and move
toward energy independence, green energy and reindustrialisation.
Then again, I suppose there is a silver lining to this cloud. The
wronger the establishment are in the long run, the more people will look
for new economic horizons.
No comments:
Post a Comment