Economists never learn: or "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Yves Smith of nakedcapitalism.com/ fame has another awesome post demolishing economists' dogma. In The Sorrow and the Pity of Economists (Like DeLong) Not Learning from Their Mistakes she takes apart an argument by one of the few economists who is actually willing to admit to mistakes, and is to be respected for that, but is unfortunately stuck in a world of models that have nothing to do with the real world and misrepresent what the founder of macroeconomics said anyway. 

Delong says: There is only one real law of economics: the law of supply and demand. If the quantity supplied goes up, the price goes down

Unfortunately for the discipline of economics this is not true: Steve Keen's lectures on behavioural finance are a great place to become disabused of the notion that there are any laws of economics and the lectures provide an enlightening and insightful introduction to a more realistic approach to economics and finance. 


But back to Yves: 

No, it’s NOT the law, it’s a belief and it often is not operative...DeLong then argues that he and presumably his colleagues ignored the notions of John Hicks, the English economist who formalized the idea of Keynes’ General Theory and turned it into a special case of neoclassical economics. Keynes himself repudiated it, as did Hicks in his eighties....

Why would Keynes not like this treatment? Keynes, himself a successful speculator, did not think financial markets had any propensity to equilibrium, and there is separately reason to think the equilibrium assumption that the discipline has embraced to make its mathematics “tractable” is bollocks. The equilibrium assumption (more accurately, ergodicity) makes it impossible to incorporate any phenomena that are destabilizing, such as ones with positive (self-reinforcing feedback loops. Yet as we discuss short form in ECONNED (and George Cooper gives an elegant layperson treatment in The Origin of Financial Crises: Central Banks, Credit Bubbles, and the Efficient Market Fallacy), financial markets have no propensity to equilibrium. They are inherently prone to boom-bust cycles.

Even though Hicks’ story, via DeLong, bears some resemblance to Keynes’ liquidity preferences idea, it posits different causal channels that render them fundamentally different. In really simple terms, there is a “loanable funds” market in which borrowers and savers meet to determine the price of lending. Keynes argued that investors could have a change in liquidity preferences, which is econ-speak for they get freaked out and run for safe havens, which in his day was to pull it out of the banking system entirely. Hicks endeavored to show that the loanable funds and liquidity preferences theories were complementary, since he contended that Keynes ignored the bond market (loanable funds) while his predecessors ignored money markets.

But that’s a deliberate misreading. Keynes saw the driver as the change in the mood of capitalists; the shift in liquidity preferences was an effect. (In addition, Keynes held that changes with respect to existing portfolio positions, meaning stocks of held assets, would tend to swamp flow effects captured by loanable funds models.)

Making money cheaper is not going to make anyone want to take risk if they think the fundamental outlook is poor. Except for finance-intensive firms (which for the most part is limited to financial services industry incumbents), the cost of money is usually not the driver in business decisions, Market potential, the absolute level of commitment required, competitor dynamics and so on are what drive the decision; funding cost might be a brake. So the idea that making financing cheaper in and of itself is going to spur business activity is dubious, and it has been borne out in this crisis, where banks complain that the reason they are not lending is lack of demand from qualified borrowers. Surveys of small businesses, for instance, show that most have been pessimistic for quite some time.

If you want to put it in more technical terms, what is happening is a large and sustained fall in what Keynes called the marginal efficiency of capital. Companies are not reinvesting at a rate sufficient rate to sustain growth, let alone reduce unemployment. Rob Parenteau and I discussed the drivers of this phenomenon in a New York Times op-ed on the corporate savings glut last year: that managers and investors have short term incentives, and financial reform has done nothing to reverse them. Add to that that in a balance sheet recession, the private sector (both households and businesses) want to reduce debt, which is tantamount to saving. Lowering interest rates is not going to change that behavior. And if you try to generate inflation in this scenario, when individuals and companies are feeling stresses, all you do is reduce their real spending (and savings power) and further reduce demand (and hence economic activity).

So what Keynes thought important was to get investors to stop being "freaked out", decrease their liquidity preference, and again see the marginal efficiency of capital as sufficient to warrant further investment. 


Back to Yves: 

Marshall Auerback, by e-mail, points out that liquidity trap thinking is based on the idea that banks lend out of bank reserves. It has been shown empirically that banks lend first and reserve creation follows (that is, when needed, central banks accommodate loan creation):

The liquidity trap idea seems to be predicated on the silly idea that banks lend out reserves and failure to do so is symptomatic of a liquidity trap. But idea that the build up of bank reserves represent a pot of funds that the banks will eventually loan out completely misunderstands the role of bank reserves. But as Randy Wray, Bill Mitchell, Scott Fullwiler, Stephanie Kelton and a host of others have noted before banks do not loan out reserves. Reserves facilitate the payments system – that is, the system that assures the millions of transactions between banks (as customers write cheques and deposit them throughout the banking system).

Banks do not make loans on the basis of the reserves they hold. They respond to demands from credit-worthy customers and have in mind what it will cost them to make the loans under current conditions. When the transactions that follow the creation of a loan transpire it might be that the is short of reserves to ensure the payments clear. It has various options. It can seek funds from wholesale markets (other banks or other lenders), use deposits (not an overnight option really) or, ultimately, it can source the funds from the central bank.

The point is that you can get various levels of bank reserves depending on how the central bank pursues its liquidity management in order to hit its target policy rate. None of those levels have any particular operational significance.

The mainstream then argue that if the central bank mops up these reserves it will be less inflationary than if it leaves them in the system. This view is based on the spurious – banks lend reserves argument. The inflation risk associated with government spending is the same whether the government issues debt to match its deficit or not. The inflation risk arises from the impact of the spending on the state of capacity in the economy.

This is why fiscal stimulus is vastly more effective than monetary policy at times like these: it has a direct impact on overall conditions, by stimulating demand. Government spending creates more income for businesses and ultimately, consumers. Everyone’s income is ultimately someone else’s spending. If government increase spending, it will increase the incomes of at least some people in the economy, and the improvement in their fortunes (if they believe the new income level will be sustained) will lead them to spend more, improving the affairs of yet more people.

So the stimulation of demand is to be achieved by an improvement in overall conditions and this can best be done through fiscal policy, the aversion to which is not a matter of economics but ideology as pointed out by  Edward Harrison from creditwritedowns.

But the important point is that because his General Theory was unfortunately written in a manner that few could understand too well, the wrong lessons have been drawn from Keynes and propounded all these years. It is my contention that Keynes was not only the founder of macroeconomics, but also a behavioral economist, and his insights into the psychology of investors and the economy are invaluable and should be taken to heart. 


In my post on Hyman Minskys financial instability hypothesis there is a long quote from Keynes's 1937 article in the Quarterly Journal of economics, where he explained his views more clearly: 

Actually, however, we have, as a rule, only the vaguest idea of any but the most direct consequences of our acts. Sometimes we are not much concerned with their remoter consequences, even tho time and chance may make much of them. But sometimes we are intensely concerned with them, more so, occasionally, than with the immediate consequences.

Now of all human activities which are affected by this remoter preoccupation, it happens that one of the most important is economic in character, namely. Wealth. The whole object of the accumulation of Wealth is to produce results, or potential results, at a comparatively distant, and sometimes at an indefinitely distant, date. Thus the fact that our knowledge of the future is fluctuating, vague and uncertain, renders Wealth a peculiarly unsuitable subject for the methods of the classical economic theory. This theory might work very well in a world in which economic goods were necessarily consumed within a short interval of their being produced. But it requires, I suggest, considerable amendment if it is to be applied to a world in which the accumulation of wealth for an indefinitely postponed future is an important factor; and the greater the proportionate part played by such wealth-accumulation the more essential does such amendment become.

By "uncertain" knowledge, let me explain, I do not mean merely to distinguish what is known for certain from what is only probable. The game of roulette is not subject, in this sense, to uncertainty; nor is the prospect of a Victory bond being drawn. Or, again, the expectation of life is only slightly uncertain. Even the weather is only moderately uncertain. The sense in which I am using the term is that in which the prospect of a European war is uncertain, or the price of copper and the rate of interest twenty years hence, or the obsolescence of a new invention, or the position of private wealthowners in the social system in 1970. About these matters there is no scientific basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know. Nevertheless, the necessity for action and for decision compels us as practical men to do our best to overlook this awkward fact and to behave exactly as we should if we had behind us a good Benthamite calculation of a series of prospective advantages and disadvantages, each multiplied by its appropriate probability, waiting to he summed.

How do we manage in such circumstances to behave in a manner which saves our faces as rational, economic men? We have devised for the purpose a variety of techniques, of which much the most important are the three following:

(1) We assume that the present is a much more serviceable guide to the future than a candid examination of past experience would show it to have been hitherto. In other words we largely ignore the prospect of future changes about the actual character of which we know nothing.

(2) We assume that the existing state of opinion as expressed in prices and the character of existing output is based on a correct summing up of future prospects, so that we can accept it as such unless and until something new and relevant comes into the picture.

(3) Knowing that our own individual judgment is worthless, we endeavor to fall back on the judgment of the rest of the world which is perhaps better informed. That is, we endeavor to conform with the behavior of the majority or the average. The psychology of a society of individuals each of whom is endeavoring to copy the others leads to what we may strictly term a conventional judgment.

Now a practical theory of the future based on these three principles has certain marked characteristics. In particular, being based on so flimsy a foundation, it is subject to sudden and violent changes. The practice of calmness and immobility, of certainty and security, suddenly breaks down. New fears and hopes will, without warning, take charge of human conduct. The forces of disillusion may suddenly impose a new conventional basis of valuation. All these pretty, polite techniques, made for a well-panelled Board Room and a nicely regulated market, are liable to collapse. At all times the vague panic fears and equally vague and unreasoned hopes are not really lulled, and lie but a little way below the surface.

Perhaps the reader feels that this general, philosophical disquisition on the behavior of mankind is somewhat remote from the economic theory under discussion. But I think not. Tho this is how we behave in the market place, the theory we devise in the study of how we behave in the market place should not itself submit to market-place idols. I accuse the classical economic theory of being itself one of these pretty, polite techniques which tries to deal with the present by abstracting from the fact that we know very little about the future.

I daresay that a classical economist would readily admit this. But, even so, I think he has overlooked the precise nature of the difference which his abstraction makes between theory and practice, and the character of the fallacies into which he is likely to be led.

So this is the crux of Keynes's theory and even an ostensibly Keynesian economist such as Brad DeLong unfortunately fails to draw the correct lessons from the theory. As pointed out by Yves and many others who contribute to the current discussion of the dismal state of the dismal science, it is confidence and lack thereof that determines economic recovery or depression, and not the sacred cows of supply and demand.

But at the end of the day: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"      

Plagiarism, Privilege, and Political Promotion (!) in the County of Poets and Thinkers

It keeps getting better. After a massive public outcry over zu Guttenberg's plagiarized doctoral dissertation which finally forced the former German defense minister and the country's most popular politician at the time to resign his post, a new plagiarized dissertation has resulted in another doctoral title being taken away from a popular German politician. And was the result the same: did the politician have to resign? No, in fact, ex-doctor Sylvana Koch-Mehrin has not only not had to quit her job as European parliament representative, she has been promoted to, get this, the Parliamentary Commission on Industry, Research, and Energy. Needless to say this is an insult bordering on the absurd, and consequently a petition calling for her dismissal has been launched. So it seems that in "Das Land der Dichter und Denker" (The Country of Poets and Thinkers), in order to succeed politically, one does not even have to have thoughts of one's own; it suffices to copy what others have said without attribution and to claim it for oneself. The more brazen the lie, the more galling the sense of entitlement that the ruling political class displays.  

Money Creation to Bail Out Wall Street's Bad Bets But No Money For Social Security

Economist Michael Hudson has long pointed out that the US taxpayer has basically been robbed at metaphorical gunpoint by Wall Street bankers, whose bad bets gone bad have been bailed out to the tune of $13 trillion by transferring their bad bets onto the public, that is the US taxpayer balance sheet. 

Here is an excerpt from a must read article explaining that the US can create money out of thin air and has done so to bail out banker's bets while claiming that there is no money for medicare, medicaid, social security etc., basically anything that would help the downtrodden, or poor, or even the middle class.

What has made the post-2008 crash most remarkable is not merely the delusion that the way to get rich is by debt leverage (unless you are a banker, that is). Most unique is the crash’s aftermath. This time around the bad debts have not been wiped off the books. There have indeed been the usual bankruptcies – but the bad lenders and speculators are being saved from loss by the government intervening to issue Treasury bonds to pay them off out of future tax revenues or new money creation. The Obama Administration’s Wall Street managers have kept the debt overhead in place – toxic mortgage debt, junk bonds, and most seriously, the novel web of collateralized debt obligations (CDO), credit default swaps (almost monopolized by A.I.G.) and kindred financial derivatives of a basically mathematical character that have developed in the 1990s and early 2000s.

These computerized casino cross-bets among the world’s leading financial institutions are the largest problem. Instead of this network of reciprocal claims being let go, they have been taken onto the government’s own balance sheet. This has occurred not only in the United States but even more disastrously in Ireland, shifting the obligation to pay – on what were basically gambles rather than loans – from the financial institutions that had lost on these bets (or simply held fraudulently inflated loans) onto the government (“taxpayers”). The government took over the mortgage lending guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (privatizing the profits, “socializing” the losses) for $5.3 trillion – almost as much as the entire national debt. The Treasury lent $700 billion under the Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP) to Wall Street’s largest banks and brokerage houses. The latter re-incorporated themselves as “banks” to get Federal Reserve handouts and access to the Fed’s $2 trillion in “cash for trash” swaps crediting Wall Street with Fed deposits for otherwise “illiquid” loans and securities (the euphemism for toxic, fraudulent or otherwise insolvent and unmarketable debt instruments) – at “cost” based on full mark-to-model fictitious valuations.

Altogether, the post-2008 crash saw some $13 trillion in such obligations transferred onto the government’s balance sheet from high finance, euphemized as “the private sector” as if it were the core economy itself, rather than its calcifying shell. Instead of losing on their bad bets, bad loans, toxic mortgages and outright fraudulent claims, the financial institutions cleaned up, at public expense. They collected enough to create a new century’s power elite to lord it over “taxpayers” in industry, agriculture and commerce who will be charged to pay off this debt.

If there was a silver lining to all this, it has been to demonstrate that if the Treasury and Federal Reserve can create $13 trillion of public obligations – money – electronically on computer keyboards, there really is no Social Security problem at all, no Medicare shortfall, no inability of the American government to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. The bailout of Wall Street showed how central banks can create money, as Modern Money Theory (MMT) explains. But rather than explaining how this phenomenon worked, the bailout was rammed through Congress under emergency conditions. Bankers threatened economic Armageddon if the government did not create the credit to save them from taking losses.

Even more remarkable is the attempt to convince the population that new money and debt creation to bail out Wall Street – and vest a new century of financial billionaires at public subsidy – cannot be mobilized just as readily to save labor and industry in the “real” economy. The Republicans and Obama administration appointees held over from the Bush and Clinton administration have joined to conjure up scare stories that Social Security and Medicare debts cannot be paid, although the government can quickly and with little debate take responsibility for paying trillions of dollars of bipartisan Finance-Care for the rich and their heirs.

He also points out that things are bad if Michelle Bachmann is the voice of reason. The galling nature of bailing out banker's bad bets while preaching austerity for everyone else is augmented when one is made aware that the US government is not constrained in any way shape or form. The Modern Money primer is a good place to start getting acquainted with the way money is created, and the implications of these facts for any discussion about government solvency, entitlement programs, benefits or austerity and "belt tightening" for everyone except financiers whose casino capitalism bad bets are being bailed out by the government.


Full article by Michael Hudson here.

Spanish Police Brutally Attack Demonstrators

In Spain today demonstrators protested once again against 21% unemployment, 40% youth unemployment, austerity and the general economic malaise and lack of opportunity that have befallen the country that boasted a real estate bubble which could rival Las Vegas or Florida in size. Apparently, the police that were called out to disperse the protestors were so threatened by this gentleman in a wheelchair that they felt compelled to beat him with batons. He was not the only one to get to feel how an ostensibly democratic government deals with dissent:

Many more pictures here.

Final Warning

I am stunned, mesmerized, shocked, and appalled by what is happening at the Fukushima nuclear plant. No one knows how this will end: frantic efforts at restoring cooling and power are underway, worst case scenarios abound that make one shiver, along with what can only be considered willful blindness by nuke cheerleaders.

If after looking at these pictures of the Fukushima nuclear plant from digital globe anyone is still downplaying the problems and the danger, he or she ought to be moved by the potential fact that plutonium can be released into the atmosphere from reactor nr. 3.

I am holding in my hand a book called "Final Warning: The Legacy of Chernobyl" by Dr. Robert Peter Gale. It is a first hand account of his experiences at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, where he was invited as an expert to help with the clean up effort by the Soviet government. Here a quote from the end of Chapter two:

It's scary; a frightening game of numbers and chance. As a consequence of natural background radiation, all of us are struck by approximately fifteen thousand radioactive particles every second. What protects us is that the probability of any given particle decaying while in our body, irreparably damaging a cell, and causing cancer or some other abnormality is very low. But some particles are more dangerous than others, and some that science has created as by-products of nuclear weapons and nuclear power retain their potentially lethal properties for thousands of years.

The length of time a particular substance remains radioactive is measured by its "half-life." This is the substance's rate of decay, the time it takes half of its radioactive matter to convert to a more stable form by emitting waves and particles. For example, iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days. This means that one ounce of iodine-131 will turn into a half-ounce of iodine-131 and a half-ounce of more stable decay products after eight days. After sixteen days, a quarter-ounce of iodine-131 is left, after twenty-four days, an eight of an ounce. After 160 days (twenty half-lives), less than one-millionth of one ounce of radioactive iodine-131 remains.

However, other radioactive materials are longer-lasting. Strontium-90 has a half-life of twenty eight years, cesium-137, thirty-three. This means they arepotentially dangerous and must be contained for centuries. Twenty-seven different types of radioactive substances are created during the normal fissioning of uranium in a nuclear power plant reactor. Plutonium -- a mand-made element that dind't exist until uranium was fissioned to make nuclear weapons and nuclear power -- has a half life of 24,000 years.

Plutonium emits alpha particles. Each atom of plutonium, if inhaled, is capable of causing lung cancer. A plutonium atom released into the atmosphere at Chernobyl will remain potentially lethal for 24,000 years, a quarter until the year 50,000. No human intervention can hasten the decay process. This is the inherent difference between nuclear energy andother forms of power. When primitive man extinguished his fires, they were out. Modern-day blast furnaces and jet engines can be turned off at will. Nuclear fission goes on and on. Its benefits are obvious.It is also the most dangerous process known to man. This much was recognized by John F. Kennedy, who, in seeking approval for a treaty that would ban nuclear testing in the atmosphere, warned: "The number of children and grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukemia in their blood, or with poison in their lungs is not a statistical issue. The loss of even one human life or the malformation of even one baby who may be born long after we are gone should be of concern to us all.... We all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. And we are all mortal."

This is one of the most dramatic moments of our lives. Countless lives are at stake, not just those brave souls in Japan who have volunteered to continue trying to keep the rods covered with water in order to prevent further meltdowns; but also millions of affected people in Tokyo and the US, and around the world. This is not a drill. This is not panic being spread by anyone with an agenda. This is a defining moment for humanity, a time when we are humbled by nature and nature's laws, a time to reconsider our stances on nuclear power, and a time to reassess our priorities and how we live our lives.

Plagiarism, Privilege, and Political Popularity in the Country of Poets and Thinkers

It seems that in Germany one can lie, cheat, plagiarize, (ab)use taxpayer money for private gain, and still get to keep one’s job. The country that likes to call itself “The Country of Poets and Thinkers” (Das Land der Dichter und Denker) has a man as minister of defense who not only plagiarized his dissertation (if he did anything other than write the ridiculously pretentious preface himself), but lied to cover it up, lied to the public, lied to the press, and lied to parliament. Having brought the University of Bayreuth and academia in Germany in serious disrepute, this same man is now cracking jokes about academic titles at his appearances, where, apparently, he is still regaled as some sort of latter day messiah. Obama, they call him, charismatic, someone who gets people interested in politics, a man who says it like it is, our hero. The truly disturbing part of the entire affair is not his unrepentant arrogance and haughty sense of entitlement, not his lying and deceiving, not even the gall to turn in a dissertation in which on over 270 pages plagiarized passages have been found; no, the truly disturbing thing is that this might just make him become even more popular. More popular with whom, one might ask? Not with the press, the majority of which feel insulted by him and recognize the dangerous dynamic at play; not with those who have worked hard for their academic degrees which have suddenly become much less valuable; and not with those who think that a man who is willing to go to these lengths to dishonestly advance his career, who does not think that the rules apply to him, who until recently presumed to be a doctor of jurisprudence even though the work he turned in was for the most part the work of other authors, that such a man is not to be trusted with the armed forces of the largest European country; no, he is not popular with them, but he is popular with the masses. And it pains me to use this term, but there is no getting around it. He is popular with those who do not value the academy, those who do not see the irony in them harboring anti-”elitist” sentiments against the intelligentsia while proclaiming as savior a Baron who is married to Bismarck’s great, great granddaughter. And while at first glance there might not be much similarity between zu Guttenberg and Sarah Palin, at second glance, one does discern certain anti-intellectual, new know-nothing tendencies in their supporters that make one afraid for the fabric of our democratic societies on both sides of the Atlantic.

ECONNED -– The Movie, Um, Video!

Awsome video from Yves Smith!

ECONNED – The Movie, Um, Video!
A very talented movie/commerical/trailer editor, who for some bizarre reason insists on going nameless (but if you want his coordinates, don’t hesitate to ping me) assisted by Ben Fisher in a major role (finding images and video clips) and Richard Smith in a minor role (extensive sanity checking) put this together.

This may inspire McLuhan-esque debates, since I wanted something true to the medium, as in visceral and immediate, rather than the usual talking head sort of piece.

Enjoy! Oh, and turn the sound up

Buy this book! Econned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism

Make sure you get the upcoming book from my friend Yves Smith of www.nakedcapitalism.com fame.

Countdown 3/2/10: Excerpt from Econned
Folks, the time has come when I must start shamelessly promoting my book, Econned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism, which is being released March 2, 2010.

I thought the extract below would give readers an idea of what the book is about, with one caveat. Econned goes into some detail about crisis mechanisms (as in why it got as bad as it did) and has unearthed a heretofore unexamined hedge fund trading strategy that turned the subprime mania into the detonator of the global debt bomb (and yes, we have the goods).

Enjoy!

In 1776, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations. In it, he argued that the uncoordinated actions of large numbers of individuals, each acting out of self-interest, sometimes produced, as if by “an invisible hand,” results that were beneficial to broader society. Smith also pointed out that self-interested actions frequently led to injustice or even ruin. He fiercely criticized both how employers colluded with each other to keep wages low, as well as the “savage injustice” that European mercantilist interests had “commit[ted] with impunity” in colonies in Asia and the Americas.

Smith’s ideas were cherry-picked and turned into a simplistic ideology that now dominates university economics departments. This theory proclaims that the “invisible hand” ensures that economic self-interest will always lead to the best outcomes imaginable. It follows that any restrictions on the profit-seeking activities of individuals and corporations interfere with this invisible hand, and therefore are “inefficient” and nonsensical.

According to this line of thinking, individuals have perfect knowledge both of what they want and of everything happening in the world at large, and so they pass their lives making intelligent decisions. Prices may change in ways that appear random, but this randomness follows predictable, unchanging rules and is never violently chaotic. It is therefore possible for corporations to use clever techniques and systems to reduce or even eliminate the risks associated with their business. The result is a stable, productive economy that represents the apex of civilization.

This heartwarming picture airbrushes out nearly all of the real business world. Yet uncritical allegiance to these precepts over the last thirty years has produced a world in which corporations, especially in finance, are far less restricted in their pursuit of profit. We show in this book how this lawless environment has led the financial services industry to pursue its own unenlightened
self-interest. The industry has become systematically predatory. Employees of industry firms have not confined their predation to outsiders; their efforts to loot their own firms nearly destroyed the industry and the entire global economy. Similarly destructive behavior by other players, often viewed through a distorted lens that saw all unconstrained commercial behavior as virtuous, added more
fuel to the conflagration.

Some economists have opposed this prevailing ideology; indeed, comparatively new lines of inquiry focus explicitly on how economic actors can fool themselves or others into making poor, even destructive, choices.

But when the economics profession has used the megaphone of its authority to dominate discussions with policymakers and the public, it has spoken with one voice, and the message has been the one described here. We therefore confine our criticism to these particularly influential ideas.

Theories that fly in the face of reality often need to excise inconvenient phenomena, and mainstream economics is no exception. Idealizing the rational aspects of business decisions means refusing to notice behavior that is predatory, destructive, criminal, or simply stupid. Believing that risk is manageable through mechanical systems has required not just unrealistic assumptions but also willful
blindness to clear signs of danger.

We offer here another point of view. This book lays bare both the actions leading to the credit crisis and the economic constructs that defended, facilitated, and even exacerbated this behavior. Our case makes clear that if our economic system is to harness the self-interest of individuals to achieve the general
good, it must be supervised within a democratic society and responsive to criticism by outside voices of those who are unafraid to think independently.

Neither Keynes nor Hayek would be happy

Since Obama seems hell bent on doing exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time, namely proposing a spending freeze while jobs are still being lost, as expounded on by Marshall Auerback , here is a little background as to why this is not good by John Carney of the Business Insider:

Reflexivity in Action

Reflexivity in action. That is all.

The Precondition for an Economic Recovery According to Keynes and Confirmed by, of all People, Greenspan

Most of the blogosphere has been skeptical of the rally in equities since the beginning, with ZeroHedge pointing out that the rise can be attributed, basically, to free money courtesy of the Federal Reserve, and aided and abetted by High Frequency Trading and the principal program trading of the usual suspects. Now, even for those who are not conspiracy minded, charts such as these speak volumes(pun intended).

From ZeroHedge.

I would like to point out one possible explanation for this phenomenon from a contentious source that I have quoted before. I maintian that Keynes is misunderstoond by many and that he is not the source of all wisdom, but, rather, someone who asked the right questions at the right time and pointed out many problems in the workings of the economy in periods of turmoil.

Unfortunately a serious fall in the marginal efficiency of capital also tends to affect adversely the propensity to consume. For it involves a severe decline in the market value of Stock Exchange equities. Now, on the class who take an active interest in their Stock Exchange investments, especially if they are employing borrowed funds, this naturally exerts a very depressing influence. These people are, perhaps, even more influenced in their readiness to spend by rises and falls in the value of their investments than by the state of their incomes. With a "stock-minded" public as in the United States to-day, a rising stock-market may be an almost essential condition of a satisfactory propensity to consume; and this circumstance, generally overlooked until lately, obviously serves to aggravate still further the depressing effect of a decline in the marginal efficiency of capital.
When once the recovery has been started, the manner in which it feeds on itself and cumulates is obvious. But during the downward phase, when both fixed capital and stocks of materials are for the time being redundant and working-capital is being reduced, the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital may fall so low that it can scarcely be corrected, so as to secure a satisfactory rate of new investment, by any practicable reduction in the rate of interest. Thus with markets organised and influenced as they are at present, the market estimation of the marginal efficiency of capital may suffer such enormously wide fluctuations that it cannot be sufficiently offset by corresponding fluctuations in the rate of interest. Moreover, the corresponding movements in the stock-market may, as we have seen above, depress the propensity to consume just when it is most needed. In conditions of laissez-faire the avoidance of wide fluctuations in employment may, therefore, prove impossible without a far-reaching change in the psychology of investment markets such as there is no reason to expect. I conclude that the duty of ordering the current volume of investment cannot safely be left in private hands.

The point of contention is, and has been, the last sentence, which raises the blood pressure of everyone involved, on both sides, like nothing else ever written about economics (save maybe Marx). I am not venturing out on a limb when I say that the powers that be have read this passage and drawn their own conclusions from it. Even Greenspan said :

The rise in global stock prices from early March to mid-June is arguably the primary cause of the surprising positive turn in the economic environment. The $12,000bn of newly created corporate equity value has added significantly to the capital buffer that supports the debt issued by financial and non-financial companies. Corporate debt, as a consequence, has been upgraded and yields have fallen. Previously capital-strapped companies have been able to raise considerable debt and equity in recent months. Market fears of bank insolvency, particularly, have been assuaged

.
Juxtaposing these two quotes does not a proof of a government engineered market melt-up make, but one does have to wonder.

The Dark Side of Planet Earth: Pink Floyd´s Dark Side of the Moon and BBC´s Planet Earth Mashup. Very Cool

The Dark Side of Planet Earth from allan corbett on Vimeo.

Robert Shiller on Inefficient Markets and Behavioral Finance

Robert Shiller is perhaps best known for his Case-Shiller home price index and for having correctly identified the previous bubble in financial markets in his 2000 book Irrational Exuberance . Shiller is concerned with risk and uncertainty in human affairs and has never been a proponent of the orthodoxy which either claims that bubbles do not exist(!) or that markets should be left to themselves since they instantly and efficiently incorporate all known information, something known as the Efficient Market Hypothesis .
Barry Ritholz discusses the hubris of economics in a must read post, and over at Washington´s Blog another great post points out that economists had a incentive to be wrong.
Now Robert Shiller´s criticism of prevailing economic orthodoxy may not be as acid but it is nevertheless a damning indictment. Below is his lecture on Behavioral Finance and a very informative article on the decline (one would hope) of the Efficient Markets Theory and the rise of Behavioral Finance.





From Efficient Market Theory to Behavioral Finance

Steve Keen on the economy: On the Edge with Max Keiser

Steve Keen is one of the few economists who predicted the financial crisis and he is not at all impressed with the government response arguing that texboox economics failed to predict the crisis and are also not going to solve the problems we are facing. His outlook is less than rosy to say the least.

Dilbert on the economy