Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
wonderpup

If Economists Were Doctors...

Recommended Posts

I am not an economist but I have taken a lively interest in their theories and ideas ever since they failed to detect the largest financial event in generations until it smacked them on the back of their collective head.

What I found when I started wading around in the intellectual sewage that passes for discourse in their world is that they are still to this day engaged in a furious debate concerning such basics as 'how is money created?' and 'is credit money?'. Some cling limpet like to bizzare fantasies like the efficient-market hypothesis, despite the smoking ruins of that theory littering the landscape all around them, while others have been bought and sold so many times they will happily say anything to get funding from whichever lunatic fringe group will pony up the cash.

Their debates are populated with the stinking corpses of people who died hundreds of years previously, whose words are now cast in stone and lobbed at their opponents, apparently on the basis that if you can manage to summon up a quote from someone like Adam Smith that seems to validate your claim- no matter how out of context and abused that quote might be- then you will have delivered a killer blow.

In short economic thought seems to be an oxymoron and economists are functionally useless if not downright dangerous to our collective well being.

If economists were indeed doctors they would be inhabiting a charnel house piled high with the bodies of their failed cures and quackeries while debating not the legitimacy of leeches as a cure (This being taken as a given), but merely the correct positioning and application of the leeches.

None of this would matter if these idiots were simply overpaid window dressing for the financial services industry (their true social function) but -incredibly- it is to these witchdoctors our leaders turn for advice and counsel.

So my question is; Is Economics as a profession a clear and present danger to our society that should be driven from any influence on policy?

The list of failure seems to grow daily- the latest casualties being the Rogoff and Reinhart austerity doctrine and now the 'wealth effect' from rising house prices seems to be yet another 'misunderstanding'- there is no such effect.

These are not trivial failures- taken together these ideas are the primary intellectual support of the entire QE/Austerity plan that forms the core of the western worlds recovery strategy- on these ideas the fate of millions hangs- and they turn out to be bullshite??? :angry:

When the theories being relied upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chairman of the Fedral reserve to formulate policy are subesquently debunked- one by a student who turns out to be the only one who actually bothered to run the numbers- and found them wanting- is it time to face the fact that Economics is a failed 'science' that must in future be regarded with the same degree of skeptical caution as Astrology and Alchemy?

Under steady attack after their seminal research was found to be riddled with errors, Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff are making a show of backing away from the austerity that their research encouraged.

They claim that their views on austerity have never changed, but the record tells a different story. They're still trying to have it both ways -- advocating for government belt-tightening while trying to avoid being seen as political.

For those readers who have spent the past month held prisoner by the Sleestaks from "The Land Of The Lost," let me catch you up: Reinhart and Rogoff wrote a paper back in January 2010, called "Growth In A Time Of Debt," which strongly suggested that government debt of more than 90 percent of gross domestic product caused bad things to happen to economies. In the years since its publication, that paper has been cited by many politicians, from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to George Osborne of the U.K., to justify harsh belt-tightening programs despite deep, widespread economic pain in the U.S., U.K. and Europe.

Two weeks ago, a University of Massachusetts-Amherst grad student, Thomas Herndon, destroyed their paper's credibility by pointing out that it was riddled with errors, including glaring data omissions and a goofy Excel spreadsheet mistake. Suddenly, the Paul Krugmans of the world, who have spent the past few years arguing fruitlessly against austerity, had the upper hand. The austerity movement had been discredited, along with the research from Reinhart and Rogoff that underpinned it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/reinhart-rogoff-austerity_n_3201453.html

Emphasis mine.

And this from a thread on here;

Although the value of our property might rise, we do not on that account increase our consumption. This is the conclusion by economists from University of Copenhagen and University of Oxford in new research which is contrary to the widely believed assumption amongst economists that if there occurs a rise in house prices then a natural rise in consumption will follow. The results of the study is published in the scientific journal The Economic Journal.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=190382

Emphasis mine.

Assumption? That 'assumption' is the rationale for the vast amount of money being currently pumped into the system via QE- and no one bothered to even test it? WTF????

Who are these people? And why does anyone take them seriously? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. There definately would be no debate about leeches. They would be an accepted and essential component of any and every medical treastment. Period. For serious cases, the ducking stool would be employed. There would be people pulling handcarts through the streets, ringing bells and shouting, "bring out yer dead".

Unfortunately, like with medicine the orthodoxy is so deeply ingrained that we will likely spend 300-400 years burning those who disagree and failing to see the obvious.

Economics combines all the very worst of second rate social psychology with the outlying areas of rather second class mathematics and an incompetent application of history. The practitioners cannot even agree cogently on what actually happened, let alone what happens next. To have a Nobel prize for this hokum is an insult to every competent scientist and medic who ever drew breath.

Rant over.

Edited by Stainless Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cant really blame them. Like they say, good economics tends to make for bad politics. What we call economics today isnt really economics, its politics with a few made up numbers dotted around.

Edited by Executive Sadman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of this would matter if these idiots were simply overpaid window dressing for the financial services industry (their true social function) but -incredibly- it is to these witchdoctors our leaders turn for advice and counsel.

economists dont shape policy they are used to justify policy.

what you have to remember is that politicians turn to economists that suit their own political agenda. the economist doesnt choose what policy is pursued, they merely state their own theory about how they think things work.

a leftist government will fall back on a more keynesian style economics (government needs to step in) to justify their approach whilst a more conservative one will follow a more austrian school of economics (bad elements of an economy must be allowed to fall away naturally).

there is no "right" form of economics, only lots of different theories, which the government will pick and quote the ones that suit their own agenda.

the political class only quoted that paper you mentioned because it suited their message. an anti austerity government wouldnt have looked twice at it.

so an economists theory and research findings dont really dictate policy.

more often than the the government of the day will already have a certain agenda in mind and will pick out the economic theory that suits them best as an argument for pursuing it.

if a certain economists view doesnt match what they want to do they would just ignore it and find one that they like.

Edited by mfp123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent thread.

1) Economics is NOT a science.

2) Economists are traditionally very poor at even basic Maths. I know because I was helping in my student days a friend who was at Economics University.

Another economist I met, was the guy of around 60 years of age and who was teaching Economics at Oxford, Greenwich University Economics and who was a part of the UN team who received NOBEL prize in Economics.(?!)

I was trying to explain basics of linear graph (straight line in the x-y coordinating system) - on his request.

After 2 hours we both gave up.He said he never understood a connection between x-y coordinates of points and the equation of the straight line (?!) and the gradient of the straight line.:blink:

After my tutorial he still remained in the dark about the above facts about straight line graph.Not to mention that I previously tutored his daughter and she was awarded top grades in her GCSE which included that topic.

(Hence my teaching skills were not a problem.Anyhow, how come after all those years he did not manage to learn basics, especially considering that economists always refer to "graphs"?)

3) Economists are mostly PR people who use vague expressions like "inflation will be moderate in the medium term",etc.

4) They can't predict anything.

5) They are not useless to the whole society.They are harmful instead.

Unfortunately, society regards them as "wise men" and as "high priests", hence they are paid and respected handsomely as opposed to the scientist.

7) They have no responsibility once their predictions go wrong.But they always wiggle out since their predictions are always vague.

8) They have no common sense.

9) Just listen to majority of economists: "Economy is doing well if house prices are increasing","Infinite QE is needed",...

I can be proclaimed as an economics expert if I parrot the above statement endlessly. (I will also get substantial state funding for my "research".)

Obviously Economics Universities are not needed anymore, because one does not have to know anything else about how economy works. One can surely graduate Economics by just repeating the above mantra and of course, throw in some fancy graphs.:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not an economist but I have taken a lively interest in their theories and ideas ever since they failed to detect the largest financial event in generations until it smacked them on the back of their collective head.

What I found when I started wading around in the intellectual sewage that passes for discourse in their world is that they are still to this day engaged in a furious debate concerning such basics as 'how is money created?' and 'is credit money?'. Some cling limpet like to bizzare fantasies like the efficient-market hypothesis, despite the smoking ruins of that theory littering the landscape all around them, while others have been bought and sold so many times they will happily say anything to get funding from whichever lunatic fringe group will pony up the cash.

Their debates are populated with the stinking corpses of people who died hundreds of years previously, whose words are now cast in stone and lobbed at their opponents, apparently on the basis that if you can manage to summon up a quote from someone like Adam Smith that seems to validate your claim- no matter how out of context and abused that quote might be- then you will have delivered a killer blow.

In short economic thought seems to be an oxymoron and economists are functionally useless if not downright dangerous to our collective well being.

If economists were indeed doctors they would be inhabiting a charnel house piled high with the bodies of their failed cures and quackeries while debating not the legitimacy of leeches as a cure (This being taken as a given), but merely the correct positioning and application of the leeches.

None of this would matter if these idiots were simply overpaid window dressing for the financial services industry (their true social function) but -incredibly- it is to these witchdoctors our leaders turn for advice and counsel.

So my question is; Is Economics as a profession a clear and present danger to our society that should be driven from any influence on policy?

The list of failure seems to grow daily- the latest casualties being the Rogoff and Reinhart austerity doctrine and now the 'wealth effect' from rising house prices seems to be yet another 'misunderstanding'- there is no such effect.

These are not trivial failures- taken together these ideas are the primary intellectual support of the entire QE/Austerity plan that forms the core of the western worlds recovery strategy- on these ideas the fate of millions hangs- and they turn out to be bullshite??? :angry:

When the theories being relied upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chairman of the Fedral reserve to formulate policy are subesquently debunked- one by a student who turns out to be the only one who actually bothered to run the numbers- and found them wanting- is it time to face the fact that Economics is a failed 'science' that must in future be regarded with the same degree of skeptical caution as Astrology and Alchemy?

I have studied a fair amount of economics and especially property economics. This post struck a cord and has some truth to it.

I agree that lots of the foundation stones of theory are old and not suited to the modern information / digital age. Eg output being where marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost - what is the marginal cost of an iTunes download ?

I am also very distrustful of modelling - where you put a load of 'guesses' into a computer and it spits out 'scientic' numbers that people think are facts. This goes for all modelling - economic and climate change etc.

I think economics needs a fundamental shack up from many of its first principles and assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
economists dont shape policy they are used to justify policy.

This is why they are so dangerous- in providing intellectual cover for unsustainable policies they allow such polices to continue.

Economics is a pseudo science that presents itself as an empirical system- yet time and time again the great 'truths' of economics turn out be untested hypothesis that seem to have acquired the patina of hard fact simply because they have remained unchallenged for so long that people just assume they must be true.

Then when someone bothers to actually do the research these 'truths' fall apart like the flimsy collection of ideological humbug they actually are.

Suppose that what happened in 2008 was a worldwide collapse of major construction projects- with skyscrapers, bridges and housing complex's falling down on a mass scale- can you imagine the degree of investigation and scrutiny that would have descended on the construction sector- and how many people would have been fired?

But the Economists- whose world caved in a few years ago- remain seemingly oblivious to the fact that their mainstream theories not only failed to predict that crisis- but state categorically that such a crisis was not even possible. Have any of them lost their jobs as result of this?-no. Have those academics who propagated- and continue to propagate- these failed ideas been told to stop?-no.

So I agree with your point that Economists are 'useful idiots' who's value lies not in their ability to define reality- but to spin it for the benefit of whatever patron they currently serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two weeks ago, a University of Massachusetts-Amherst grad student, Thomas Herndon, destroyed their paper's credibility by pointing out that it was riddled with errors, including glaring data omissions and a goofy Excel spreadsheet mistake. Suddenly, the Paul Krugmans of the world, who have spent the past few years arguing fruitlessly against austerity, had the upper hand. The austerity movement had been discredited, along with the research from Reinhart and Rogoff that underpinned it.

And what is more dangerous is the intellectual dishonesty in most economic debates where facts and data points are selected to advance one own's agenda (which could be due to bias, attempt to profit from tuned-in readership, for jobs etc).

In the above case, the spreadsheet wasn't 'riddled with error' and the conclusion remain the same - not that truth matter of course as long as readers keep reading them and the ad revenue keep rolling in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are these people? And why does anyone take them seriously? :lol:

Nobody does take them seriously outside of partisan echo chambers. The decisions are made before any data is analysed (if they even bother to collect data, that is). The data comes afterwards, to provide (pseudo) intellectual cover.

Look at that Huff Post link. It dismisses one set of economists and promotes another one, Krugman. Not a problem, because I'm sure he's never used selective and/or misleading data to make an idealogical point. :rolleyes:

Despite the insoluble nature of some of our problems, I'm sure there is a way inbetween these positions that will make the average Joe suffer less over the next generation of turmoil, but it will never even be discussed, let alone implemented. Both sides of the economic debate are touting ever-increasing extortion, claiming their brand is virtuous while other guy's brand is evil.

I've come to the conclusion that it will never be solved through debate, it will be solved through looting. Best looter wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why they are so dangerous- in providing intellectual cover for unsustainable policies they allow such polices to continue.

Economics is a pseudo science that presents itself as an empirical system- yet time and time again the great 'truths' of economics turn out be untested hypothesis that seem to have acquired the patina of hard fact simply because they have remained unchallenged for so long that people just assume they must be true.

Then when someone bothers to actually do the research these 'truths' fall apart like the flimsy collection of ideological humbug they actually are.

Suppose that what happened in 2008 was a worldwide collapse of major construction projects- with skyscrapers, bridges and housing complex's falling down on a mass scale- can you imagine the degree of investigation and scrutiny that would have descended on the construction sector- and how many people would have been fired?

But the Economists- whose world caved in a few years ago- remain seemingly oblivious to the fact that their mainstream theories not only failed to predict that crisis- but state categorically that such a crisis was not even possible. Have any of them lost their jobs as result of this?-no. Have those academics who propagated- and continue to propagate- these failed ideas been told to stop?-no.

So I agree with your point that Economists are 'useful idiots' who's value lies not in their ability to define reality- but to spin it for the benefit of whatever patron they currently serve.

Spot on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not an economist.......

You don't say.

..... they failed to detect the largest financial event in generations until it smacked them on the back of their collective head.

Nice trick, start from a false premis and carry on from there.

I'm sure that plenty of economists spotted the problems but the people who were running the country weren't economists and didn't want to know.

Here's a nice little article from March 2003: House of cards

In many countries the stockmarket bubble has been replaced by a property-price bubble. Sooner or later it will burst, says Pam Woodall, our economics editor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the above case, the spreadsheet wasn't 'riddled with error' and the conclusion remain the same - not that truth matter of course as long as readers keep reading them and the ad revenue keep rolling in.

The conclusion is not supported by the data used to derive it- that's the point. And the Authors are not even claiming to be right about the conclusion- they are in fact now denying that they drew any such conclusion. A claim that might carry a bit more weight had they chosen to make it before their work was discredited.

But you miss the real point here- no one-including the authors- is denying that significant errors were in fact made- yet not one of the many qualified experts and Government advisors who used this research to justify far reaching policy decisions discovered these errors- it took a student to do the basic work of checking the facts to uncover them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion is not supported by the data used to derive it- that's the point. And the Authors are not even claiming to be right about the conclusion- they are in fact now denying that they drew any such conclusion. A claim that might carry a bit more weight had they chosen to make it before their work was discredited.

But you miss the real point here- no one-including the authors- is denying that significant errors were in fact made- yet not one of the many qualified experts and Government advisors who used this research to justify far reaching policy decisions discovered these errors- it took a student to do the basic work of checking the facts to uncover them.

Perhaps before I go further, may I ask you to explain what exactly the flaws in their papers are before various adjectives and generalisation are made. If there were 5 errors, then say 5 errors and list them rather than ' riddled with errors'; If the conclusions you talk about here is that 90% is not a valid number (in fact 90% will is unlikely to be a one number fit all number) - then say so rather then being vague as to what the conclusion is.

May I also suggest that you read from the horse mouth (the authors rebuttal) and the original papers

http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/31e2ff374b6377b2ddec04deaa6388b1/publication/566/ (Those who found the errors, authors initial=HAP)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/04/17/business/17economix-response.html (rebuttal and correction)

rather than relying on reports in mass media that suit your taste.

These sort of intellectual dishonesty by the media (supported by the economists) is the greatest danger of all.

The conclusion is that very high public debt lead to slow growth was not refuted by HAP - what was inconclusive was that 90% is the magic threshold for all circumstances which your favourite medias failed to explicitly point out, but rather trying to muddle the water with the words ' The Conclusion' (what is THE CONCLUSION ?)

Further, few mass media bothers to point to the source so that readers can make their own conclusion. Most mass media (and blogs etc) expects the reader to swallow the conclusions that they make.

I strongly suspect that most economists know the world is a hell lot more complex than their model, but for career, profits, fame etc reasons refuse to acknowledge that in public / put such disclaimer in their work - and that too is intellectual dishonesty.

Edited by easy2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't say.

Does it take an economist to observe the fact that in 2008 the economy went into meltdown? A meltdown that Economic theory declared was not even possible?

According to theory the events of 2008 were so unlikely that even in the combined lifespans of several universes it would still remain unlikely.

Nice trick, start from a false premis and carry on from there.

I'm sure that plenty of economists spotted the problems but the people who were running the country weren't economists and didn't want to know.

Here's a nice little article from March 2003: House of cards

In many countries the stockmarket bubble has been replaced by a property-price bubble. Sooner or later it will burst, says Pam Woodall, our economics editor

Your article expresses my point very well- that economics is intellectually incoherent and therefore dangerous- it makes the point that many leading economist of that time- Including Alan Greenspan- denied the existence of a bubble in houseprices- as did his successor Ben Bernanke- until it finally blew up in their faces.

They also failed to grasp the far reaching implications of this house price implosion- even after the fact Bernanke continued to claim that it was a containable problem limited to the sub prime market- he did not understand how pervasive the derivative products of mortgage backed securities had become- how they had been leveraged and how the opacity of the derivative markets amplified their destructive impact on the confidence of the banks.

And these people were not mere spectators of events- Greenspan had his hands on real power in the form of interest rates and used that power to keep them low enough for long enough to fuel the house price bubble itself. And his apprentice Bernanke has printed vast sums based on the now discredited 'wealth effect' theory- funny money that will in it's turn wreak even more damage on the lives of ordinary people.

What this represents is a catastrophic mismatch between Economic theory and reality that all but brought down the entire system.

And the failure involved here is not a trivial one- according to economic theory the possibility of a USA wide crash in houseprices was an event so rare that it represented-in the jargon- a 25 Sigma event- this is the same as the odds of winning the UK lottery 21 times in row. and produces a number so high against that probability that it exceeds the total number of particles in the known universe- which added all together represent a mere 20 sigma event.

So Economics theory did not just fail- it failed to a degree that has no historical precedent. If your theory states that a given type of event is so improbable that it will be unlikely to happen in the lifespan of several universes- and then these events occur repeatedly over the span of a few decades then something is deeply wrong with your theory. Yet we have Black monday in '87- LTCM in '98 and the subprime crash in '08- all of these events were ascribed negative probabilities numbered not in decades but in millennia.

Lets face it- no one would put these people in charge of something that really mattered like, say, a nuclear power station- the result would be smoking radioactive holes visible from outer space. So why do we let them loose on the economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the failure involved here is not a trivial one- according to economic theory the possibility of a USA wide crash in houseprices was an event so rare that it represented-in the jargon- a 25 Sigma event- this is the same as the odds of winning the UK lottery 21 times in row. and produces a number so high against that probability that it exceeds the total number of particles in the known universe- which added all together represent a mere 20 sigma event.

So Economics theory did not just fail- it failed to a degree that has no historical precedent. If your theory states that a given type of event is so improbable that it will be unlikely to happen in the lifespan of several universes- and then these events occur repeatedly over the span of a few decades then something is deeply wrong with your theory. Yet we have Black monday in '87- LTCM in '98 and the subprime crash in '08- all of these events were ascribed negative probabilities numbered not in decades but in millennia.

Lets face it- no one would put these people in charge of something that really mattered like, say, a nuclear power station- the result would be smoking radioactive holes visible from outer space. So why do we let them loose on the economy?

There are a few interesting cases of intellectual dishonesty here.

LTCM lot were at least intellectually honest and had their life savings went down with it.

For the subprime lot...

"one email between colleagues at Standard & Poor's states "Rating agencies continue to create and [sic] even bigger monster--the CDO market. Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters."[a]", so deep down, somebody knew something.

In this case, the havoc was caused non by the government with SP/Moody are the 'approved rating agencies'.

[a]: "Email to Belinda Ghetti and Nicole Billick" http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov/documents/20081022112154.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it take an economist to observe the fact that in 2008 the economy went into meltdown? A meltdown that Economic theory declared was not even possible?

According to theory the events of 2008 were so unlikely that even in the combined lifespans of several universes it would still remain unlikely.

I'm not aware of any such theory, perhaps you could elaborate on where you get this idea from.

Your article expresses my point very well- that economics is intellectually incoherent and therefore dangerous- it makes the point that many leading economist of that time- Including Alan Greenspan- denied the existence of a bubble in houseprices- as did his successor Ben Bernanke- until it finally blew up in their faces.

Bulls***. You made a definitive statement that nobody detected the problems brewing, I gave you a link to a popular magazine that identified the core problem, if the article does not meet your requirements I'm sure you could find academic articles that would.

I'm not sure that I accept the claim that Greenspan/Bernanke were leading economists, they were high profile but that is something different. Either way: basing you view of the subject on the public statements of a couple of political appointees looks like an obvious way to make a mistake.

Edited by Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...To have a Nobel prize for this hokum is an insult to every competent scientist and medic who ever drew breath.

Rant over.

There is no Nobel prize in economics.

There is a prize, awarded by a bunch of economists, that claims to be In Memory of Nobel or some such waffle, and is deliberately ambiguously described by economists and their shills so that many people confuse it with the prestigious real Nobel prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a few interesting cases of intellectual dishonesty here.

LTCM lot were at least intellectually honest and had their life savings went down with it.

For the subprime lot...

"one email between colleagues at Standard & Poor's states "Rating agencies continue to create and [sic] even bigger monster--the CDO market. Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters."[a]", so deep down, somebody knew something.

In this case, the havoc was caused non by the government with SP/Moody are the 'approved rating agencies'.

[a]: "Email to Belinda Ghetti and Nicole Billick" http://oversight-arc...81022112154.pdf

My point is that these people operated in an intellectual environment that lent credibility to their actions- the economics mainstream and in particular the efficient market hypothesis it advocated made it possible for them to assert that the kinds of market distortions and manipulations they were in fact engaged in were not possible- as a result regulation was weak and nothing was done to stop them.

After all- why attempt to regulate a system defined as self regulating?

So a direct link can be made between the intellectual weakness and incoherence of Economic theory and the 2008 crash.

Not only did the economics mainstream fail to detect the crash coming- they facilitated it by supplying the intellectual justification for it's behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not aware of any such theory, perhaps you could elaborate on where you get this idea from.

Check out the fantasy known as 'the efficient markets hypothesis'. According to which financial markets are inherently stable- which means they cannot crash. :lol:

Bob Shiller at Yale has this to say about it;

Professor Shiller mentions the “speculative bubble that generated pervasive optimism and complacency” as a lead in to his discussion. He describes the theoretical failings of economics:

“A half-century ago, there was a lively discussion among economists about the dynamics of price expectations. For example, Alain C. Enthoven, then of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Kenneth J. Arrow of Stanford wrote in 1956 that expectations that extrapolate past price increases can produce economic instability. But that thinking was largely cast aside in the 1960s, when my profession embraced the theory that efficient markets formed by people holding rational expectations could explain virtually all economic activity.

As a result, economists in recent decades have not developed expectations theory much further. That needs to be corrected in coming years. In the meantime, this failing helps explain why the current crisis was generally unpredicted, and why its future course is so poorly understood.”

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/06/shiller-more-expectations-theory-less-efficient-market-hypothesis/

Emphasis mine.

Bulls***. You made a definitive statement that nobody detected the problems brewing, I gave you a link to a popular magazine that identified the core problem, if the article does not meet your requirements I'm sure you could find academic articles that would.

I'm not sure that I accept the claim that Greenspan/Bernanke were leading economists, they were high profile but that is something different. Either way: basing you view of the subject on the public statements of a couple of political appointees looks like an obvious way to make a mistake.

No- I claimed that the economics establishment failed to predict the crisis- a view that Shiller seems to share. There were people like Max Keiser and Steve Keen who did predict it- but they were very much on the fringe.

Edited by wonderpup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 258 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.