Reinventing Economics

Robert J. Shiller

NEW HAVEN – The widespread failure of economists to forecast the financial 
crisis that erupted in 2008 has much to do with faulty models. This lack of 
sound models meant that economic policymakers and central bankers received no 
warning of what was to come.As George Akerlof and I argue in our recent book 
Animal Spirits , the current financial crisis was driven by speculative bubbles 
in the housing market, the stock market, and energy and other commodities 
markets. Bubbles are caused by feedback loops: rising speculative prices 
encourage optimism, which encourages more buying, and hence further speculative 
price increases – until the crash comes.

But you won’t find the word “bubble” in most economics treatises or textbooks. 
Likewise, a search of working papers produced by central banks and economics 
departments in recent years yields few instances of “bubbles” even being 
mentioned. Indeed, the idea that bubbles exist has become so disreputable in 
much of the economics and finance profession that bringing them up in an 
economics seminar is like bringing up astrology to a group of astronomers.

The fundamental problem is that a generation of mainstream macroeconomic 
theorists has come to accept a theory that has an error at its very core: the 
axiom that people are fully rational. And as the statistician Leonard “Jimmie” 
Savage showed in 1954, if people follow certain axioms of rationality, they 
must behave as if they knew all the probabilities and did all the appropriate 
calculations.

So economists assume that people do indeed use all publicly available 
information and know, or behave as if they knew, the probabilities of all 
conceivable future events. They are not influenced by anything but the facts, 
and probabilities are taken as facts. They update these probabilities as soon 
as new information becomes available, and so any change in their behavior must 
be attributable to their rational response to genuinely new information. And if 
economic actors are always rational, then no bubbles – irrational market 
responses – are allowed.

But abundant psychological evidence has now shown that people do not satisfy 
Savage’s axioms of rationality. This is the core element of the behavioral 
economics revolution that has begun to sweep economics over the last decade or 
so.In fact, people almost never know the probabilities of future economic 
events. They live in a world where economic decisions are fundamentally 
ambiguous, because the future doesn’t seem to be a mere repetition of a 
quantifiable past. For many people, it always seems that “this time is 
different.

”The work of Duke neuroscientists Scott Huettel and Michael Platt has shown, 
through functional magnetic resonance imaging experiments, that “decision 
making under ambiguity does not represent a special, more complex case of risky 
decision making; instead, these two forms of uncertainty are supported by 
distinct mechanisms.” In other words, different parts of the brain and 
emotional pathways are involved when ambiguity is present.

Mathematical economist Donald J. Brown and psychologist Laurie R. Santos, both 
of Yale, are running experiments with human subjects to try to understand how 
human tolerance for ambiguity in economic decision-making varies over time. 
They theorize that “bull markets are characterized by ambiguity-seeking 
behavior and bear markets by ambiguity-avoiding behavior.” These behaviors are 
aspects of changing confidence, which we are only just beginning to 
understand.To be sure, the purely rational theory remains useful for many 
things. It can be applied with care in areas where the consequences of 
violating Savage’s axiom are not too severe. Economists have also been right to 
apply his theory to a range of microeconomic issues, such as why monopolists 
set higher prices.

But the theory has been overextended. For example, the “Dynamic Stochastic 
General Equilibrium Model of the Euro Area,” developed by Frank Smets of the 
European Central Bank and Raf Wouters of the National Bank of Belgium, is very 
good at giving a precise list of external shocks that are presumed to drive the 
economy. But nowhere are bubbles modeled: the economy is assumed to do nothing 
more than respond in a completely rational way to these external shocks.

Milton Friedman (Savage’s mentor and co-author) and Anna J. Schwartz, in their 
1963 book A Monetary History of the United States , showed that monetary-policy 
anomalies – a prime example of an external shock – were a significant factor in 
the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Economists such as Barry Eichengreen, 
Jeffrey Sachs, and Ben Bernanke have helped us to understand that these 
anomalies were the result of individual central banks’ effort to stay on the 
gold standard, causing them to keep interest rates relatively high despite 
economic weakness.

To some, this revelation represented a culminating event for economic theory. 
The worst economic crisis of the twentieth century was explained – and a way to 
correct it suggested – with a theory that does not rely on bubbles.

Yet events like the Great Depression, as well as the recent crisis, will never 
be fully understood without understanding bubbles. The fact that 
monetary-policy mistakes were an important cause of the Great Depression does 
not mean that we completely understand that crisis, or that other crises 
(including the current one) fit that mold.In fact, the failure of economists’ 
models to forecast the current crisis will mark the beginning of their 
overhaul. This will happen as economists’ redirect their research efforts by 
listening to scientists with different expertise. Only then will monetary 
authorities gain a better understanding of when and how bubbles can derail an 
economy, and what can be done to prevent that outcome.

** Robert Shiller, Professor of Economics at Yale University and Chief 
Economist at MacroMarkets LLC, is co-author, with George Akerlof, of Animal 
Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why It Matters for Global 
Capitalism.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. 
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/shiller66 
Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT

------------------------------------

***************************************************************************
Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg 
Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________________
Mohon Perhatian:

1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Reading only, http://ppi-india.blogspot.com 
4. Satu email perhari: [email protected]
5. No-email/web only: [email protected]
6. kembali menerima email: [email protected]
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Kirim email ke