My paper in the Review of Keynesian Economics is out. It is a special issue on the relevance of the General Theory 80 years after its publication. My paper is about the New Classical Counter Revolution (NCCR). At first this may seem an odd fit, but I think quite the opposite. If we go back 40 years, macroeconomics as it was then practiced could be justifiably described as being a development of that great work. In contrast students today would not see the General Theory as the foundation of macroeconomics. The change in view is the result of the NCCR.
I also think that many heterodox economists, who tend to read this journal, have failed to come to terms with the NCCR. They are critical of course, but often they fail to address the obvious question: why was the NCCR so successful? Revolutions may be plotted by a small number of individuals to whom you can ascribe (fairly or unfairly) ideological motives, but you also need to account for why the revolution succeeds. Do heterodox economists think that generations of PhD students who continue to ignore their arguments are being forced to do so against their will?Mainly Macro
My paper is in part an attempt to begin to answer this question.…
Whatever happened to the General Theory
Simon Wren-Lewis | Professor of Economics, Oxford University
Morons.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecb-praet-idUSKBN0UK0T820160106
"Executive Board member Peter Praet said various factors, notably low oil prices and less buoyant emerging economies, meant it was taking longer to reach the goal of inflation of close to but below 2 percent. “We need to be attentive that this shifting horizon does not damage the credibility of the ECB,” he added. “There is no plan B, there is just one plan. The ECB is ready to take all measures necessary to bring inflation up to 2 percent. If you print enough money, you get inflation. Always. If, as is happening now, the prices of oil and commodities are tumbling, then it’s more difficult to drive up inflation,” he said."
"The European Central Bank's money-printing plan has so far failed to drive up inflation but the bank does not have an alternative "plan B", ECB Executive Board member Peter Praet said in a magazine interview published on Wednesday.
Praet said he remained confident that the stimulus would drive up inflation however, adding: "If you print enough money, you always get inflation. Always.""
""I accept that our policy has not yet been successful: inflation in Europe has for a long time been at a very low level of almost zero," Praet, the ECB's chief economist, told Belgian weekly magazine Knack."
""We need to be attentive that this shifting horizon does not damage the credibility of the ECB," he added."
No complaint's about SWL's economic analysis but can't agree with his political analysis.
ReplyDeleteAcademia does not drive economic policy. Never has, never will. Huey Long was demonstrating Keynesian economics in the 1920's before John Maynard had published his GT. High school dropout Marinner Eccles was pushing Keynesian economics before anyone on this side of the pond had heard of Keynes. The politics comes first, then the academics jump in and pretend they invented it.
Uncle Milt's Chicago School of Economics was funded by the Rockefellers. Jimmy Carter's election campaign was funded by the Trilateral Commission, in turn funded by David Rockefeller. But no billionaire ever funded an Abba Lerner "Free To Spend" TV series.
OT but while researching funding of economic research I came up empty on who funds the National Bureau of Economic Research? It's listed as a private non-profit so I assume it's funded by the 1% but I could not find a list of donors, nothing on the NBER website? It's a valid question related to SWL's discussion of who initiates changes in economic theory.
And the Lars smackdown
ReplyDeleteMore circle jerking.
ReplyDelete