From Keynesianism to Neoliberalism: Shifting Paradigms in Economics

For the laste 25 years, economic policy and the public´s thinking have been dominated by a conservative economic policy known as neoliberalism.

(...) Two critical tenets of neoliberalism are its theory of income distribution and its theory of aggregate employment determination. (...) In a sense, the American neo-Keynesian position was implicitly a forerunner of today´s neoliberal laber market flexibility agenda.

Lea todo el artículo de divulgación de Thomas Palley aquí

La visión de un "biólogo dialéctico" *

"Hacer ciencia, le guste o no a uno, es convertirse en un actor social comprometido en la actividad política. El negar la interdependencia de lo científico y social es, en sí mismo, un acto político, dando apoyo a estructuras sociales que se esconden detrás de la objetividad científica para perpetuar la dependencia, explotación, racismo, elitismo, colonialismo (... ) Los científicos, sean conscientes o no, siempre toman partido".

Lea todo este interesante ensayo de Concepción Cruz y Segio Almisas publicado en Rebelión aquí

* La nota fue enviada por el Dr. Alejandro Valle, a quien agradecemos su valiosa aportación

Teorías elegantes que jamás funcionaron

Paul Samuelson, el más conocido de los economistas norteamericanos, falleció este pasado domingo. Fue el primer galardonado con el Premio Nobel de Economía (establecido en 1970, el año anterior, por el Banco de Suecia “en honor de Alfred Nobel”). Dicho galardón provocó esta mordaz crítica publicada por Michael Hudson el 18 de diciembre de 1970 en Commonweal. El artículo se titulaba “¿Merece la economía el Premio Nobel? (Y a propósito, ¿se lo merece Samuelson?)”.

Ya resulta bastante lamentable que el campo de la psicología haya constituido durante tanto tiempo una ciencia no social, al observar las fuerzas motivadoras de la personalidad como algo que se deriva de la experiencia psíquica interna y no, en cambio, de la interacción personal con el entorno social. Algo parecido sucede en el campo de la economía: desde su revolución "utilitarista" hará cosa de un siglo, esta disciplina ha abandonado también su análisis del mundo objetivo y sus relaciones políticas, económico-productivas, en favor de normas más introvertidas, utilitarias y orientadas hacia el bienestar social. Las especulaciones morales relativas a lo psíquico matemático han venido a desplazar a la ciencia otrora social de la economía política.

En buena medida, la revuelta de esta disciplina contra la economía política clásica británica era una reacción contra el marxismo, que representaba la culminación lógica de la economía clásica ricardiana y su énfasis primordial en las condiciones de producción. Tras la contrarrevolución, la fuerza motivadora del comportamiento económico vino a considerarse como algo que proviene de las necesidades humanas antes que de sus capacidades productivas, la organización de la producción y las relaciones sociales que se siguen de ello. Para el periodo de postguerra, la revolución anticlásica (curiosamente denominada neoclásica por sus participantes) había ganado la batalla. Su más importante libro de texto para el adoctrinamiento fue Economics de Paul Samuelson.

Hoy en día prácticamente todos los economistas reconocidos son producto de esta revolución anticlásica, que yo mismo me siento tentado a llamar revolución contra el análisis económico per se. Los profesionales reconocidos de la economía descuidan de modo uniforme las condiciones sociales previas y las consecuencias de la actividad económica humana. En esto reside su deficiencia, así como la del Premio de Economía recientemente instituido y otorgado por la Academia Sueca: durante la próxima década por lo menos debe seguir siendo por fuerza un premio para lo que no es economía o para la economía superficial en el mejor de los casos. ¿Debería por tanto concederse en algún caso?

Lea completo "Teorías elegantes que jamás funcionaron:El problema de Paul Samuelson" por Michael Hudson publicado en CounterPunch y en Rebelión

Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble To Invest In*

A panel of top business leaders testified before the Congress about the worsening recession Monday, demanding the government provide Americans with a new irresponsible and largely illusiory economic bubble in which to invest.

"What America needs right now is not more talk and long-term strategy, but a concrete way to create more imaginary wealth in the very immediate future" (...) "We are in a crisis, and that crisis demands an unviable short-term solution".

"(...) The manner of the bubble isn´t important-just as long as it creates a hugely overvalued market based on nothing more than whimsical fantasy and saddled with the potential for a long-term accrual of debts that will never be paid back, thereby unleashing a ripple effect that will take nearly a decade to correct".

(...) "The US economy cannot survive on sound investment alone".

(...) "America needs another bubble" (...) "At this point, bubbles are the only thing keeping us afloat".

Lea todo este divetido ensayo de la revista satírica The Onion aquí

* Muchas gracias a Ulises quien me envió la entrada.

How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? *

(...) What happened to the economics profession? And where does it go from here?

As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth. Until the Grat Depression, most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn’t sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets, this time gussied up with fancy equations. The renewed romance with the idealized market was, to be sure, partly a response to shifting political winds, partly a response to financial incentives. But while sabbaticals at the Hoover Institution and job opportunities on Wall Street are nothing to sneeze at, the central cause of the profession’s failure was the desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that also gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess.

Unfortunately, this romanticized and sanitized vision of the economy led most economists to ignore all the things that can go wrong. They turned a blind eye to the limitations of human rationality that often lead to bubbles and busts; to the problems of institutions that run amok; to the imperfections of markets — especially financial markets — that can cause the economy’s operating system to undergo sudden, unpredictable crashes; and to the dangers created when regulators don’t believe in regulation.

It’s much harder to say where the economics profession goes from here. But what’s almost certain is that economists will have to learn to live with messiness. That is, they will have to acknowledge the importance of irrational and often unpredictable behavior, face up to the often idiosyncratic imperfections of markets and accept that an elegant economic “theory of everything” is a long way off. In practical terms, this will translate into more cautious policy advice — and a reduced willingness to dismantle economic safeguards in the faith that markets will solve all problems.

(...) In recent, rueful economics discussions, an all-purpose punch line has become “nobody could have predicted. . . .” It’s what you say with regard to disasters that could have been predicted, should have been predicted and actually were predicted by a few economists who were scoffed at for their pains.

Take, for example, the precipitous rise and fall of housing prices. Some economists, notably Robert Shiller, did identify the bubble and warn of painful consequences if it were to burst. Yet key policy makers failed to see the obvious. In 2004, Alan Greenspan dismissed talk of a housing bubble: “a national severe price distortion,” he declared, was “most unlikely.” Home-price increases, Ben Bernanke said in 2005, “largely reflect strong economic fundamentals.”

How did they miss the bubble? To be fair, interest rates were unusually low, possibly explaining part of the price rise. It may be that Greenspan and Bernanke also wanted to celebrate the Fed’s success in pulling the economy out of the 2001 recession; conceding that much of that success rested on the creation of a monstrous bubble would have placed a damper on the festivities.

But there was something else going on: a general belief that bubbles just don’t happen. What’s striking, when you reread Greenspan’s assurances, is that they weren’t based on evidence — they were based on the a priori assertion that there simply can’t be a bubble in housing. And the finance theorists were even more adamant on this point. In a 2007 interview, Eugene Fama, the father of the efficient-market hypothesis, declared that “the word ‘bubble’ drives me nuts,” and went on to explain why we can trust the housing market: “Housing markets are less liquid, but people are very careful when they buy houses. It’s typically the biggest investment they’re going to make, so they look around very carefully and they compare prices. The bidding process is very detailed.”

(...) So here’s what I think economists have to do...

(...) Many economists will find these changes deeply disturbing. It will be a long time, if ever, before the new, more realistic approaches to finance and macroeconomics offer the same kind of clarity, completeness and sheer beauty that characterizes the full neoclassical approach. To some economists that will be a reason to cling to neoclassicism, despite its utter failure to make sense of the greatest economic crisis in three generations. This seems, however, like a good time to recall the words of H. L. Mencken: “There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible and wrong.”

When it comes to the all-too-human problem of recessions and depressions, economists need to abandon the neat but wrong solution of assuming that everyone is rational and markets work perfectly. The vision that emerges as the profession rethinks its foundations may not be all that clear; it certainly won’t be neat; but we can hope that it will have the virtue of being at least partly right.

Lea todo el escrito de Paul Krugman del 6 de septiembre del 2006 en el New York Times aquí

* Enviado por el Dr. Alejandro Valle, a quien agradecemos su valiosa aportación.

Is Marxism Relevant Today?*

En esta conferencia Duncan Foley, David Harvey y Prabhat Patnaik discuten sobre si el marxismo es relevante para explicar la economía actual.

*La entrada fue enviada por el Dr. Alejandro Valle, a quien agradecemos su valiosa aportación.

Why capitalism fails; the man who saw the meltdown coming had another troubling insight: it will happen again

Since the global financial system started unraveling in dramatic fashion two years ago, distinguished economists have suffered a crisis of their own. Ivy League professors who had trumpeted the dawn of a new era of stability have scrambled to explain how, exactly, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression had ambushed their entire profession.

Amid the hand-wringing and the self-flagellation, a few more cerebral commentators started to speak about the arrival of a “Minsky moment,” and a growing number of insiders began to warn of a coming “Minsky meltdown.”

“Minsky” was shorthand for Hyman Minsky, a hitherto obscure macroeconomist who died over a decade ago. Many economists had never heard of him when the crisis struck, and he remains a shadowy figure in the profession. But lately he has begun emerging as perhaps the most prescient big-picture thinker about what, exactly, we are going through. A contrarian amid the conformity of postwar America, an expert in the then-unfashionable subfields of finance and crisis, Minsky was one economist who saw what was coming. He predicted, decades ago, almost exactly the kind of meltdown that recently hammered the global economy.

Lea todo el ensayo de Stephen Mihm en la página del Levy Institute aquí