Monthly Archives: November 2013

The Trouble With Economics Is Economists

Interesante y polémica entrada de Krugman en su blog. Creo que también se entrelaza con aquel debate de Boldizzoni.

Enjoy!

krugman

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/the-trouble-with-economics-is-economists/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=0

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Joel Mokyr on Growth, Innovation, and Stagnation

Mokyr rejects the claims that the we are entering an area of stagnation or permanently lower economic growth. He argues that measured growth understates the impact on human welfare. Many of the most important discoveries are new products that are often poorly measured and not reflected in measures such as gross domestic product or income. The conversation closes with a discussion of the downsides of technology and why Mokyr remains optimistic about the future.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/11/joel_mokyr_on_g.html

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ford Foundation, Fama, computers, and the Nobel

From:  Macroeconomic Dynamics, 17, 2013, 1169–1192. MD DIALOGUE RATIONAL EXPECTATIONS: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT. A Panel Discussion with Michael Lovell, Robert Lucas, Dale Mortensen, Robert Shiller, and Neil Wallace Moderated by Kevin D. Hoover and Warren Young.

Young: Just to put rational expectations into a broader intellectual context, at approximately the same time as rational expectations was gaining traction so was the efficient-markets hypothesis in finance. Although formally related, the two
hypotheses seem to have different historical roots. Can you shed any light on how they were first connected? Do they stand or fall together?

Lucas: Merton Miller was on both thesis committees. He was on Jack’s committee at Carnegie Tech; and when he moved to Chicago, he was on Gene Fama’s [Eugene Fama’s] committee. So, I asked him that question once, and [he] said, “we didn’t see it.” He knew both theses, but he didn’t see that they were saying very similar things.
Shiller: I have a lot to say about this. I put on my reading list a wonderful description of the efficient-markets hypothesis—by Charles Conant, 1904. He has a beautiful essay about speculation and markets and the function of speculation and how all these speculators, trying to make profits, create a price, not just for today; they create a price for tomorrow and a price for next year and all relevant years in the futures markets. And, then, people who are planning have all these price indicators. It’s laid out very nicely around 1910. He didn’t call it the “efficientmarkets hypothesis”; but it was a little glib too. Anyway, he never got famous for it. He was, however, a great writer. So the efficient-markets hypothesis was well known from, I think, then on, if not before. And the next thing that happened, that seemed to me was a turning point, was that the Ford Foundation gave the University of Chicago a grant to create the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) tapes in 1960. And this is another breakthrough. They made an appeal to Ford about the importance to science of data; they got a large grant. They said that all the data is sitting there in the vaults of the stock exchange, but nobody knows what it means. And they said, “let’s create tapes”—a Univac computer tape (can you believe that?)—“and we’ll give it away at cost to anybody. This is public domain. And what we are going to do is to organize all these stock price data. And let’s get it clear, so we know the actual returns, the dividends, the timing, the dates. Let’s get it all accurately and get it on a Fortran program, so that anybody can analyze it.” That’s the big turning point. By 1970 we had Gene Fama publishing an impressive review article about a huge body of research about market efficiency. But all of that happened because now for the first time, because before then nobody ever had stock price data. (Conant was just writing from personal experience and logic.) There was a little bit of commodities data and there was random-walk talk in the twenties and thirties, but now in the 1960s we had all the data back to 1926. And it was analyzed, and the computers were working on it, and the results looked impressive. Basically, all these researchers couldn’t find any consistent profit opportunities. It was just amazing. Again, the uniformity of these results was overstated by Gene Fama; but there was a breakthrough here—a breakthrough of science, of computers, of someone getting the data organized, and getting it available.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Boldizzoni again

Hola, aprovecho a repostear un comentario de Manuel Bautista sobre un paper de Boldizzoni. Como se comentó por acá el libro de él, subo este comentario para fomentar el debate!

http://nephist.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/the-otherness-of-the-past-economic-history-and-policy-in-the-age-of-disenchantment/

 

abrazo grande, 

seba 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Si vos decís Dani…

“Los verdaderos héroes de la economía mundial -los modelos de rol que otros deberían emular- son los países a los que les ha ido relativamente bien con desequilibrios externos menores. Países como Austria, Canadá, Filipinas, Lesoto y Uruguay no pueden igualar a los líderes del crecimiento mundial, porque no se endeudan en exceso ni sostienen un modelo económico mercantilista. Sus economías no tienen nada de especial y no ganan muchos titulares. Pero sin ellos, la economía global sería aún menos manejable de lo que ya es hoy.”

http://www.uypress.net/uc_46229_1.html

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized