Tag: efficient capital markets

Whilst some economists predicted the banking crisis of 2007/8 and the subsequent global recession, many did not. Was this a failure of macroeconomics, or at least of certain macroeconomic schools of thought, such as New Classical economics? Or was it a failure to apply the subject with sufficient wisdom? Should the subject be radically rethought, or can it simply be amended to take into account aspects of behavioural economics and a better understanding of systemic risk?

The four linked articles below from The Economist look at the debate and at the whole state of macroeconomics. The other articles pick up some of the issues.

Will the ‘crisis in macroeconomics’ lead to a stronger subject, more able to explain economies in crisis and not just when they are working well? Will a new consensus emerge or will economists remain divided, not only about the correct analysis of how economies work at a macro level, but also about how to tackle crises such as the present recession?

What went wrong with economics The Economist (16/7/09)
The other-worldly philosophers The Economist (16/7/09)
Efficiency and beyond The Economist (16/7/09)
In defence of the dismal science The Economist (6/8/09)
How to rebuild a shamed subject Financial Times (5/8/09)
What is the point of economists? Financial Times – Arena (28/7/09)
Macroeconomic Models Wall Street Pit (23/7/09)
Macroeconomics: Economics is in crisis – it is time for a profound revamp Business Day (27/7/09)

Questions

  1. Distinguish between ‘freshwater’, ‘saltwater’ and ‘brackish’ macroeconomics.
  2. Explain why economists differ over the efficacy of fiscal policy in times of recession. To what extent does the debate hinge on the size of the multiplier?
  3. Why is the potential for macroeconomics higher now than prior to the recession?
  4. What is meant by the ‘efficient market hypothesis’? How did inefficiencies in financial markets contribute to the banking crisis and recession?
  5. Should economists predict the future, or should they confine themselves to explaining the present and past?

When anyone buys assets – shares, a house, a car or whatever – one important consideration is their likely future value. But the future is uncertain. Your decision to buy, therefore, depends not just on the direct return of the asset (the rate of interest or the pleasure from using the asset) but also on your predictions about the future value of the asset and your attitudes to risk. But with the future of markets so uncertain, or at least the timing of market movements, what’s the best thing to do? The article below considers some of the issues.

The irrelevant future Investors Chronicle (6/4/09)

Questions

  1. Distinguish between ‘risk’ and ‘uncertainty’.
  2. What is meant by a ‘bear’ in the context of investing in shares? Explain why ‘intelligent bears’ would ‘leave some money in the market’.
  3. Faced with uncertainty, why might sticking to a simple ‘do nothing’ rule be the best policy?
  4. If capital markets were efficient in the strongest sense, where everyone has perfect information about the future, would people be able to make large returns on investing in shares and other assets?

The economist Joseph Stiglitz won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2001. Along with George Akerlof and Michael Spence, he worked out a theory of information asymmetry: a situation where both parties in a transaction have different levels of information. Could this theory have some relevance as an explanation of the current financial crisis?

In praise of …..Joseph Stiglitz Guardian (8/10/08)
Stiglitz lecture on financial crisis available online University of Manchester (13/10/08)

Questions

1. Explain what is meant by information asymmetry.
2. Explain how information asymmetry can lead to markets working imperfectly.
3. Discuss the extent to which the theory of information asymmetry may be relevant as a partial determinant of the current financial crisis.