Monday, September 21, 2009

As I read the debate over the stimulus...

...I can't help but think of George Akerlof's AEA Presidential Address. The conclusion:


This lecture has shown that the early Keynesians got a great deal of the working of the economic system right in ways that are denied by the five neutralities. As quoted from Keynes earlier, they based their models on “our knowledge of human nature and from the detailed facts of experience.” They used their intuitions regarding the norms of how consumers, investors, and wage and price setters thought they should behave. There is systematic reason why such knowledge and experience is likely to be accurate: by their nature norms are generated and known by a whole community. They are known to those who abide by them, and those who observe them as well.

We have shown ways in which macroeconomic variables will be affected by norms. The neutralities say that consumption should have no special dependence on current income; investment should be independent of current cash flow; wages and prices should not depend on nominal considerations. The very construction of those neutralities denies the possibility that peoples’ decisions might be influenced by their views regarding how they, and how others, should behave. However, in practice, the neutralities are systematically violated. Insofar as economists have felt it necessary to explain these violations they have appealed to a variety of different frictions, such as myopia and credit constraint. In so doing they have failed to consider that those violations would occur even in the absence of those frictions: they will occur because of decision-makers’ norms.

The incorporation of norms based on careful observation imparts an appropriate balance to macroeconomics. The New Classical research program was correct in viewing models of the early Keynesians as too primitive. They had not been sufficiently attentive to the role of human intent in choices regarding consumption, investment, wages and prices. But that research program itself has failed to appreciate the extent to which the Keynesians’ views of macroeconomics were also reflective of reality, since they were based on experience and observation.

A macroeconomics with norms in decision makers’ objective functions combines the best features of the two approaches. It allows for observations regarding how people think they should behave. It also takes due account of the purposefulness of human decisions.

As I have said in past posts, I am not a macroeconomist. Part of the reason for this, I think, is that Charles Manski has an enormous influence over how I think about economic issues, and so I worry about the reflection problem and identification. When I see Chicago-style macro-analysis, I see reflection problems and identification issues everywhere. I also see excuses ("it's all about frictions") when totemic hypotheses are tested against data, and fail. And when I see Chicago macroeconomists defending themselves now, the argument takes the form of "all reputable economics agree," which to me sounds very much like "every one I agree with agrees with me."

Keynes' analysis had a richness that is missing from much modern macro, and let's face it, he probably made the most spot-on macroeconomic forecast of the 20th Century.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,

I’ve been looking through your blog over the past few days and I found your blog http://real-estate-and-urban.blogspot.com/ to be very informative.

I was able to find everything I need from real estate to accident information from links in this site as well as by following external links from this blog.

I can see you have a list of real estate sites useful both for your users as well as end users who visit http://real-estate-and-urban.blogspot.com/ I have a site related to real estate with useful information to our visitors.

URL: http://www.realestatewebprofits.com/

It would be great, if you could spare a few minutes visiting my site. If you find my site to be informative, it would be nice if you could provide us a link.

It would be great pleasure if you can add this link http://www.realestatewebprofits.com/ in your blog http://real-estate-and-urban.blogspot.com/ so that it can benefit our visitors.

Thanks for your help and consideration,

Anonymous said...

Hello Richard

I have a real estate site. Will you add my site in your list. Real Estate Investments

Hope you would add and reply me.

Robert Bell said...

Interesting post. The use of social norms seem like a much more sensible approach to explaining, for example, the "ultimatum game", and other departures from simple profit maximization.

Anonymous said...

網路行銷
“美”是主觀的,因此在規劃系統傢俱設計前最重要的就是消費者與室內設計師之間的溝通,消費者以生活使用需求以及喜好提供訊息而室內設計師端則以專業經歷、人體工學、色彩運用…等整合全部資訊作為規劃的主體原則,如此的成果才能符合實際。

系統傢俱在市場上已運用許久,且早已經跳脫出早期的單元櫃,取而代之的不單只是優質的環保建材,更涵蓋整體的設計感都能契合消費者的需求。當然也可以運用巧思再增添實用及樂趣,以下由實際的個案為您打開系統傢俱的新視野。

1.顏色搭配

系統傢俱顏色確實是十分主觀的印象,但是顏色卻能清楚傳達直覺的感受,因此如何搭配顏色也是系統傢俱很重要的一環,且運用於不同的功能的空間都需要以室內設計顏色來突顯特色。

★下方運用深色黑鐵刀木紋,左右為霧銀色以及上方白色結晶鋼烤亮面門板的混搭室內設計,踢腳板以淺色楓木洗白木纹並內縮1/3減少碰撞。

★運用淺黃色、蘋果綠、澄紅色三色混搭出老少咸宜的鮮豔色彩,也增添系統傢俱空間的明亮程度以及活潑性。

2.比例原則

系統傢俱中櫥櫃設計的美觀除了顏色之外在長寬比例與對稱等分,則是直覺上最容易呈現的感覺;所謂長寬比例所指的是由正面觀看的高度與寬度比利,對稱等分則是連續銜接的櫥櫃掌握同等寬度的原則,上述兩項原則並不會使櫥櫃失去活潑與設計感,反而更能提升系統傢俱櫥櫃整體性。

★衣櫃門片尺寸以總長等分的規劃方式。

★左右對稱的高櫃以及下方矮櫃左右兩邊大小對稱的等分原則,當然上方高櫃亦可選用單邊也是系統傢俱不錯的選擇。

★採用比例對稱並不一定是一成不變的造型,間隔對稱呈現另ㄧ種不同的風貌。SEO

Anonymous said...

Keynes warned that citizens must be inclined to buy capital goods with their savings for the economy to prosper. McMansions won't work.