Tyler Cowen’s got more of his Macroeconomics series up. It’s nothing like as bad as the monetary economics post that I objected to yesterday. Part Three on fiscal policy is OK ..ish. I don’t agree with him on Keynes, and think his comments on deficits and interest rates are naïve (I include by citation Brad Delong posts on this subject passim ad nauseam), but I can see how others would class my disagreements with it as probably political rather than technical. And Four on open economy macroeconomics is actually quite good, although the omission of any discussion of optimal currency areas is a bit of a lacuna. Part 2 has one very serious error, but in being bad, it is actually good, because it’s clued me into what went wrong in the train wreck which was Part One.
First, the really, really serious mistake (I think that he’s misunderstood Paul Krugman’s views on Japan in this addendum, but it’s probably arguable either way). In part 2, however, he makes the following argument in relation to the predictability of business cycles:
”[…] Most modern business cycles are simply bad luck. You can spend your whole life trying to divine the relevant patterns, but you are very likely to fail, no matter how smart you are.Many macroeconomists argue that the “time series” of most variables is statistically indistinguishable from a random walk […]”
He then links to this working paper, which to me shows that he has massively misunderstood the literature on this subject.
The point is that when econometricians talk about a “random walk” in GDP, they do not mean anything like the same thing as financial economists do when they talk about stock prices being a “random walk”. The random walk debate in econometrics is the debate over whether GDP and similar series have a particular statistical property that shocks have a permanent effect (rather than dissipating over time as the series goes back toward a long term trend). It’s also known as the “unit root” debate, because it can be framed as a question about whether the equations which make up a model of GDP have roots which lie outside the unit circle (or something; it’s ‘king ages since I did this and memory is hazy). In any case, GDP being a “random walk” in this sense is not at all the same thing as being unpredictable or the same thing as saying that the business cycle is impossible to model; it’s just a matter of whether time series of interest have the Markov property or not. It’s a loose usage of “random walk” to refer to something which isn’t random, which is why some people prefer to say “unit root”.
Anyway, enough of that. At the end of the comment, Tyler recommends his own book “Risk and Business Cycles”. I dug up a few reviews of it (this one in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics is quite good), and it seems clear to me what the problem is. Basically, Tyler’s got a view of the macroeconomy not too dissimilar from my own.
Both Tyler and myself are quite a long way outside the mainstream of neoclassical economics. He’s basically an Austrian, I’m a Post-Keynesian. And in fact, Tyler’s particular brand of “New” Austrianism is very close to Post-Keynesianism indeed. Specifically, he rejects the key Austrian premis that recessions and malinvestments are always caused by gaps between the “natural” and”money” rates of interest opening up (as a result of Big Bad Government, natch), encouraging investors to make mistakes about the time-preferences of consumers and invest in production technologies with the wrong returns period. Tyler takes from rational expectations macroeconomics the idea that it doesn’t make sense to assume that policy-makers can systematically fool the rest of the economy, and from modern portfolio theory and financial economics, the idea that one of the real determinants of investment is the equity risk premium (a concept I discussed here). It’s a “Risk-based Business Cycle” theory in which the business cycle is driven in an Austrian manner by cycles of malinvestment and liquidation, but these cycles do not have a monetary origin. To cut a long story short, his model of the business cycle is one which is more or less entirely driven by animal spirits on the part of entrepreneurs. That’s why he thinks that all these monetary factors are irrelevant.
It all makes sense now. Or at least it doesn’t but it fits into place a lot better. The problem is that some people are good at translating their ideas for the layman (like Paul Krugman) and some aren’t. Tyler’s made what I consider to be a big mistake; he’s decided that he wants to put over his view of the macroeconomy, but he doesn’t want to get bogged down in thousand word explanations of the minutiae of why he doesn’t believe in monetary theories of the business cycle (contrast my own approach to similar questions in the posts I’ve linked in this discussion; I love getting bogged down in these discussions), so he ends up trying to have a fast way with mainstream theory, and in my opinion oversimplifies mightily.
So it’s basically the fault of Volokh for using software (unlike our own Movable Type) which doesn’t allow extended posts. A long Tyler Cowen post on monetary economics might be really good, but it would make the rest of the Volokh conspiracy more or less impossible to read. And the dumbed-down short one … ends up being pretty bad. So I apologise for any negative impression I might have given about Tyler Cowen as an economist, while standing by substantially all of my comments, including the harsh ones, about the actual piece from yesterday. So the Volokh heavy mob can stop sending Crooked Timber those death threats now, please.
Just in case anyone thinks I’m more of a ponce than I actually am, I’d like to point out that Movable Type automatically puts that umlaut over the “i” of “naive”, and there is no sense in which I pored over Unicode tables for hours just in order to be pretentious. I realise it’s the sort of thing I’m quite likely to do, but I didn’t in fact do it.
Ponce.
But seriously good job explaining neoAustrianism to a layman like myself.
However, you didn’t explain precisely how you are a Post-Keynesian or what in bloody hell a Post-Keynesian is and why it is in anyway similar to (but profoundly different from) a neoAustrian.
P.S.
If you ever do a post on free trade, there are a few questions on the Ricardian model of comparative advantage I’d like to ask you.
Hmmmm … I’ll try and explain post-Keynesianism one day, but it’s considerably easier to slag off someone else’s views than to say what you believe yourself, and that’s why I do it.
I’ve never really been able to work out what I believe about free trade. Sawicky’s your man.
Look, why not just point to the major error -
Random walks do not mean unpredictable, they mean that the future depends only on the present and not the past.
I now completely understand why I am an attorney and not an economist. There briefly was some dawning of understanding but I went and looked at a Keynesian table that was supposed to explain away all of my confusion and it just added to it.
I’m now worried because I no longer understand the difference between post-Keynesianism and post-Austrianism…
And if you are not a ponce, why doesn’t my movable type installation put an umlaut over the i?
Nobody really understands post-Keynesianism except Barkley Rosser and he ain’t telling …
Either you’re not a ponce, or my browser is broken, ‘cause I don’t see the umlaut. But if Brad DeLong can’t understand the difference between post-Keynesianism and post-Autrianism, we’ve got bigger problems.
hi
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review