Sette Miti. Anzi, no: sette confusioni. (II)

3 commenti (espandi tutti)

Anche Eugene Fama si è espresso contro il "fiscal stimulus"... e DeLong ha cominciato a farlo a pezzi (tirando in mezzo anche Mankiw):

part1     part2     part3     part4     part 5    (...and counting?)



Beh, forse noi potremmo fare a pezzi DeLong, no? [Battuta cattiva omessa]

Chi comincia? Io oggi ho da fare.

Krugman weighs in... con MOLTA retorica:


A Dark Age of macroeconomics (wonkish)


Brad DeLong is upset about the stuff coming out of Chicago these days — and understandably so. First Eugene Fama, now John Cochrane, have made the claim that debt-financed government spending necessarily crowds out an equal amount of private spending, even if the economy is depressed — and they claim this not as an empirical result, not as the prediction of some model, but as the ineluctable implication of an accounting identity.


Now, you don’t have to accept this model as a picture of how the world works. But you do have to accept that it shows the fallacy of arguing that the savings-investment identity proves anything about the effectiveness of fiscal policy.

So how is it possible that distinguished professors believe otherwise?

The answer, I think, is that we’re living in a Dark Age of macroeconomics. Remember, what defined the Dark Ages wasn’t the fact that they were primitive — the Bronze Age was primitive, too. What made the Dark Ages dark was the fact that so much knowledge had been lost, that so much known to the Greeks and Romans had been forgotten by the barbarian kingdoms that followed.

And that’s what seems to have happened to macroeconomics in much of the economics profession.