Why did no one see it coming?

In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC 2007), the Queen of England asked academics at the London School of Economics why no one saw it coming. TcrisisGFChe US Congress constituted a committee to investigate the failure of economic theory to predict the crisis.  Unfortunately, economists remain unable to answer this critical question. Some say that crises are like earthquakes, impossible to forecast. Others take refuge behind technical aspects of complex mathematical models. With monotonous regularity, more than 200 monetary crises have occurred globally, ever since financial liberalization started in the 1980’s. the methodology currently in use in economics systematically blinds economists to the root causes of these crises. Many leading economists have called for radical changes to bring economic theory into closer contact with reality.

Many who had hoped that the  GFC would serve as a wake-up call for the profession have been extremely disappointed by subsequent developments. Although there has been a flurry of papers on various aspects of the crisis, there has been no fundamental re-thinking. Theories which assume free markets will create full employment and maximal growth, continue to be taught at  universities. The rational expectations theory of Eugene Fama says that the stock market prices always correctly reflect the information available to the market, and there is no possibility of a bubble – a systematic over-valuation of all stock market prices. Under the influence of this theory, Robert Shiller’s demonstration that the stock market prices were over-inflated went unheeded. Similarly, warnings by many Cassandras like Steve Keen, Raghuram Rajan, Dean Baker, Nouriel Roubini, were ridiculed and ignored by senior level policy makers infatuated with free market dogma.

The last nail in the coffin of the US Economy was driven in when the Glass-Steagall act was repealed in 1999. The Great Depression in 1929 had been caused by irresponsible speculation by banks. In 1933, the Glass-Steagall act prohibited banks from investing in stocks, in order to prevent recurrences of this disaster. This prevented system-wide banking crises for 50 years, until the era of financial de-regulation ushered in by Reagan & Thatcher. Repeal of the act, combined with a lax monetary policy, led to precisely what it was meant to prevent. Banks went on a wild orgy of credit creation, enabling stock purchases of trillions of dollars backed by defective mortgage based securities. Banking crises like this routinely happen when banks are not strictly regulated, since they gamble with the depositors’ money. Financial moguls have created and popularized the misconception that banks are the backbone of the financial system, and must be supported regardless of misdeeds. Thus big banks are routinely bailed out when they indulge in wild gambles. This incentivizes banks to speculate: if they win, it is their personal gain. If they lose, someone else pays.

Even though economists blinded by free market ideologies could not predict it, the global financial crisis was very predictable. Giving permission to banks to gamble with other people’s money led to a financial crisis within the short span of eight years. However, what was surprising and perhaps unpredictable was the aftermath. Instead of being tarred and feathered, Eugene Fama went on to win a Nobel Prize in Economics. Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas, who confidently asserted that economists have learned how to prevent recessions, continues to enjoy the respect of the profession. Ben Bernanke, who presided over the Federal Reserve during the Global Financial Crisis, is being lauded as a hero. He has written a self-congratulatory book entitled “The Courage to Act” in which he praises himself for taking the heroic actions necessary to save the world from the complete collapse of the financial system. As Princeton economists Atif Mian and Amir Sufi have shown in their celebrated book “The House of Debt”, these actions were wrong, and harmful to the economy. The trillion dollar bailout given to banks by Bernanke should have been given to the distressed homeowners with the defaulting mortgages. That would have been just, and would also have saved the economy from the Great Recession, by preventing the large scale transfer of wealth from the impoverished mortgagers to the rich and criminal bankers.

Not only do the faulty theories which led to the crisis continue to be taught to unsuspecting students all over the world, but all efforts to reform the defective system have been blocked. In the US Congress, proposals to bring back the highly successful regulatory system which was created after the Great Depression failed. A few bills which were passed were quietly repealed later. There have been large numbers of seminars and conferences on the need for a new regulatory framework to protect the global financial system, but no action has been taken to create effective new regulations. Thus the system is ripe for another crisis, and there are many signs that another one is on the way.

The reader might wonder, like the author, why there has been no learning from experience? The answer lies in the statistics recently published by Oxfam. The number of people who own half of the wealth of the planet shrank rapidly from 388 in 2010 to only 62 in 2015. The richest people benefit vastly from the financial crises which destroy the wealth of the middle class. This is because the middle class is forced to borrow at interest from those who have the money. This enables the already wealthy to get rich much faster than in normal times where people have enough money for their own needs. To top it all, current economic theories make no mention of debt as an important economic factor. These seriously defective theories are of vital importance in concealing the workings of the mechanism which creates this massive concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority. In subsequent articles we will explore the large number of ways in which current economic theory is defective, and the radical reforms needed to create a better economic theory for the twenty first century.

Advertisements
10 comments
  1. There were certain economists like Steve Keen and independently the Georgist School of Economics who were well aware of the inflation of land prices, and who knew that this bubble would burst about 2007. They warned and forecast what would happen and when it would happen, but most economists and their institutions were blind to these warnings. The land value cycle occurs every 18 years and so the next bust will be in 2025, unless of course, the Georgist policy of Land Value Taxation is formally introduced and has at least some significant effect.

  2. I also predicted the Crash and an ONGOING DEBT CRISIS in my world-famous animated feature, Money as Debt (2006)

    In the USA M2 is typically 4 times M1. M2 is TOTAL PRINCIPAL DEBT to BANKS.

    M1 is the only “money” even POSSIBLY AVAILABLE with which to make principal and interest payments.

    Thus the entire country is in the position of paying down a dollar of principal debt to banks with, at most, 25¢ available.

    Therefore, any slowdown in the rate of creation of new debt to banks will cause mathematically inevitable defaults.

    This irrefutable arithmetic is so EMBARRASSINGLY SIMPLE no economist, including the author of this article with whom I have had many email exchanges will admit it is TRUE.

    Here’s the explanation in under 2 1/2 minutes. Refute it if you can. ANYBODY!!!

    http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/MAD2016/economists_play.htm

  3. Alan said:

    …the Queen of England asked academics at the London School of Economics why no one saw it coming.

    Adam Smith, which is funny as Greenspan and company used him to justify deregulation. If they’d actual bothered to read the book they might have been disabused of their fantasy Smith.

    To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them, or to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.

  4. “This is because the middle class is forced to borrow at interest from those who have the money. ”

    Oh dear, you were doing so well.

    And the Queen is not merely the “Queen of England”, she is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (i.e. England, Wales, Scotland) and Northern Ireland, as well as numerous Commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

    • Alan. said:

      You are swimming in treacherous political waters! She’s Queen Elizabeth II of England. And usually she’s just referred to as the Queen or the Queen of England. She’s not Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland as there was no prior Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland. Also Scots, refer to monarchs as Queen or King of Scots, authority flowing upwards rather than downwards. This all stems from Bruce slaying the Red Comyn in 1306 and The Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. At the moment it seems fairly likely that at some point in the not to distant future Scotland will leave the UK and at some point thereafter may very well also jettison the monarchy.

  5. blocke said:

    Prediction is a silly business in economics. Better is to have a management capability that can deal well with the unexpected. So my question is what reforms of research and teaching and in the institutionalization of economics are necessary to turn it into a good management discipline?

  6. Anonymous said:

    “Unfortunately, economists remain unable to answer this critical question … current economic theories make no mention of debt as an important economic factor. ”

    This irrefutable arithmetic is so EMBARRASSINGLY SIMPLE no economist, including the author of this article with whom I have had many email exchanges will admit it is TRUE.

    Here’s the explanation in under 2 1/2 minutes. Refute it if you can. ANYBODY!!!

    http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/MAD2016/economists_play.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: