I think Kaletsky's attack might have more import if he hadn't been persistently insisting for the last 12 months that there was nothing to worry about and that the crisis was nearly over. It also might have had more import if he hadn't been writing this sort of garbage for years.I don't doubt that he's broadly right here, but it's just another exercise in squirming.
Thanks for the comments. I cannot provide detailed comments on Australian pundits.
Willem Buiter's The unfortunate uselessness of most ’state of the art’ academic monetary economics, from yesterday's Financial Times commentator weblogs, is pretty sharply barbed.The lede gives a taste: The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England I was privileged to be a ‘founder’ external member of during the years 1997-2000 contained, like its successor vintages of external and executive members, quite a strong representation of academic economists and other professional economists with serious technical training and backgrounds. This turned out to be a severe handicap when the central bank had to switch gears and change from being an inflation-targeting central bank under conditions of orderly financial markets to a financial stability-oriented central bank under conditions of widespread market illiquidity and funding illiquidity. Indeed, the typical graduate macroeconomics and monetary economics training received at Anglo-American universities during the past 30 years or so, may have set back by decades serious investigations of aggregate economic behaviour and economic policy-relevant understanding. It was a privately and socially costly waste of time and other resources.
Thanks for the link, Charles. It seems to me Buiter is recommending something like Post Keynesianism. Of course, somebody like George Akerlof could say this is a recommendation for his approach to macroeconomics too.
Post a Comment