Regular readers will have run out of counting the number of times that I applaud Yves Smith and her amazing blog, Naked Capitalism. Not only is it a fantastic source of many stories of real public concern, her daily antidote du jour is often delightful. Here’s the one that came from her Blog posting of the 19th September.
Clarence and Cindy
Cattle dog Clarence plays with an alpaca named Cindy in “Alpaca Land” in Goeming, Austria. The two have lived together on the farm since they were 3 months old. Eighty-seven alpacas, the largest flock in Austria, live on the farm.
Many will know that Naked Capitalism is a wonderful Blog and what Yves does is truly amazing. (And a big ‘thank you’
Yves Smith
to Richard Smith who so ably stood in for Yves on her recent European trip.)
On the 29th July this year, Yves reran an article that she posted on May 11th, 2007. It’s spot on, in my opinion.
Here’s how Yves starts the Post:
I am beginning to suspect that many are reacting to the over-stimulation of the modern world – the accelerating pace of change, data overload, time pressure, work and relationship instability – by turning off their brains. The rise of fundamentalism and the “family values” push, both efforts to turn back the clock, is one set of responses.
Another is the rise of sound-biting, of using pithy communications to cut through the clutter of the daily information assault. But sound biting is inherently reductionist. It doesn’t permit nuanced argument, or pointing out fuzziness in data, or shades of grey. Sound bites are great for simple, emotional appeals, lousy for policy development (which is one reason why this country seems incapable of having an intelligent discussion on important topics like health care. The public has been trained out of having a long enough attention span to listen to alternatives).
That is so true. Just re-read the sentences, “But sound biting is inherently reductionist. It doesn’t permit nuanced argument, or pointing out fuzziness in data, or shades of grey.” (My italics.)
We live in such a complex world that reducing any important idea or concept to a headline or to an executive summary is, in its own way, significantly short on integrity.
That article from Yves concludes thus:
Most businesses operated in competitive environments far too complex for a terse phrase to be a useful guide to action. Yet a magic incantation, a talisman, a battle cry is terribly appealing. But those who can resist the temptation of relying on a simple playbook and face the complexity and uncertainty of their environment are likely to steer a better path. But understanding risk and adapting also demands far more courage that trusting simple ideas.
Ironically, if one reflects for a moment, that closing sentence is a pretty good executive summary! “…… understanding risk and adapting also demands far more courage that trusting simple ideas.”
Learning from Dogs muses the new book from Yves Smith
ECONned, by Yves Smith
In Econned, Yves Smith, founder of Naked Capitalism, argues that the economy was doing just fine in the regulated environment up to the 1970s. Then began the work of the Chicago economists who challenged Keynesian economics and touted the benefits of deregulation which eventually led to the financial crisis we have today.
Yves argument is internally consistent and well researched, but ignores some factors that I think would change the conclusions drawn from her work.
Yves Smith, author and founder of Naked Capitalism
First, Yves notes that the primary reason that economists are not useful to the real world is that economic research presumes equilibrium. Smith misses the point here, but it is understandable. It took me years of study and contemplation to fully appreciate that an equilibrium simply gives economists a point of reference, a common base, from which to study shocks and movements. In and of itself, equilibrium is not interesting or important. But movements to and from equilibrium are of real interest because they enable us to study and try to predict how individuals will react to incentives and changes in market conditions.
Second, we have to put the contributions of the Chicago economists of the 1970s into context. Up until that time, the only real school of thought in macroeconomics was based on Keynes, who presumed that markets fail and that the government must play an active and large role – primarily through government spending and taxes — for the economy to perform well. Keynes’ work was a reaction to the Great Depression.
Friedman’s monetarism also sought to explain the Great Depression, but focused on the role of monetary policy on the economy. This work showed that the missteps of the Federal Reserve was the primary cause of the depth and length of the Great Depression, and that long-term accommodative monetary policy causes inflation. This body of work did not stress deregulation, although it did lean more heavily on enabling private market solutions than on replacing them with government solutions. Neither theory is complete; Keynes focused on the short run (“In the long run, we are all dead” is a rather famous Keynes quip) and Monetarism focused on the long run.
There was a second large body of work that came out of the University of Chicago during the late 1960s and 1970s. This research documented the tremendous costs of regulation. I know this literature personally and believe that its conclusions are very sound: it shows that any effective regulation limits either the quantity or price of a good or service away from what it would have been without the regulation. In fact, in my view, it was the passage of regulations requiring certain lending behavior that set off the series of events that led to the crisis, which is the exact opposite argument from what Ms. Smith makes.
Will this prove to be an accurate analysis of what happened?
Regular readers of Learning from Dogs will know that Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism is held in high regard by this author. She was one of the authors mentioned in a recent Post titled Free Speech and then a little later on there was a Post from me specifically praising her.
Last Friday the US Business News Network, BNN, ran a piece which included Yves discussing her new book ECONNED.
Yves Smith - ECONNED
The reason for publishing this Post is that the video clip covering Yves contribution is a very clearly articulated account of how we got ourselves into this economic mess. For those like this author who don’t really understand many of the sophisticated economic terms used widely elsewhere, this was a refreshing ‘tutorial’.
Do watch it – Yves is brought in around 3 min 45 secs.
Yves’ Blog Naked Capitalism has been mentioned many times on Learning from Dogs. Indeed, she was one of the Blog authors highlighted recently in this Post.
Yves Smith
I fail to understand how she finds the hours in the day to write in such detail – but those of us interested in getting under the skin of our present economic situation are all the better for it. Here’s a great example that was published on the 23rd February. I quote the opening paragraphs and then link to the rest of her post. From here on is her piece:
———————–
Martin Wolf, the Financial Times’ highly respected chief economics editor, weighs in with a pretty pessimistic piece tonight. This makes for a companion to Peter Boone and Simon Johnson’s Doomsday cycle post from yesterday.
Now, after the implosion, we witness the extraordinary rescue efforts. So what happens next? We can identify two alternatives: success and failure.
By “success”, I mean reignition of the credit engine in high-income deficit countries. So private sector spending surges anew, fiscal deficits shrink and the economy appears to being going back to normal, at last. By “failure” I mean that the deleveraging continues, private spending fails to pick up with any real vigour and fiscal deficits remain far bigger, for far longer, than almost anybody now dares to imagine. This would be post-bubble Japan on a far wider scale.
Yves here. Notice he associates success and failure with polar options. But how can you “reignite the credit engine” when the financial system is undercapitalized even before allowing for the need to take further writedowns? The IMF has found the converse in its study of 124 banking crises, that purging bad debt is a painful but necessary precursor to growth. So I fail to understand how Wolf envisages that “skip Go, collect $200″ of releveraging quickly comes about. And in fact, it turns out that Wolf’s “success” is a straw man:
We are going through unprecedented troubled times and the way ahead looks very uncertain. The whole world could be participating in the ‘lost decade’ that Japan experienced previously.
But this article is not about doom and gloom! It is about recognising the commitment to open and honest reporting being undertaken by (at least) these three individuals. Three commentators that this author follows in admiration and awe.
Learning from Dogs has nothing like the following of James Kwak, Yves Smith and Karl Denninger but the LfD authors do have an inkling of the work involved in writing not one but often several articles each day. It is a huge commitment.
James Kwak
First James Kwak of Baseline Scenario. Simon Johnson is, perhaps, the more well-known of this duo that comprise Baseline Scenario but it is James that puts in the leg-work. Here’s a taste of a recent article from James:
Radio Stories
I spend a lot of time in the car driving to and from school, so I end up listening to a lot of podcasts (mainly This American Life, Radio Lab, Fresh Air, and Planet Money). I was catching up recently and wanted to point out a few highlights.
Last week on Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviewed Scott Patterson, author of The Quants, and Ed Thorp, mathematician, inventor of blackjack card counting (or, at least, the first person to publish his methods), and, according to the book, also the inventor of the market-neutral hedge fund.
Large chunk snipped ……
I finally got around to listening to Planet Money’s interview with Russ Roberts from December. Russ Roberts and I are pretty sure to disagree on almost any actual policy question. But what I liked about his interview was that he basically admitted that policy questions cannot be settled by looking at the empirical studies. On whether the minimum wage increases or decreases employment for example, he says that he can poke holes in the studies whose conclusions he doesn’t agree with, but other people can poke holes in the studies he agrees with. In Roberts’s view, people’s policy positions are determined by their prior normative commitments.
I don’t completely agree. I don’t think that these questions, like the one about the minimum wage, are inherently unanswerable in the sense that the answer does not exist. But I agree that empirical studies are unlikely to get to the truth, particularly on a politically charged question, because there are so many ways to fudge an empirical study. As one of my professors said, there are a million ways you can screw up a study, and only one way to do it right. But I agree with the general sentiment. We are living in an age of numbers, where people think that statistics can answer any question. Statistics can answer any question, but they can answer it in multiple ways depending on who is sitting at the keyboard.
Learning from Dogs 