It’s Hard Being a Bear (Part Two)

Flattr this!

One of the rea­sons I’m still a bear on the econ­o­my is because the econ­o­mists in the opti­mists camp are rely­ing upon very bad eco­nom­ic the­o­ry. If that the­o­ry is telling them good times are ahead, that’s one of the best pre­dic­tors of bad times you could have.

This isn’t because the opti­mists are bad econ­o­mists, bad peo­ple, or any oth­er per­mu­ta­tion: most econ­o­mists I know are good at what they do, and are very well inten­tioned too.

It’s just that they were taught a crock of non­sense at uni­ver­si­ty, and they now build mod­els based on a crock of non­sense that they erro­neous­ly believe to be accu­rate descrip­tions of the real world.

There are so many bits of non­sense in eco­nom­ic the­o­ry that it would take a book to detail them all, but com­mon to many of them is the fol­low­ing dilem­ma:

Almost every­thing econ­o­mists believe is pos­si­bly true at the lev­el of an iso­lat­ed indi­vid­ual, but almost cer­tain­ly false at the lev­el of an econ­o­my.

The most egre­gious exam­ple of this is one the­o­ry that even most econ­o­mists are now will­ing to admit is false: the “Cap­i­tal Assets Pric­ing Mod­el”, which preached that stock mar­ket price shares accu­rate­ly, that the amount of debt finance a com­pa­ny has doesn’t affect its val­ue, and many oth­er notions that have gone up in smoke dur­ing the GFC.

The CAPM is actu­al­ly derived from a mod­el of the behav­iour of an iso­lat­ed stock mar­ket investor. The investor has expec­ta­tions about how all the shares in the mar­ket are going to per­form in the future, and the abil­i­ty to lend or bor­row mon­ey at a “risk free” rate. She then com­bines a port­fo­lio of shares that gives her the best risk-return trade­off with this risk-free asset—borrowing mon­ey to lever her invest­ment in the mar­ket if she’s a “risk-seek­er”, and lend­ing mon­ey if she’s con­ser­v­a­tive.

William Sharpe, the devel­op­er of the mod­el, was then stuck with a dilem­ma: how to go from a mod­el of a sin­gle, iso­lat­ed investor, to one of the entire stock mar­ket? He did what so many neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists before him had done: he “assumed a mir­a­cle”. To quote Sharpe:

In order to derive con­di­tions for equi­lib­ri­um in the cap­i­tal mar­ket we invoke two assump­tions:

First, we assume a com­mon pure rate of inter­est, with all investors able to bor­row or lend funds on equal terms.

Sec­ond, we assume homo­gene­ity of investor expec­ta­tions: investors are assumed to agree on the prospects of var­i­ous investments—the expect­ed val­ues, stan­dard devi­a­tions and cor­re­la­tion coef­fi­cients.

Need­less to say, these are high­ly restric­tive and undoubt­ed­ly unre­al­is­tic assump­tions… (Sharpe 1964, pp. 433–434)”

Sharpe thus went from a fea­si­ble the­o­ry of a sin­gle investor to a ludi­crous the­o­ry of the entire mar­ket, by assum­ing (a) that all investors are iden­ti­cal (except for their atti­tudes toward risk) and (b) that all investors can accu­rate­ly pre­dict the future.

Though he didn’t admit point (b) in this paper, it was made explic­it by one-time believ­ers, Eugene Fama and Ken French, in a lat­er exam­i­na­tion of the model’s empir­i­cal fail­ure. They not­ed that the mad assump­tions could be why it had failed:

The first assump­tion is … investors agree on the joint dis­tri­b­u­tion of asset returns … And this dis­tri­b­u­tion is the true one—that is, it is the dis­tri­b­u­tion from which the returns we use to test the mod­el are drawn.” Fama and French (2004, p. 26)

So for four decades, econ­o­mists applied a the­o­ry of the stock mar­ket that was based on the absurd assump­tion that every last stock mar­ket investor is a Nos­tradamus: all investors agree about the future and their expec­ta­tions about the future are cor­rect.

If only this were an iso­lat­ed piece of non­sense. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, it’s indica­tive of a fail­ing that is endem­ic to con­ven­tion­al “neo­clas­si­cal” eco­nom­ic the­o­ry. They devel­op a mod­el which starts from an iso­lat­ed “Robin­son Cru­soe” indi­vid­ual; then when they bring in “Man Fri­day”, they pre­tend that rela­tions between indi­vid­u­als don’t alter the sto­ry in any sig­nif­i­cant way.

Unfor­tu­nate­ly, they do. So the indi­vid­ual para­bles with which econ­o­mists regale us, and which make sense on an indi­vid­ual scale, don’t apply at the aggre­gate lev­el.

Macro­eco­nom­ic the­o­ry, which is the real focus of inter­est now that the GFC has brought “The Great Mod­er­a­tion” to a close, is just as bad. For decades it has been dom­i­nat­ed by what is known as the IS-LM mod­el, which most econ­o­mists believe was devel­oped by Keynes.

It wasn’t. Its orig­i­nal author was John Hicks, a con­ser­v­a­tive oppo­nent of Keynes’s at the time, and he devel­oped the mod­el as a means to inter­pret Keynes from a neo­clas­si­cal point of view. The mod­el emas­cu­lat­ed what was orig­i­nal in Keynes’s Gen­er­al The­o­ry, and this bowd­lerised ver­sion of Keynes was then demol­ished by Fried­man in the 1970s to ush­er in the Mon­e­tarist phase.

Mon­e­tarism has come and gone, but the IS-LM mod­el still under­pins most of the mod­els used by Trea­suries and Cen­tral Banks around the world.

Which is a curi­ous thing, since one per­son who argued emphat­i­cal­ly that this mod­el should be aban­doned was… John Hicks. As so often hap­pens in eco­nom­ics, a “young turk” found wis­dom in his old age, and realised that his mod­el was unten­able.

Like so many mod­els in eco­nom­ics, the IS-LM mod­el starts as a mod­el with two inter­sect­ing lines. The axes of the dia­gram are income (on the hor­i­zon­tal) and the rate of inter­est (on the ver­ti­cal).

The IS curve, which slopes down­wards, pur­ports to show all com­bi­na­tions of the lev­el of out­put and the rate of inter­est that make sup­ply equal to demand in the goods mar­ket. The LM curve, which slopes upwards, shows all com­bi­na­tions of out­put and the rate of inter­est that make sup­ply equal demand in the mon­ey mar­ket. The inter­sec­tion of the two curve shows where both the goods and mon­ey mar­ket are in equi­lib­ri­um.

At uni­ver­si­ty, econ­o­mists are taught to con­sid­er what might hap­pen when, for instance, the actu­al com­bi­na­tion of the rate of inter­est and the lev­el of out­put are such that there is excess sup­ply in the goods mar­ket and excess demand in the mon­ey mar­ket, and so on. The macro­eco­nom­ic mod­els they build after leav­ing uni­ver­si­ty are then explic­it­ly based on the IS-LM frame­work, with the assump­tion that the econ­o­my will always tend towards the point where they two curve inter­sect.

One issue might be obvi­ous to astute observers: how can you mod­el the macro­econ­o­my with­out hav­ing an explic­it mod­el of the labour mar­ket? Hicks omit­ted this mar­ket on the basis of the neo­clas­si­cal assump­tion that, in a 3 mar­ket world, if two of the mar­kets are in equilibrium—money and goods—then the third also has to be in equi­lib­ri­um. But this assumption—which I can crit­i­cise on its own grounds—can’t be applied when there is dis­e­qui­lib­ri­um. If the econ­o­my is “on” it’s IS curve, so that the goods mar­ket is in equi­lib­ri­um, but “off” its LM curve, so that the goods mar­ket is out of equi­lib­ri­um, then the third “miss­ing” mar­ket must also be in dis­e­qui­lib­ri­um.

So the IS-LM mod­el is only valid if the econ­o­my is in equilibrium—at which point, of course, there’s no role for pol­i­cy: “if it ain’t in dis­e­qui­lib­ri­um, don’t fix it” (econ­o­mists also waf­fle on about “Key­ne­sian” and “Clas­si­cal” loca­tions for the IS curve, but I’ll ignore that pseu­do-debate here).

After repeat­ed dis­cus­sions with non-ortho­dox economists—especially Paul David­son, the edi­tor of the Jour­nal of Post Key­ne­sian Economics—John Hicks came to appre­ci­ate this point, and in 1979 explic­it­ly reject­ed the mod­el:

I accord­ing­ly con­clude that the only way in which IS-LM analy­sis use­ful­ly survives—as any­thing more than a class­room gad­get, to be super­seded, lat­er on, by some­thing better—is in appli­ca­tion to a par­tic­u­lar class of causal analy­sis, where the use of equi­lib­ri­um meth­ods… is not inap­pro­pri­ate… [but] When one turns to ques­tions of pol­i­cy, the use of equi­lib­ri­um meth­ods is still more sus­pect…” Hicks (1981, pp. 152–153)

So the father of IS-LM analy­sis jus­ti­fi­ably dis­owned his child three decades ago—and yet the teach­ing of macro­eco­nom­ics still cen­tres on this mod­el, and it forms the core of most neo­clas­si­cal mod­els of the macro­econ­o­my.

It’s now being super­seded by mod­els that are sup­posed to have “good micro­eco­nom­ic foundations”—the so-called Dynam­ic Sto­chas­tic Gen­er­al Equi­lib­ri­um (DGSE) mod­els. The authors of these mod­els do not know that the “good micro­eco­nom­ic foun­da­tions” on which they base their mod­els have also been shown to be false!

Here the prob­lem again relates to aggre­ga­tion: the mod­el of an iso­lat­ed indi­vid­ual makes it easy to derive a demand curve for that indi­vid­ual. But when you try to derive a demand curve for a mar­ket, you have the dilem­ma that chang­ing prices also changes incomes. Neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists showed that a mar­ket demand curve could wob­ble all over the place, even if the demand curves of every indi­vid­ual in it had the stan­dard “down­ward slop­ing” shape.

This is stat­ed emphat­i­cal­ly and clear­ly in a “bible” of neo­clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics, the Hand­book of Math­e­mat­i­cal Eco­nom­ics:

mar­ket demand func­tions need not sat­is­fy in any way the clas­si­cal restric­tions which char­ac­ter­ize con­sumer demand func­tions…

The impor­tance of the above results is clear: strong restric­tions are need­ed in order to jus­ti­fy the hypoth­e­sis that a mar­ket demand func­tion has the char­ac­ter­is­tics of a con­sumer demand func­tion.

Only in spe­cial cas­es can an econ­o­my be expect­ed to act as an ‘ide­al­ized con­sumer’.” Shafer and Son­nen­schein (Hand­book of Math­e­mat­i­cal Eco­nom­ics, 1993, p. 672)

Yet DGSE mod­els rep­re­sent the house­hold sec­tor of the econ­o­my as a sin­gle, util­i­ty-max­imis­ing indi­vid­ual! Why? Because their authors believe that it’s quite OK to mod­el the entire econ­o­my as a sin­gle indi­vid­ual. Why? Because the text­book from which they learnt their eco­nom­ics told them so. This is now one of the stan­dard texts for Hon­ours and PhD edu­ca­tion in eco­nom­ics puts the

Unfor­tu­nate­ly … The aggre­gate demand func­tion will in gen­er­al pos­sess no inter­est­ing prop­er­ties … The neo­clas­si­cal the­o­ry of the con­sumer places no restric­tions on aggre­gate behav­iour in gen­er­al.” (Var­i­an 1992)

But then he states that this prob­lem can be avoid­ed by assum­ing that

all indi­vid­ual con­sumers’ indi­rect util­i­ty func­tions take the Gor­man form… [where] … the mar­gin­al propen­si­ty to con­sume good j is inde­pen­dent of the lev­el of income of any con­sumer and also con­stant across con­sumers… This demand func­tion can in fact be gen­er­at­ed by a rep­re­sen­ta­tive con­sumer…” Var­i­an (1992)

Stripped of its jar­gon, this says that mar­ket demand curves will slope down­wards if we assume that there’s just one indi­vid­ual and just one com­mod­i­ty! Stat­ed so bald­ly, no-one could take this argu­ment seriously—let alone base mod­els of the econ­o­my on it. But stat­ed in the oblique and sani­tised man­ner of an eco­nom­ics text­book, the absurd becomes the norm.

The edu­ca­tion of econ­o­mists at most uni­ver­si­ties (not, I am pleased to say, my own uni­ver­si­ty) is there­fore the farce that turns fal­la­cy into tragedy. Fatal flaws in the the­o­ry that are evi­dent in the orig­i­nal research papers of the dis­ci­pline are gloss over in eco­nom­ic text­books and the stan­dard sub­jects based on them.

There­fore most prac­tic­ing econ­o­mists, who read the text­books but not the orig­i­nal lit­er­a­ture, are com­plete­ly unaware of the piti­ful foun­da­tions on which their care­ful­ly craft­ed mod­els are built. Their assur­ances about the future are there­fore utter­ly unre­li­able.

I’ll hap­pi­ly remain a bear while the­o­ries like neo­clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics pre­dict the immi­nent arrival of spring.

Fama, E. F. and French, K. R. 2004, ‘The Cap­i­tal Asset Pric­ing Mod­el: The­o­ry and Evi­dence’, The Jour­nal of Eco­nom­ic Per­spec­tives, vol. 18, no. 3, pp 25–46.

Hicks, J. 1981, ‘IS-LM: An Expla­na­tion’, Jour­nal of Post Key­ne­sian Eco­nom­ics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp 139–154.

Shafer, W. and Son­nen­schein, H. 1993, ‘Mar­ket demand and excess demand func­tions’, Hand­book of Math­e­mat­i­cal Eco­nom­ics, vol. 2, Else­vi­er.

Var­i­an, H. R. 1992, Micro­eco­nom­ic analy­sis, W.W. Nor­ton, New York.

Bookmark the permalink.