Wednesday 18 Jul 2018 | 20:57 | SYDNEY
Wednesday 18 Jul 2018 | 20:57 | SYDNEY

More on economics post-GFC


Mark Thirlwell

3 June 2009 15:02

A few more entries related to the economics post-GFC debate I’ve been tracking. Sam has already linked to Greg Mankiw’s NYT piece in a different context. Mankiw argues that the impact of the crisis on basic economics courses will not be that great: 'Despite the enormity of recent events, the principles of economics are largely unchanged.' There will be some changes, though: more attention to the role of financial institutions, the effects of leverage, and the limits of monetary policy. (Mankiw’s recent blog post on the difference between economists at business schools and economics departments is also worth a glance.)

Daron Acemoglu’s essay on structural lessons for and from economics arising from the crisis covers a fair bit of ground and emphasises among other things the importance of institutions, economic growth, and political economy, with the latter playing an important role in explaining our current bout of regulatory failure.

John Quiggin has been producing a list of what he describes as refuted economic doctrines: the latest is here and Brad DeLong provides a helpful list of the previous seven entries in the series. Also from DeLong is this response to Richard Posner’s new book as reviewed here, and which was also discussed by Robert Solow here.

Finally, and for a contrast to some of the soul-searching prompted by the GFC, see Bryan Caplan’s rather different take on matters (h/t Stephen Kirchner).

 Photo by Flickr user be*curious, used under a Creative Commons license.