| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« God-Loving Linguists | Main | Astronomers Get First Peek at Atmosphere of a "Super-Earth" Exoplanet »

December 01, 2010

The Great Recession & the Great Depression

Peter Temin in Daedalus:

The Great Depression and the Great Recession were both caused by policies derived from nostalgia for the world of the Enlightenment. Drawing on theories from the eighteenth century, hard-headed policy-makers either assumed or tried to re-create the idealized conditions described by Hume and Smith. These policy-makers ignored both the growth of economies of scale in modern economies and the work of behavioral economists that has shown that people do not behave as homo economicas. Their efforts produced the new economy of the 19205 and the Goldilocks economy of recent decades that turned into booms and busts. Was it inevitable that these economic expansions would end badly? According to the late economist Hyman Minsky, people become more complacent with prosperity and more willing to take on risks they often know are highly suspect.6 More recently, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff analyzed historical evidence and reached a similar conclusion : booms typically precede financial crises, just as pride goes before a fall.

More formally, people in both expansions miscalculated the risks they faced. Their models were based on shocks to individual countries or homeowners and did not allow for collective actions. The gold standard model explained how to deal with a shock to an individual country, implicitly assuming that other countries would be immune to whatever disturbance affected the distressed country. The interaction between the country in crisis and other countries would lead back to stability; a collective shock to many economies was not considered. Similarly, the model behind the Washington Consensus considered individual risks. Structured financial obligations were valued as if the underlying risk of mortgage foreclosure was the result of random and independent shocks to individual homeowners. As with the gold standard, no consideration was given to collective shocks; housing prices were expected to rise continually. It was assumed that homeowners experienced financial difficulty and defaulted on their mortgages randomly. The randomness of defaults enabled financial designers to reduce the risk to any security by diversification, that is, combining many mortgages the same way a bank combines many bank deposits. When the housing boom ended and housing prices fell, however, many homeowners began to default, and the risk that was supposed to be protected for through diversification was now present in securities previously thought to be risk free. Investors could not discern safer assets from those more at risk, and the prices of all structured finance fell. Prices of some securities fell rapidly because there were no buyers for them. Financial markets froze in September 2008.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 05:04 PM | Permalink

Comments

Risk gets priced through interest rates. How is a market supposed to price risk when the fed is printing to distort rates and the government is guarenteeing rates on bad debt?

Posted by: Steve Dekorte | Dec 3, 2010 12:48:24 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Grace on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Elatia Harris on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Abbas Raza on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Jonathan on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Bill on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Louise Gordon on The need for critical science journalism

omar on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

Jonathan on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Bill on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

jo smith on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

carlos on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

freddie on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Eli on "Everybody Hurts" by Sachal Studios, Lahore, Pakistan

Jalees Rehman on The need for critical science journalism

Dredd on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

Dredd on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

Scrutineer on Why race as a biological construct matters

prasad on the culture animal

Mitt Romney's Dog on Why race as a biological construct matters

Elatia Harris on The Moral Status of Rocks

prasad on The Moral Status of Rocks

Raza Husain on The Moral Status of Rocks

Fred on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Joel Grant on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

Tomboktu on Why is Europe so Messed Up? An Illuminating History

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed