Kommentarer til: Nobelpristageren i økonomi 2006: Edmund Phelps

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:38:08 +0000

@Cosmic Duck;”So what is Phelps’ big contribution to economics today? – good question. The WSJ jornal quoted by Peter Kurrild cannot be considered a contribution to economics.”Duh!

Af: Cosmic Duck

Cosmic Duck — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:58:06 +0000

Where there is no rational argument left, there are expletives!

Af: Mr Law

Mr Law — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:22:46 +0000

Jep, som Jacob bemærker, kan selv en jurist forstå det her.Se i øvrigt også denne lille kommentar fra The Times Gerard Baker, hvor han påpeger, at i hvert fald den britiske arbejderleder James Callaghan (men ikke nødvendigvis hans mere nutidige socialdemokratiske kolleger) havde fattet det, da han i 1976 sagde til Labour’s kongres:We used to think we could spend our way out of a recession. I tell you in all candour that option no longer exists. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2396009,00.html

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:12:38 +0000

Se evt. den kronik af Phelps fra WSJ, som jeg lige har postet i kommentar-sektionen her:http://www.punditokraterne.dk/72978_Heller_ikke_i_ar_…html

Af: David Pontoppidan

David Pontoppidan — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:52:58 +0000

Og sociologer! Godt arbejde 🙂

Af: Jacob Mchangama

Jacob Mchangama — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:29:45 +0000

Tak for denne pædagogiske indførsel i Phelps arbejde, så selv jurister kan følge med 🙂

Af: Martin Rannje

Martin Rannje — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:15:41 +0000

Hvordan kan du kalde oekonomier der svinger mellem 10 og 12% arbejdsloeshed kompetitive…?Naah, men det er altsaa ikke alle oekonomer der kan kategoriseres som enten keynesianere eller monetarister, real business cycle etc. etc. Nogle beskaeftiger sig jo slet ikke med finanspolitiske problematikker (Hvad med sidste aars vindere fx – eller en person som Herbert Simon). Men et par graverende eksempler paa erklaerede (saa vidt jeg husker) keynesianere, der har modtaget Nobel prisen er:- Paul Samuelson- James Tobin- Robert Solow- FRanco Modigliani- Bertil Olihn- Givetvis ogsaa Robert Mundell, selvom han vel repraesenterer en form for syntese…En person som Joseph Stiglitz ved jeg faktisk ikke helt hvordan skal kategoriseres – men han er i hvert fald rimeligt pro-interventionistisk paa mange omraader…Mvh

Af: Carsten Valgreen

Carsten Valgreen — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:12:41 +0000

Well Akerlof, Spence and Stiglitz got it in 2001. Akerlof (married to Janet Yellen btw) is a Keynesian in my view. While Stiglitz is – well – just getting ever more “stiglitized” (ie. sliding from academic to pundit to politician). To call him Keynesian would be an insult to Keynes. I agree that Keynes was not as “Pop Keynesian” as to believe in a micromangement of a Phillips curve relationship. But the committee can not be called biased agianst Keynesians in my view.The sad thing about Phelps getting the prize is not that the man didn’t deserve it. Rather it is that the committee find it hard to find someone more contemporary to give the prize to right now. It sadly reflects the state of Economics. It is a bit dismal. So to speak.

Af: Cosmic Duck

Cosmic Duck — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:31:01 +0000

Before you throw more sand on Keynes’ dead body there are a few things you ought to consider. The trade-off between inflation and unemployment was never an important element in Keynes’ work. It is more due to the post-Keynesians and the work of Phillips, as it is expounded in the so-called Phillips-curve. Phelps was right to point out that the inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation would to a large extent be determined by expectations. When inflationary expectations are built into the economy it may be difficult to make expansionary monetary and financial policies work. This, however, was correct in the mid-seventies, after the first oil shock, and well into the 1980’s. It is not very interesting today. Nor is the NAIRU, non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, very interesting, as you can see it move back and forth according to the arbitrary labour market policies being pursued by various governments. So what is Phelps’ big contribution to economics today? – good question. The WSJ jornal quoted by Peter Kurrild cannot be considered a contribution to economics. It is not much more than a political-ideological defense of competitive capitalism, of the Anglo-American capitalism model as opposed to the central European corporatist model. It is always entertaining to whiplash the latter and accentuate the value of the former, but it is not a sign of sound economic sense. The recent success of the American economy, which unfortunately mostly accrues to the wealthier segments of society, actually proves that Keynes is right. The enormous budget deficit has stimulated the economy and brought unemployment down. This has been due to a stimulus to effective demand,not by supply side effects. But it has led to balance of payments deficits and budget deficits that are not sustainable in the long run. What is sustainable in the long run, however, is the proven competitiveness of the European “corporatist model”. Germany and other central European economies are gaining market share at the moment. The USA and Britain are losing market share, especially in manufactured products. Why did the Economic Nobel Committee give the Nobel prize in economics to a man whose economic theorizing was slightly interesting two decades ago, and whose economic writing is no better than the average conservative economic journalist? Well, there is probably a political motive behind it. How many Keynesian economists have got the prize?