This is a blog about economics, history, law and other things that interest me.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Happy Birthday to The Junto
The Junto is celebrating its second birthday. I am not an early Americanist, but The Junto is one of my favorite blogs. The contributors are thoughtful and passionate about what they do. Anyone interested in American history, doing history, or teaching history should read what they have to say.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
The Depression of 1921?
The “Depression of 1921” has been receiving a lot of
attention recently (Krugman,
Selgin,
Murphy,
and Sumner)
mostly in response to James Grant’s The
Forgotten Depression:1921: The Crash That Cured Itself. The argument of the
book is that the economy recovered more quickly because neither the federal
government nor the Federal Reserve attempted to pursue activist policies. I am
skeptical that 1921 is a useful case to generalize from.
It was a post war recession, much like the one after World
War II. Most business cycle movements have been associated with busts after
periods of credit expansion (see the recent work of Alan Taylor et al). In those
cases it was households and businesses that borrowed and spent during the boom.
Consequently, when the bust comes, businesses and consumers struggle to repay
their debts. Businesses fail and consumers default. Even consumers who do
not go bankrupt reduce their current spending to avoid default (see Martha
Olney). As businesses and households default the value of bank assets fall and
banks fail. The bank failures result in decreases in the money supply (Friedman
and Schwartz) and disintermediation (Bernanke). In other words, it creates a real mess when people take on excessive amounts of debt, especially when they use that debt to bid up the prices of assets like stocks or real estate.
In terms of increases in output and prices, war time booms
look similar to credit fueled booms, but the government is the one borrowing
and spending. The end of the boom does not necessarily lead to a financial
crisis or reductions in consumption and investment. Granted government borrowing can also create a mess, particulalry if people begin to doubt its willingness or ability to pay, but that hasn't really been an issue for the U.S.
I also have a problem with calling this a depression. I know
that there is no universally accepted definition of the term depression. And I
know that Grant is not the first to refer to this episode as a depression. But
we completely lose any distinction between a recession and a depression if this
was a depression. Neither the length nor the severity of the decline in real
GDP warrant the term depression.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Business History Conference
The Business History Conference launched its new website yesterday. In addition to the usual stuff about meetings it has an extensive list of links for research in business history and syllabi and other resources for teaching business history and business history related courses.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Claudia Goldin in Saudi Arabia
The New York Times reports on how the economic historian Claudia Goldin tries to help Saudi women enter the labor force while following the prime directive (see paragraph 5).
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
The Fall and Rise of Economic History
Jeremy Adelman and Jonathan Levy describe "The Fall and Rise of Economic History" in the Chronicle of Higher Education
I still hope that economic history will regain a prominent position in both economics and history and that economists and historians will be able to move forward together.
I found this essay particularly interesting because both Jeremy
Adelman and I studied economic history at the LSE in 1984-85. If I
remember correctly, we were the first cohort to do a new M.Sc. program focusing on
Third World economic history. He went on to get his PhD. In history (Oxford); I
went on to get a Ph. D. in economics (Washington University).
I remember a seminar where Jeremy presented the work he was
doing on Argentina. The first person to speak was one of the older professors
in the department, very much a traditional historian. He said, “That is political
history. This is a seminar in economic history.” He then leaned back, laced his
fingers over his stomach, and looked around the room, smiling as if he had just
said all that needed to be said. I know he did not speak for all the professors
present, but it was still a very discouraging moment. Like Jeremy, I was interested
in economic questions but didn’t believe it was possible to leave politics and
ideology out of the answer. I had also just started to read Douglass North’s
work on institutions and ideology and thought it might provide the way forward.
I decided to pursue a degree in economics. Since then, I think economists (for
example, North, Wallis, McCloskey, Mokyr) have continued to make progress in
reintegrating politics, the law, and culture into the study of economic history.
I have, on the other hand, been very disappointed in the “new
history of capitalism” that has arisen in history departments. I first thought
that this might be the moment for a much needed reunion of economists and
historians, but it quickly became clear that that was not what the new history
of capitalism was about. Instead of confronting the work of economists directly
it is generally ignored or dismissed. People throw around terms like homo
economicus, suggesting that economists all think that people care only about
maximizing their material wealth and that they do so with perfect information.
They seem to believe that the recent financial crisis has undermined the
credibility of economic theory because things did not work out well, while a
student in any decent principles of economics class could show you the
prisoners’ dilemma and explain to you that economic models do not all conclude
that everything will work out for the best. The quality of the historical research is
secondary to the author’s stance against capitalism (which is not defined) and
economics.
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Who is shocked by this?
The Economist reports that the performance of state owned enterprises has been shockingly bad.
If there is state capitialism, is there private enterprise socialism?
If there is state capitialism, is there private enterprise socialism?
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Jeffrey Beall Explains Why People Should Avoid "journals" published by the Clute Institute
http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/27/why-researchers-should-avoid-the-clute-institute/
"In conclusion, I recommend that honest scholars seek out a better publisher for disseminating their research than the Clute Institute. This publisher, with its dubious claim to be an institute, is little more than a scholarly vanity press — it’s essentially a money press — and publishing papers in this publisher’s journals may hurt authors in the long run. By this I mean that for any researcher who publishes a paper in a Clute Institute journal, that paper will be in the company of other papers with highly questionable citation and authorship practices and may be damaged by association."
"In conclusion, I recommend that honest scholars seek out a better publisher for disseminating their research than the Clute Institute. This publisher, with its dubious claim to be an institute, is little more than a scholarly vanity press — it’s essentially a money press — and publishing papers in this publisher’s journals may hurt authors in the long run. By this I mean that for any researcher who publishes a paper in a Clute Institute journal, that paper will be in the company of other papers with highly questionable citation and authorship practices and may be damaged by association."
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
What Was Funny?
Huffington reports on how the Board of Visitors of UVA deal with the problem of sexual asault on campus:
"Later, however, as the meeting neared its third hour, board member Edward D. Miller interrupted to note the Visitors were laughing too much for a session dedicated to such a serious issue. Miller commented through a conference call, as he was not able to be there in person. His comment was quietly applauded by public audience members."
"Later, however, as the meeting neared its third hour, board member Edward D. Miller interrupted to note the Visitors were laughing too much for a session dedicated to such a serious issue. Miller commented through a conference call, as he was not able to be there in person. His comment was quietly applauded by public audience members."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)