Mina muidugi Krugmani vastu nii leebe pole. Krugman on peavoolu vasakpoolne ja ta eksib elementaarsete faktide vastu panganduses. Seejärel teeb näo, et ei saa kriitikast aru ja vahetab teemat, et enda nägu päästa. Eks tal ole ka tiitleid, mida kaitsta :)
Siin on pangandusest jutt ja Krugman tõepoolest rääkis rahakordaja kontseptsioonist ning väitis, et pangad ei saa nii laenu väljastada, et neil pole hoiuseid. Seletust, mis ajas näpuga järge pankade bilanssides ja ütles, et laen loob hoiuse, nimetas Krugman panganduse müstitsismiks. Argumendid tal puudusid ja ta oli sunnitud taanduma (minu blogis on kõike seda kajastatud, vasakul on otsingukast, kuhu trüki Paul Krugman ja sa leiad teema üles).
Jah, kuningas on tõepoolest alasti, peavoolu majandusteooria on Walt Disney Economics.
…..Max Rangeley:At the end of the book, you touched on the economics establishment and where they’ve gone wrong with this. Paul Krugman, for instance, said that the idea that banks can create demand out of thin air when they make new loans is, quote, “banking mysticism”, and that banks are essentially just intermediaries, taking deposits and lending them out. So why do even prestigious economists get this issue factually wrong?
Lord Turner: It’s a very good question , and Paul Krugman, whom in many areas is a really excellent economist, and certainly not at all taken in by some of the other major problems of modern economics, such as the rational expectation hypothesis and the efficient market hypothesis : but on this I just disagree – I think he is just wrong . And the reflects the more general phenomenum that t many post-war Keynesians, quite as much as postwar neoclassicists, moved away from a focus on what banks essentially do, and that in new Keynesian models, as much as in classical models, or even in the Keynesian IS-LM models which became dominant in the post-war era, there isn’t a focus on the banks and the financial system. So I do I think Paul is simply wrong on this and I’d love to have a detailed debate with him on it . I think it is absolutely clear, if you sit down with a bank balance sheet and think through what happens when a banker – and I mean here evena nice old-fashioned banker like George Bailey in the famous US film, Its a Wonderful World – if you think through what they do, and you follow their balance sheets through, you will find that at the end of the day the process of lending creates credit and money ( or more precisely some or other category of bank liability ) :, and as a result it creates , purchasing power. And all the assertions that it doesn’t disappear, if you sit down, work through the balance sheets , , and work out who does what, and what the first and second and third and fourth round consequences are. So I do find that very intriguing that, as you say, Paul Krugman takes that point of view because in many other aspects of his economics, I think he rightly attacks some of the problems of modern economics. But I think there has been a huge bias in a lot of economics, and it starts from about the 60s onwards, to believe that we could simply ignore the real details, the real balance sheet details, of what the banking system does……