18

Time to update Economic Theory 101

Man looks at "exploding" stock market board

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

TEXT OF STORY

Kai Ryssdal:
Today was another one of those days in the stock markets. Up a couple hundred points, then down a couple hundred points. Like it's nothing at all. In fact, except for the past couple of months, it's incredibly unusual. For decades now, longer actually, the theory was that free markets in equities and everything else are self-correcting. They act rationally. Now, though, economists are looking for new theories to help understand what's going on. Janet Babin reports from the Marketplace Innovations Desk at North Carolina Public Radio.


Janet Babin:
Think back to Econ 101, you probably remember studying this guy:
Milton Friedman. He had a theory about economics -- madly popular for the past 50-plus years. Professor Brad DeLong at the University of California, Berkeley, sums it up this way.

Brad DeLong: His theory was the market is always right.

And, that markets are rational.
If a company posted good results, that should up its stock price. Bad results should have the opposite effect.
The efficiency of the markets would take speculators out and reward responsible investors in the long haul.
Problem is, the theory hasn't worked so well lately. Markets have gone rogue, hedge funds have blown up, large investment banks have become extinct and credit is beyond tight.
DeLong says researchers are scrambling to find a solution.

DeLong: Why doesn't the magic of market weed these gamblers out of their high financial positions fast enough that we can trust these markets. And that I think is the important, open issue in economic theory and what everyone is trying to work on.

Frantically trying to work on. Economists are behind closed doors dissecting the financial crisis to create the next big theory. One that explains why the markets aren't rational.
One idea getting attention is nearly the opposite of Milton Friedman's. It says that markets don't respond to outside events. Instead, they have their own internal, random dynamics.
They're complex and non-linear.
Yep, non-linear is where I started to get confused, too.
But Duke Law and Business professor Steven Schwarcz explains "non-linear" pretty well.

Steven Schwarcz: Events that you think will have one response might have a very different response.

Take traffic patterns. An accident on one side of the road shouldn't cause a back up on the other side, but you know it always does.
It's the same with markets. One little thing happens somewhere, oh I don't know, say, a relatively small percentage of sub prime mortgages blows up, and bam.

Schwarcz: You have market consequences that you would not expect in advance.

Like the collapse of the housing and credit markets and a global economic meltdown. So much for balance. When engineers tackle chaotic systems, they put backstops in place. A circuit breaker to stop a total blackout or emergency brakes to prevent a runaway train. Schwarcz has clamored for the same type of market safeguards for the past year. He urged the government to take a stake in troubled banks.

Schwarcz: I certainly feel that I've been crying in the wind and no one listens.

The more radical the theory, the harder it becomes to be heard.
Andrew Lo, a still-successful hedge fund manager and MIT professor knows something about that. His concept is called the Adaptive Market Hypothesis. It holds that markets mirror human behavior that's often irrational. To research his theory, he strapped electrodes onto traders in simulated market sessions. He monitored their blood pressure, pulse and other responses.
Lo says markets are efficient, so long as things stay calm. But during stressful times, like now, when people are panicked?

Andrew Lo: The emotional aspects dominate, and then you're going to see very strong reaction that will not correspond to the traditional models that we're used to applying to markets.

Lo's been using the new model at his hedge fund. Meanwhile, mainstream economists are still hard at work on their own theories, hoping to become the next Milton Friedman.

In Durham, North Carolina, I'm Janet Babin for Marketplace.

About the author

Pages

Eric in Logan's picture
Eric in Logan - Nov 11, 2008

I have used the Austrian / Misesian model in my own business and personal economic decisions. I have been able to dodge recent pitfalls and find great satisfaction in studying it.

I see no plausible reason why this theory would not work supremely well for economies of all scales, apart from the fact that it requires a level of intellectual discipline and rigor not found in mainstream economics.

Janice Krizek's picture
Janice Krizek - Nov 11, 2008

"Free" markets, rather than being rational and self-correcting, are in fact unsustainable and self-limiting. The forces operating the markets are blind fear/greed. When there is no more money to be made in a particular "free" market, it collapses, since making money was the sole reason for its existence. Our currency itself is manufactured in a "free market" production plant called the Federal Reserve Banking System, which issues debt (creates money). Since only the principal of, but not the interest on, that debt, is created, the very currency which propels all other "free" markets collapses in a credit crunch, which we are now experiencing. Activity in "free" markets is motivated by competition, amplified by fear/greed, for apparently scarce dollars. Markets will be truly free when people are freed of the fear/greed emotion. We should sincerely heed the advice conveniently printed on each dollar bill and trust in God.

Jonathon Plimpton's picture
Jonathon Plimpton - Nov 11, 2008

Ditto Dan Fallon. 'Twould seem that most economists -- and all statists, are intent on ignoring the Austrian elephant in the room.

The god of state will fail, however, and the Keynesian concubine has proven to be barren.

Dan Fallon's picture
Dan Fallon - Nov 11, 2008

I echo some of the smart folks above that urge you to take a good look at the Austrian School. Although, failure to do so would be indicative of your marriage to statist positivism which, ironically, is also predicted by Austrian theory.

Michael Johnson's picture
Michael Johnson - Nov 11, 2008

Its amazing, really, how simple the answer to all of this is. Two words.
"Austrian Theory". These proponents of the Austrian Theory of Economics have been right time and time again. Yet, no one will listen. I think our future economic situation will force the American people to listen. Want a leg up in the soon to be mandatory national economic conversation? Read Mises and Rothbard. Check out the websites of Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute. Point the finger where it belongs, at the central bank. Trust me, you'll be "FED" up.

Chris Kierst's picture
Chris Kierst - Nov 11, 2008

If a school of economics fails to predict an economically significant event then it is flawed. The only school of economics that predicted the current economic situation is the Austrian School. Why the inability to credit success and efficacy?

Jeremy Plunk's picture
Jeremy Plunk - Nov 11, 2008

Want a new theory, try Austrian economics. It predicted this mess that Keynesian economics brought us into. If you want someone to explain it to you contact Ron Paul, or have a look at the Mises Institute: http://mises.org/

Jeff Herron's picture
Jeff Herron - Nov 11, 2008

http://mises.org/story/3128

(The URL was stripped out of my previous post.)

Jeff Herron's picture
Jeff Herron - Nov 11, 2008

How about the <a href="http://mises.org/story/3128">Austrian Theory</a> of the Business Cycle?

I have found no more credible explanation of the recent economic downturn.

In fact, compared with the lunacy being advocated right now by leading economists (spend our way out of a recession caused by overspending?), the Austrian School is one of the few that even makes sense.

S.J. Phred's picture
S.J. Phred - Nov 11, 2008

Boy, talk about a massively flawed argument. Its like using the finest ingredients, but rotten eggs, and wondering why the cake never comes out right even though you insist you followed the directions. Free market assumes the consumer acts rationally because information costs are low. As we keep seeing, they aren't low at all--we get lied to about WMDs in Iraq, we are told there's regulation of lead paint on toys, and so forth. We the consumer can't make the educated decisions that would help a market, when we aren't educated. That's why Friedman keeps failing, its a great religious belief that has no grounding in reality. To wonder why a wrong theory never seems to work in reality, is like building on mud and wondering why no archetect can create a house that stands.

Pages