by The Economist reviews core ideas in economics. The introductory article points out that economists’ fundamental mission is not to forecast recessions but to explain how the world works. It argues that economists have delivered and it discusses six exemplary areas of economic research: Nash equilibrium; Mundell-Fleming trilemma; Minsky financial-instability; Stopper-Samuelson effect of trade on wages; Keynes fiscal-multiplier; and Akerlof’s and others’ work on information asymmetries. Refreshingly, the article argues that [t]hese breakthroughs are adverts not just for the value of economics, but also for three other things: theory, maths and outsiders. I agree. But the value of economics also derives from more elementary insights, related to, for example, budget and resource constraints; the information content of prices; public choice; or the link between monetary aggregates and the general price level. Today, these latter insights might appear even more trivial than those picked by The Economist. But they are central, and emphasizing them might lead to different policy conclusions than the common focus on economic frictions and aggregate demand. The first article covers information asymmetries.
Topics:
Dirk Niepelt considers the following as important: Aggregate demand, Budget constraint, Contributions, Core, Economics, Friction, Notes
This could be interesting, too:
Claudio Grass writes Gold climbing from record high to record high: why buy now?
Claudio Grass writes Gold climbing from record high to record high: why buy now?
Claudio Grass writes The permacrisis strategy: the mortal dangers of our “new normal”
Claudio Grass writes The permacrisis strategy: the mortal dangers of our “new normal”
The Economist reviews core ideas in economics. The introductory article points out that
economists’ fundamental mission is not to forecast recessions but to explain how the world works.
It argues that economists have delivered and it discusses six exemplary areas of economic research:
- Nash equilibrium;
- Mundell-Fleming trilemma;
- Minsky financial-instability;
- Stopper-Samuelson effect of trade on wages;
- Keynes fiscal-multiplier; and
- Akerlof’s and others’ work on information asymmetries.
Refreshingly, the article argues that
[t]hese breakthroughs are adverts not just for the value of economics, but also for three other things: theory, maths and outsiders.
I agree. But the value of economics also derives from more elementary insights, related to, for example,
- budget and resource constraints;
- the information content of prices;
- public choice; or
- the link between monetary aggregates and the general price level.
Today, these latter insights might appear even more trivial than those picked by The Economist. But they are central, and emphasizing them might lead to different policy conclusions than the common focus on economic frictions and aggregate demand.