|
|
|
|
|
|
by lazystar
616 days ago
|
|
|
> I don't think that macroeconomics is an empirical field, so when people say 'it's textbook stuff' that doesn't impress me. Agreed, especially when the textbook being referenced was written by a polarizing figure like Kruggman. I wonder, how much "textbook stuff" was removed from textbooks after 2008? |
|
|
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2008/kru...
His NYT column might be controversial, but his work in international trade absolutely isn't.
It's like saying Chomsky is controversial to counter argue his work in linguistics. Chomsky might be a political hack, but his opinion on formal grammars is probablyt sound.
> I wonder, how much "textbook stuff" was removed from textbooks after 2008?
Basically nothing, to be honest? What should have changed?
The banks that collapsed into a financial crisis were effectively committing fraud. The federal reserve were publishing opinions that the housing sector was at risk as early as 2005-2006.
Also, it's difficult for a central bank to know the extent of the mispricing when there's active concealment of risks (eg. backroom deals with insurers and risk assessors) - you need full on auditing to spot that.
The bigger problem with 2008 is that almost no one responsible went to jail.