Follow us:

Jon Talton

Analysis and commentary on economic news, trends and issues, with an emphasis on Seattle and the Northwest.

October 14, 2013 at 11:33 AM

What Nobel economists can teach Joe and Jill Sixpack

University of Chicago professor Eugene Fama, left, and his university colleague Lars Peter Hansen speak at the university after learning they had won the Nobel Prize in Economics. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

University of Chicago professor Eugene Fama, left, and his university colleague Lars Peter Hansen speak at the university after learning they had won the Nobel Prize in Economics. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Three Americans Share Nobel Prize in Economics

Robert Shiller, one of the winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, speaks during a press conference at Yale University. (Photo by Wendy Carlson/Getty Images)

If you are invested in an index fund, you can thank Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago, one of the three Americans to win the Nobel Prize in economics. Fama’s research indicated that trying to time the market or pick stocks was a fool’s errand. Instead, asset prices already reflect all the information known. This important piece of “efficient markets theory” gave rise to index funds.

But even Nobel laureates can’t get it right all the time (President Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner, recently wanted to bomb Syria). Brad DeLong of UC, Berkeley posted an astonishing interview of Fama by the New Yorker’s John Cassidy, in which the new Nobel laureate pretty much denies that bubbles happen and claims that the housing crash could only be seen in hindsight.

And even if the crash caused the recession, which Fama denies, it was because of people getting Fannie and Freddie loans, not because of a fundamental failure in the market driven by private-sector greed, leverage and risk-taking. Even your humble economics columnist called the housing crash, so c’mon. The “free market” hothouse of Chicago grows exotic flowers.

But wait. Another winner is the estimable Robert Shiller of Yale, who did pioneering research into how markets can be very inefficient. Chris Dillow does a good job of sorting out their positions and how they can be reconciled. (Lars Peter Hansen, also of Chicago, was the third winner announced today).

While Fama’s theoretical work was useful in finance, Shiller is more the realist about human action in the market — how it indeed gets out of control or any elegant notion of equilibrium. A behavioral economist, Shiller warned of both the 2001 tech-bubble collapse and also the real-estate disaster.

The question facing Fama is that, at age 74, he did much of his groundbreaking work in a very different world. Wall Street was the province of prudent white-shoe firms. Glass-Steagall prevented taxpayer-insured, commercial banks from getting into the risky business of investment banking. The market not only was better policed, but stocks were held longer and considered true ownership of productive firms. The payoff came slowly, often from dividends.

The merger manias, tearing apart enterprises that it took decades to build for a quick profit, and “shareholder value” movement were yet to come. So were derivatives, shadow banking and deregulation, even if Fama’s “efficient market” theory was used to bolster the arguments in favor of all these destructive tools. Then there is persistent insider trading and high-speed, computerized flash trading, both of which further tilt the market in favor of the Wall Street Boyz and against average investors.

So congratulations to the new laureates. Unfortunately, the dissonance between Fama and Shiller shows we haven’t had a healthy market for some time. A fixed market is “efficient” for only the few.

And Don’t Miss: Wal-Mart caught in the middle of Alaska salmon tangle | The Guardian

Today’s Econ Haiku:

The minimum wage

Used to be a way station

Now a way of life

Comments | More in Economics | Topics: Eugene Fama, Nobel Prize winners, Robert Shiller

COMMENTS

No personal attacks or insults, no hate speech, no profanity. Please keep the conversation civil and help us moderate this thread by reporting any abuse. See our Commenting FAQ.



The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.


Advertising
The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited seattletimes.com access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►