Sorry I am so inept, the link to the post in which I commented on yours didn't come through. If you want to see it, just click on the name of the substack next to my name, and go to the post "What Should be the Purpose of the Economy?" While you are there, the previous post on what I call the "Progress Mechanism" explains why I think economists should focus on living standards instead of GDP, except as a measure of overall activity.
I started to write a comment, but as it got longer I realized that it would make a good short post for my own substack, Economics Reimagined, named after my very recently published book. Here is a link to the post. Thanks.
If you believe in the Real Business Cycle theory, then *all* market participants know about all markets. There are a whole lot of macroeconomists who believe this to be true. These people dominate the subdiscipline.
“It is an established scientific fact that monetary policy has had virtually no effect on output and employment in the U.S. since the formation of the Fed,” Edward Prescott (quoted in the NYT).
Not what RBCers say, and if I'm not mistaken that's a (relatively) defunct "school" of economics. Stuff that was good about their theory/models has been incorporated into the mainstream, and stuff that wasn't has been thrown away. I also don't think many economists would agree with this statement.
Sorry I am so inept, the link to the post in which I commented on yours didn't come through. If you want to see it, just click on the name of the substack next to my name, and go to the post "What Should be the Purpose of the Economy?" While you are there, the previous post on what I call the "Progress Mechanism" explains why I think economists should focus on living standards instead of GDP, except as a measure of overall activity.
I started to write a comment, but as it got longer I realized that it would make a good short post for my own substack, Economics Reimagined, named after my very recently published book. Here is a link to the post. Thanks.
If you believe in the Real Business Cycle theory, then *all* market participants know about all markets. There are a whole lot of macroeconomists who believe this to be true. These people dominate the subdiscipline.
That’s not what real business cycle theory says. It’s one reading of rational expectations maybe but not something about RBC
“It is an established scientific fact that monetary policy has had virtually no effect on output and employment in the U.S. since the formation of the Fed,” Edward Prescott (quoted in the NYT).
Not what RBCers say, and if I'm not mistaken that's a (relatively) defunct "school" of economics. Stuff that was good about their theory/models has been incorporated into the mainstream, and stuff that wasn't has been thrown away. I also don't think many economists would agree with this statement.