Subscriber Content Preview | Request a free trialSearch  
  Go

The Deal Economy 2013

Home    |    Event    |    Blog    |    Awards
Print  |  Share  |  Discuss  |  Reprint

A look back on Christmas Eve

by Robert Teitelman  |  Published December 23, 2011 at 12:04 PM
A-look-back-on-Christmas-Eve227.jpgChristmas is dead ahead. Time to clean the desk and go searching for the eggnog recipe. Damn. Under here somewhere. What do we say about the year rapidly receding behind us? Chastening. Sobering. Deflating. Deflationary. Yecch. All these grand experiments, based on what now appear to be unsound footings, wrecked or at least severely damaged. Economies rise and fall, go boom and go bust -- and they've been doing this for a long time. In this Lucretian sense, there's nothing "wrong" with the economy or the world at large (indeed, as Steven Pinker argues, the world is getting less and less violent). Rather, what's gone wrong is our confidence in our own tools to understand, comprehend, predict and control economic growth and, ipso facto, political and social behavior. It's an intellectual failure. Obviously, intellectual confidence has been ebbing since 2008, whether it's in risk management and quantitative finance, or in economic projects of the last three decades built around notions of rational expectations, efficient markets or efforts to build dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models. All of these involved marvelous feats of inventive math and modeling -- ambitious abstractions raised high into the air -- but built upon conceptions of human behavior that were at best rudimentary, at worst dangerously, even shoddily and amateurishly, simplistic. The ground gave way.

The greatest endeavor of all, of course, and the most spectacular collapse, is arguably the euro zone. (We'll see about China.) Now it's very possible that Europe's technocrats can use this spreading crisis to propel the zone to a tighter political integration, which might resolve the conflict between national politics and euro-zone-wide economics. But that would involve a widespread democratic consensus in nations across the zone to surrender local sovereignty, notably over budgets, under conditions of grinding austerity. By what faith would that surrender occur? In regulators, macroeconomists and central bankers? In Brussels? That doesn't seem likely. It's true, the United States did undergo just such a transition with its shift from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, from state prerogatives to a strong federal government. But that was still a loose confederation of relatively new states with sparse populations that had just fought a successful war against a foreign power. Not only does it still resemble a miracle but the push and pull between states and the federal government roiled American politics from Jefferson to Jackson to the Civil War to civil rights to the Tea Party. We're still debating the long-ago transition. European nations are relatively old, deeply entwined with local languages and cultures and often-bloody histories. Modern nationalism, with its potent claims and heady charms, emerged after the American Revolution and was born and fully articulated, sometimes nightmarishly so, in Europe: in Germany and Italy and the states of Eastern Europe. Nationalism and democracy share a common rootstock. The notion that Europeans would voluntarily ("rationally" -- such a tricky word) surrender national power for economic growth -- allowing the states to wither away -- lurks at the heart of the euro-zone problem.

These are not just technical problems; they suggest deeper failures. In the Financial Times today, Martin Wolf discusses some aspects of the inequality issue. Near the end, Wolf is musing on equality of opportunity versus equality of outcomes when he suddenly veers to the underlying drivers of inequality as he sees it: "I would add that some -- perhaps a great deal -- of the ultra-high incomes at the top are almost certainly the fruit of rent extraction facilitated by a breakdown in the control exercised by principals -- outside investors -- over their agents -- corporate executives and financiers. Huge rewards are thus unjust and inefficient." Beneath the technical language, Wolf is saying that investors have shown no interest in monitoring their holdings. Imagine. This not only blithely topples the pretensions of the corporate governance project, with its elevation of shareholders as owners, but links it to one of the most pernicious trends in the modern economy: inequality. Needless to say, shareholder governance failures have been obvious for years.

What ties these projects together? The belief in a kind of simplified, even mechanical, model of human psychology, one that can be mathematized and thus predetermined. Indeed, so many of these projects that are currently in crisis rise from a belief that man is not a free agent at all, but fully determined by mostly economic inputs, and that the great technocratic minds of the age can align those basic interests and impulses in ways that insure peace, prosperity and punch for all. It's a grand miscalculation that's only just, despite the enormity of some of its flaws, coming into view. Have some punch on me. - Robert Teitelman
Share:
Tags: euro zone | euro-zone crisis | Financial Times | Lucretius | macroeconomy | Martin Wolf | Steven Pinker | technocrats
blog comments powered by Disqus

Meet the journalists

Robert Teitelman

Editor in chief

Bob Teitelman, editor in chief and a member of the company’s executive committee, is responsible for editorial operations of print and electronic products. Contact



Movers & Shakers

Launch Movers and shakers slideshow

Goldman, Sachs & Co. veteran Tracy Caliendo will join Bank of America Merrill Lynch in September as a managing director and head of Americas equity hedge fund services. For other updates launch today's Movers & shakers slideshow.

Video

Fewer deals despite discount debt

When will companies stop refinancing and jump back into M&A? More video

Sectors