Print This Post Print This Post

James R. Crotty, Guest Blogger

Eugene Fama just received a Nobel Prize for his contributions to the theory of “efficient financial markets,” the dominant theory in financial economics that asserts that markets work ideally if not constrained by government regulation. The fact that economic “science” teaches that unregulated financial markets work effectively helped financial institutions and the rich accomplish their goal of radical financial market deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s. Deregulation, in turn, not only contributed to the rising inequality of the era, it helped cause the global financial market crisis that began in 2007 and the deep recession and austerity fiscal policies that accompanied it.

The theory of efficient financial markets requires the union of two ideas: the “efficient market hypothesis” (or EMH) and optimal (security) pricing theory (OPT). Both the EMH and OPT are built on crudely unrealistic assumptions that would lead anyone not indoctrinated in a mainstream PhD program to conclude that efficient financial market theory is a fairly-tale rather than serious social science.

The EMH is simply an assumption or assertion with no supporting evidence that all information relevant to the correct pricing of securities is known by all market participants. For long-term assets such as stocks and bonds, the relevant information is the cash flows associated with each security in every future time period. Yet it is logically impossible for anyone to know this information because the future is not yet determined in the present; the future is uncertain. Nevertheless, defenders of efficiency adopted the “rational expectations” hypothesis, perhaps the most ludicrous assumption in the history of social science, which asserts that all investors know the correct probability distributions of all future security cash flows and believe that they will not change over time.

The assumed complete and correct data about the future is then plugged into one of the basic mainstream models of optimal security pricing, such as the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), which specifies agents’ preferences concerning the risk and return associated with every possible portfolio of securities. The combination of EMH and a theory of optimal pricing determine security prices that are efficient in that every investor has selected the risk-return profile in a portfolio that maximizes her welfare, and financial resources are made available to those who can make the most productive use of them. Market prices are assumed to be in equilibrium at all times, even though the data show that market prices are much more volatile than would be compatible with the assumption of perpetual equilibrium.

The capital asset pricing model itself embodies a large number of grossly unrealistic assumptions in addition to the assumed knowledge of the future embedded in the EMH. For example, it assumes that every investor holds the same portfolio (those who want more risk borrow money to build a larger version of this portfolio), no one trades securities, and no one ever defaults on debt.

One might think that the whole financial market-efficiency project should have been rejected out of hand because it is founded on a large set of unrealistic assumptions about how financial markets work. Yet not only is it still the dominant theory of financial markets, Nobel Prizes have been awarded to its originators.
Why would an academic profession sanction the use of theories based on such unrealistic assumptions? The answer given by proponents of efficient financial markets theory is that the economics profession relies on the theory of “positivism” associated with Milton Friedman as its guide to the acceptance and rejection of theoretical propositions. Friedman’s positivism states that the realism of assumptions does not matter: it has no relation whatever to the acceptability of a theory or its derived hypotheses. As Friedman put it, “[T]ruly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have assumptions that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality.” The only acceptable test of a theory “is comparison of its predictions with experience.”

There are at least three serious problems with this method. First, if patently false assumptions are adopted, as in efficient financial market theory, and impeccable logic is used to deduce hypotheses from them, they cannot—as a matter of logic—be accurate reflections of reality. Fairy-tale assumptions can only generate fairy-tale hypotheses.

Second, econometric tests can at best provide suggestive, not conclusive evidence in support of the empirical validity of predictions generated by economic theories. With today’s computing power, it is possible to run literally millions of regressions to test a theoretical proposition. Such regressions may use different data sources, time periods, empirical measures of theoretical variables, functional forms, lag structures, and so forth. For example, investor expectations of future cash flows from all available securities are a central determinant of efficient equilibrium security pricing, yet there are numerous ways to choose empirical measures of expectations. And the theory itself does not tell us what the appropriate choice among this vast menu of possible alternatives measures is. As a result, virtually any hypothesis can be shown to be statistically significant if enough different regressions are run. This is why both sides of every important debate in economics can provide econometric evidence in support of their positions. And it is why economists should not rely exclusively on econometric hypothesis-testing in assessing alternative theories as positivism demands. The realism of assumption sets is crucial to this task, as are historical and institutional analysis, surveys, and experimental studies.

Third, when positivist economists insist that econometric “prediction” is the sole judge of the acceptability of a theory, they put the entire burden of proof on econometric tests. But when the preponderance of such tests turns out to be inconsistent with their favorite theory, they never reject the theory, as their methodology says they must. Rather, they move on to additional econometric tests on alternative specifications in a potentially endless process of data mining. In a widely discussed survey of empirical tests of hypotheses derived from the CAPM in 2004, Eugene Fama and a coauthor arrived at a striking conclusion: “despite its seductive simplicity, the CAPM’s empirical problems probably invalidates its use in applications.” The tenets of positivism require that the CAPM should be rejected. However, financial economists kept mining the data in an endless effort to find econometric results that fit the theory. Meanwhile, CAPM sustained its canonical status and efficient market theory remained unscarred in spite of its lack of empirical support.

Why would an academic profession adopt a methodology such as positivism that supports theories that are based on unrealistic assumptions? After all, there is an obvious alternative—begin with a realistic assumption set and use it to derive realistic hypotheses about the behavior of financial markets. This is the method used by Keynes and Minsky to show that financial markets have no efficiency properties and are properly thought of as gambling casinos. The answer is that the economics profession is committed ideologically to a defense of the proposition that financial markets are efficient, yet it is impossible to derive this proposition from a realistic assumption set. Thus, the profession had no choice but to adopt a positivist methodology that sanctioned the use of even absurdly unrealistic assumptions in theory construction. Since realistic assumptions lead to theories that show the strengths, but also the myriad dangers and failures of unregulated capitalism revealed in the historical record, they had to be replaced by the large number of absurd assumptions required to sustain support for economists’ inherent belief that unregulated or lightly regulated markets create the best of all possible worlds, maximizing both economic efficiency and individual liberty. Positivism is the magic that makes it possible to construct a “scientific” defense of the proposition that free-market capitalism has no serious flaws and dangers.

The objective of the ideological project of the economics profession in the current era is to provide a theoretical foundation for unregulated financial markets and unregulated capitalism. The fact that the project has succeeded in the face of logic and history is admittedly a fantastic conjurers’ trick, but it is ridiculous to award Nobel Prizes to the conjurers. We should not give prizes to people for the creation and propagation of an ideologically-based theory that strengthened the drive for the radical financial deregulation and thus helped create a global depression.

James R. Crotty is a Professor Emeritus of Economics and Sheridan Scholar at University of Massachusetts. His writings have appeared in such diverse journals as the American Economic Review, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the Cambridge Journal of Economics, the Review of Radical Economics, Monthly Review, the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, and the Journal of Economic Issues.

Triple Crisis welcomes your comments. Please share your thoughts below.

18 Responses to “The Man Who Won a Nobel Prize for Helping Create a Global Financial Crisis”

  1. [...] TripleCrisis This entry was posted in Survive Food Crisis and tagged Create, crisis, Financial, Global, Helping, Nobel, Prize. Bookmark the permalink. ← As We Now Enter the Sixth Year of the Global Recession [...]

  2. [...] By James R. Crotty, Professor Emeritus of Economics and Sheridan Scholar at University of Massachusetts. Cross posted from Triple Crisis [...]

  3. [...] Spiegel Greenspan Knew There Was A Bubble In 2008, But Refuses To Apologize – Zero Hedge The Man Who Won a Nobel Prize for Helping Create a Global Financial Crisis – Triple Crisis 18 Signs Economists Haven’t the Foggiest – Unlearning Economics [...]

  4. [...] R. Crotty, “The Man Who Won a Nobel Prize for Helping Create a Global Financial Crisis“, TripleCrisis, 23 October [...]

  5. I appreciate the very thorough explanation of the theory of efficient financial markets.

    Your argument is very convincing and I look forward to debate in the Econ blogosphere.

    Regardless, I will be following this blog from now on.

    Thanks again.

  6. [...] is a crosspost from Triple Crisis. Triple Crisis welcomes your comments. Please share your thoughts below the original [...]

  7. ezra abrams says:

    no supporting evidence…
    isn’t that just total BS ? didn’t Fama and his students conduct many studies to look at data supporting the EMH ?
    you might think those studies are bad, but you can’t say they don’t exist

  8. lidia says:

    studies that are “bad” is not a proof, no more than, for ex. “studies” of “racial purity” proponents could be a proof.

  9. The Hat of the Three-Toed Man-Baby says:

    Perhaps you should learn something about CAPM and the EMH before ranting about how wrong they are. Enjoy your crackpottery, you really don’t matter and never will.

  10. [...] James R. Crotty, Professor Emeritus of Economics and Sheridan Scholar at University of Massachusetts [...]

  11. Salim says:

    I watched this video and rllaey hit me this is so fabulous my vision to watch it. And what an amazing! This is very opportunity to see in every detail how a fetus turns into a developed baby. The video rllaey actually show to grew the heart into how was stand by the 8th weeks the heart developed into one pumping heart which is mean actually life and breathing. I am as a mother of two beautiful girls, I had been actually two times with my past pregnant I have none an idea what is perspective at that time what happens actually while pregnant and now I watched it and I understand better and this is incredible to watch the video inside of the womb. I am calling this “Miracle of life”. I rllaey appreciate these who an invention this many thanks for that…I rllaey want you thinking about Pro and Con (make sure that you must have open in your mind thinking about this…) “Abortions” What do you think about abortions look at the life is so beautiful and who parent can’t have to begin pregnant give a chance to have get baby for the parent and same time it would not harm without abortions and if will have an abortions it will hurt the baby life and breathing think about of Pro and Con. What a shame to killing in my opinion. (Remember the baby is live and breathing!)

  12. Poi nel primo pomeriggio Favia smentisce l’intervista rilasciata al quotidiano diretto da Ezio Mauro:?”La solita? Et sil y a des poursuites judiciaires, que sa carri鑢e d閏olle. Per questo i giudici condannano Berlusconi a quattro anni di carcere, ?Certo, per essere padri, on apprend aujourd’hui le point de vue de DSK, ce nétait pas de sa faute.
    [url=http://www.ascentmagazine.com/images/frblog.asp?newbalance_id=134]new balance 1080 v2 pas cher[/url]
    new balance 1080 v2 pas cher

  13. Una fase delicata che potrebbeprecipitare in una vera e propria guerra civile,Secondo l抲ltimo bilancio,”. Ben poco secondo il deputato Mario Tassone, la Asl3 Genovese si occuper?delle somministrazione dei vaccini,30),Che il messaggio significhi l’esaurimento delle scorte iniziali previste da Apple non ?chiaro. La caccia alla versione 5 dello smartphone di casa Jobs ?aperta da poche ore. Inter e EA7 di basket. ?
    chaussure new balance 420

  14. ge que Line Renaud ne fait d閏id閙ent pas,Elle appara
    new balance 996er buy

  15. “Kalau Cikgu Tehran salah faham, tu bukan salah aku. Aku hanya kata sedang bercinta tanpa menyebut nama sapa – sapa. Aku tak sebut nama kaukan, Nia” tutur Daniel tenang. Senyap. Betul juga. Daniel tidak pun menyebut namaku buat apa aku hendak marah sakan dengannya. Cikgu Tehran yang salah tafsir akan bicara Daniel.

  16. On Sundays Aussie Week theme, Jiordan impressed three out of four judges, with Ronan having the lone dissenting opinion. While the Boyzone singer had a few praises for her, he didnt think the song “Somebody That I Used To Know” by Gotye was the perfect one for her.

Leave a Reply