Guest post by David Romer
University of California, Berkeley, and co-host of Rethinking Macro II: First Steps and Early Lessons
As I listened to the presentations and discussions, I found myself thinking about the conference from two perspectives. One is intellectual: Are we asking provocative questions? Are interesting ideas being proposed? Are we talking about important issues? By that standard, the conference was very successful: the discussion was extremely stimulating, and I learned a great deal.
The second perspective is practical: Where do we stand in terms of averting another financial and macroeconomic disaster? By that standard, unfortunately, I fear we are not doing nearly as well. As I will describe, my reading of the evidence is that the events of the past few years are not an aberration, but just the most extreme manifestation of a broader pattern. And the relatively modest changes of the type discussed at the conference, and that in some cases policymakers are putting into place, are helpful but unlikely to be enough to prevent future financial shocks from inflicting large economic harms.
Thus, I believe we should be asking whether there are deeper reforms that might have a large effect on the size of the shocks emanating from the financial sector, or on the ability of the economy to withstand those shocks. But there has been relatively little serious consideration of ideas for such reforms, not just at this conference but in the broader academic and policy communities.
Filed under: Advanced Economies, Economic Crisis, Economic research, Emerging Markets, Europe, Finance, Financial Crisis, Financial regulation, Fiscal policy, growth, IMF, International Monetary Fund, Latin America, Public debt | Tagged: banks, Brazil, David Romer, debt, economy, Federal Reserve, fiscal policy, Greece, Iceland, IMF, iMFdirect, International Monetary Fund, Israel, macroeconomics, macroprudential policy, mortgages, South Korea, taxes, United Kingdom, United States | 5 Comments »