Some interesting links

Prof.Raghu Rajan from the University of Chicago has written this interesting piece on the build-up that finally ended in the financial crisis from the Fault Lines blog. He explains lucidly why Keynesian spending might not work as well this time around.

The other interesting write-up is about secular shifts in the unemployment picture in developed countries and some of the underlying causes. From the MIT Technology Review.

Excellent food for thought along with this piece from Joseph Stiglitz that I summarized here.

Great Recession - A new theory linked to productivity improvement

I wrote a couple of years back on what has come to be known as the Great Recession of the twenty-first century. I remarked that the recession appears to show no signs of abating and recent events seems to have borne that out. While GDP growth in the US is in positive territory, it barely is. And the problems in Europe and a couple of natural disasters affecting Asia (the earthquake in Japan and the flooding in Thailand) have put brakes on the emerging markets engine that was pulling the world economy along for the last 4 years.

In the meantime, a number of well-argued articles and books have been written about the genesis of the crisis, and they have largely focused on the financial sector, the US mortgage market and the excesses there. The Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, approaches this issue from a slightly different angle in a recent write-up in Vanity Fair. Stiglitz argues that the Great Recession has its roots in something more benign than mortgages gone toxic. It lay in the productivity increases in the last two decades and caused a large number of job categories employing very large portions of the labor force to basically become redundant in the economy. What is interesting about this theory is that (Stiglitz argues) this is exactly what happened leading up to the Great Depression. The productivity improvements now are in the areas of manufacturing and services and the productivity improvement then was in agriculture.To quote, In 1900, it took a large portion of the U.S. population to produce enough food for the country as a whole. Then came a revolution in agriculture that would gain pace throughout the century—better seeds, better fertilizer, better farming practices, along with widespread mechanization. Today, 2 percent of Americans produce more food than we can consume.

Extremely interesting article and a forcefully made argument on the cause of the crisis and what could be done to solve it.

The Judgment Deficit - a real-wordliness deficit

I usually don't use my blog to take on or pick apart published pieces - my aim with the blog is to create a diversity of ideas and viewpoints to the reader. There is plenty of intelligent writing in the Web that is thought-provoking and worth bringing to the attention of readers interested in the general ideas of statistics and machine learning. But I came across this learning recently that - I have to admit - caused a fair amount of angst and therefore an urge-to-act. This was the Judgment Deficit by Amar Bhide, a professor of Finance at Tufts University.

The journal article from HBS talks about how machines or computers can make decisions in certain types of situations and human judgment needs to come in at other places. Fair enough. The article then bemoans the recent Great Recession and lays part of the blame on statistical models used in Finance. Specifically the author says
In recent times, though, a new form of centralized control has taken root: mechanistic decision making based on top-down statistical models and algorithms. This has been especially true in finance, where risk models have replaced the judgments of thousands of individual bankers and investors, to disastrous effect.This kind of thinking is not only delusional but also dangerous. (Another part of the article that didn't necessarily get me singing from the rooftops was the lengthy encomium heaped on the economics of Freidrich Hayek, the libertarian economist and the founder of the famous Austrian Economists school. I am still not clear how is that related to the topic at hand.)

The fundamental reason why banks took the risks they took were because there were incentives to do so and there was not enough of an appreciation of the downside. Bankers thought the spiral of rising home-prices, the ability to take the assets off balance sheet and maintain minimal capital reserves, was an unending one and were unable to either spot the inevitable edge of the cliff or were too late to pull back once they spotted it. Also the desire to have these activities as unregulated as possible (to allow free pursuit of profit, or to make 'markets efficient' as Wall Street would argue) led to a number of opacities (about risk) developing in the system which lead to situations where high-schools in Norway were exposed to the collapse of Bear Stearns. So lets not put the blame on top-down statistical models and algorithms. If the alternative that Bhide suggests, having manual underwriters take more of the decisions, were to have happened, I am not sure whether the conclusions reached by these underwriters would have been any different. Apart from a few economists, fund managers and people like Nourini and Taleb (who have made an image of themselves as Cassandras of Doom and therefore have to say anything to maintain that image), nobody - let me say that again - nobody saw this edifice collapsing. No one thought house prices in the US would ever come down. Everyone (human beings and computers alike) were victims of the rear-view mirror bias, i.e. expecting that the future would play out exactly as the past.

So let's go a little bit easy on computers, statistical models and automated decision making.

Interesting links from Jul 17, 2010

1.The over-stated role of banking in the larger economy (Link here)

2. A very interesting article on the original monetary expansionist, John Law (Link here)

3. My latest area of passion, text mining and analytics. A blog entry from SAS. (Link here)

4.Commentary from Prof.Rajan on the inequality in US income and its inevitable lead to a crisis. His analysis on how income inequality forces asset-price inflation is fascinating (Link here)