 |
| Tyler Goodspeed |
Goodspeed has served on the council since 2017 as a senior economist, chief economist for macroeconomic policy and then as a member.
He was an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives.
In his book, Rethinking the Keynesian Revolution: Keynes, Hayek, and the Wicksell Connection, he reached the conclusion that the business cycle thinking of Keynes and Hayek had "significant theoretical affinities."
-RW
Roger Garrison concludes his review of Goodspeed's book (which is presently unavailable) as follows: Despite the obvious differences between Keynes and Hayek, clearly sensed if not fully understood in the 1930s, there is an important lesson in Goodspeed’s Rethinking. In my judgment, the most revealing question is: “How could Keynes and Hayek have failed to see at the time the similarities that Goodspeed now sees? The answer, I believe, is that Keynes and Hayek didn’t have and couldn’t have had the vantage point that Goodspeed now does have. The dominant macroeconomic theory today takes the form of “dynamic stochastic general equilibrium” models (p. 1), a Walrasian framework that continues to do well in the most prestigious economic journals but provides no basis for explaining how real-world economies might go right or go wrong or how an economy gone wrong can be set right. Clearly, Goodspeed himself, sensing the sterility of current macroeconomic thinking, is “suggest[ing] a reorientation of current economic research. Indeed,” says Goodspeed, “to those who might ask whether we ought to go back to Keynes or rather Hayek in order to move forward in economics, my answer is yes” (p. 10). His answer makes us realize that the differences between Keynesian theory and Hayekian theory, however great, are small in comparison to the difference between those two theories and the macroeconomic theory that now dominates academia.
ReplyDelete