The Economic Illusion

In The Economic Illusion Robert Kuttner sets out to refute the conventional view that a more egalitarian distribution of income and services is only achievable at the expense of a prosperous and growing capitalism. By carefully examining issues where economic growth and social justice appear to be in conflict—issues such as social security, protectionism, income taxation, and welfare—he convincingly argues that equality and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive pursuits. As a means to reconcile equality with efficiency—i.e., prosperity—Kuttner argues for economic polices that would deemphasize private markets, for an increase in trade protection, and for an adapted version of the technical approaches of such countries as Sweden, Germany, Austria, and Japan. Kuttner concludes his arguments with the suggestion that injustice is not necessarily an economic issue and that practical social alternatives are possible.

It is widely believed today that the free market is the best mechanism ever invented to efficiently allocate resources in society. Just as fundamental as faith in the free market is the belief that government has a legitimate and competent role in policing and the punishment arena. This curious incendiary combination of free market efficiency and the Big Brother state has become seemingly obvious, but it hinges on the illusion of a supposedly natural order in the economic realm. The Illusion of Free Markets argues that our faith in “free markets” has severely distorted American politics and punishment practices. Bernard Harcourt traces the birth of the idea of natural order to eighteenth-century economic thought and reveals its gradual evolution through the Chicago School of economics and ultimately into today’s myth of the free market. The modern category of “liberty” emerged in reaction to an earlier, integrated vision of punishment and public economy, known in the eighteenth century as “police.” This development shaped the dominant belief today that competitive markets are inherently efficient and should be sharply demarcated from a government-run penal sphere. This modern vision rests on a simple but devastating illusion. Superimposing the political categories of “freedom” or “discipline” on forms of market organization has the unfortunate effect of obscuring rather than enlightening. It obscures by making both the free market and the prison system seem natural and necessary. In the process, it facilitated the birth of the penitentiary system in the nineteenth century and its ultimate culmination into mass incarceration today.

The Principle of Large Numbers indicates that macro fluctuations have weak microfoundations; persistent business cycles and interrupted technologies can be better characterized by macro vitality and meso foundations. Economic growth is limited by market extent and ecological constraints. The trade-off between stability and complexity is the foundation of cultural diversity and mixed economies. The new science of complexity sheds light on the sources of economic instability and complexity. This book consists of the major work of Professor Ping Chen, a pioneer in studying economic chaos and economic complexity. They are selected from works completed since 1987, including original research on the evolutionary dynamics of the division of labour, empirical and theoretical studies of economic chaos and stochastic models of collective behavior. Offering a new perspective on market instability and the changing world order, the basic pillars in equilibrium economics are challenged by solid evidence of economic complexity and time asymmetry, including Friedman’s theory of exogenous money and efficient market, the Frisch model of noise-driven cycles, the Lucas model of microfoundations and rational expectations, the Black-Scholes model of option pricing, and the Coase theory of transaction costs. Throughout, a general theory based on complex evolutionary economics is developed, which integrates different insights from Marx, Marshall, Schumpeter, Keynes and offers a new understanding of the evolutionary history of division of labour. This book will be of interest to postgraduates and researchers in Economics, including macroeconomics, financial economics, advanced econometrics and economic methodology.

The first book-length work on market monetarism, written by its leading scholar. Is it possible that the consensus around what caused the 2008 Great Recession is almost entirely wrong? It’s happened before. Just as Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz led the economics community in the 1960s to reevaluate its view of what caused the Great Depression, the same may be happening now to our understanding of the first economic crisis of the 21st century. Foregoing the usual relitigating of problems such as housing markets and banking crises, renowned monetary economist Scott Sumner argues that the Great Recession came down to one thing: nominal GDP, the sum of all nominal spending in the economy, which the Federal Reserve erred in allowing to plummet. The Money Illusion is an end-to-end case for this school of thought, known as market monetarism, written by its leading voice in economics. Based almost entirely on standard macroeconomic concepts, this highly accessible text lays the groundwork for a simple yet fundamentally radical understanding of how monetary policy can work best: providing a stable environment for a market economy to flourish.

In economics, money illusion refers to the tendency of people to think of currency in nominal, rather than real, terms. In other words, the numerical/face value (nominal value) of money is mistaken for its purchasing power (real value). This is false, as modern fiat currencies have no inherent value and their real value is derived from their ability to be exchanged for goods and used for payment of taxes. The term was coined by John Maynard Keynes in the early twentieth century. Almost every one is subject to the "Money Illusion" in respect to his own country's currency. This seems to him to be stationary while the money of other countries seems to change. It may seem strange but it is true that we see the rise or fall of foreign money better than we see that of our own.-IRVING FISHER

The Growth Illusion exposes the real nature of undirected economic growth, and refutes Adam Smith's belief in the 'invisible hand' ensuring that self-interest would serve the common good.

The concept of money illusion, a recently resurrected phenomenon of behavioral economics, is a real fact of economic life, the potential role of which should no longer be dismissed. Despite money illusion being utterly suppressed by mainstream economists, small deviations from rationality, together with trends in behavioral economics, alleviate the denial of money illusion induced by the rational expectations revolution. This book argues that money illusion seems to be a ubiquitous phenomenon, affecting various areas such as financial markets, housing markets, labor markets, consumption-saving decisions, and even development at the aggregate level induced by coordination issues. Furthermore, in light of the educational efforts of central banks and other institutions, it is worth considering whether solid economic training would provide guidance for the public regarding their decision-making and thereby alleviate the effects of money illusion. The emerging field of experimental economics provides a unique opportunity for us to verify the presence of money illusion. Specifically, attention is devoted to the experimental investigation of reduction in the direct and indirect effects of money illusion with respect to the level of economic literacy acquired through economic education. Economic Literacy and Money Illusion will be of interest to the general audience and to those who are interested in behavioral economics, economics education, and experimental economics, as well as to policy makers and institutions. Last but not least, it will help develop students’ interest in alternative economic theories. NB. The research and writing of this book was made possible with the support of the University of Economics, Prague, Faculty of Economics, Department of Economics.