IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/fimchp/978-3-319-20991-3_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

The Theoretical Debate on the Great Crisis

In: Modern Financial Crises

Author

Listed:
  • Beniamino Moro

    (University of Cagliari)

Abstract

According to Krugman, the central cause of the profession’s failure to forecast the current Great Crisis is the abandoning of Keynesian theory to explain crises and depressions and the prevailing of monetarism and neoclassical vision that whatever happens in a market economy must be right. According to neoclassicals, instead, economic models do not just fail to predict the timing of financial crises, they say that we cannot. This common sense is the heart of rational expectations models. So the correct conclusion should be that our inability to predict the crisis confirms neoclassical theories. Keynesians suggest that deficit spending is the right policy to put the economic system in a full employment equilibrium path, while neoclassicals think that fiscal stimulus is only a bad way to transfer money from taxpayers to inefficient bureaucrats, policymakers, and zombie firms. Anyway, Keynesians and neoclassicals share the opinion that we need a more tightening regulation of financial markets. Commercial banks, who are allowed to manage systemic contracts like bank deposits, and for that reason they have access to the lender of last resort, should be kept strictly separated from investment banks, hedge funds, and other financial speculative institutions, none of which should be considered too big to fail. This is the most important convergence between the two schools of thought.

Suggested Citation

  • Beniamino Moro, 2016. "The Theoretical Debate on the Great Crisis," Financial and Monetary Policy Studies, in: Modern Financial Crises, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 163-182, Springer.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:fimchp:978-3-319-20991-3_8
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20991-3_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:fimchp:978-3-319-20991-3_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.