Adam Davidson wrote a long piece last week in the Times magazine about Larry Summers and Glen Hubbard, representing them as two ends in the spectrum of current macroeconomic thought. Times readers however, seem to understand with great clarity that these fabulously successful (and well compensated ) academic economists have much more in common with each other (and with us, alas) than with the vast majority of citizens whose lives their policies and ideas have affected.
From the comments section,
Luboman411 from New York
"So, let me get this straight--the men who were largely responsible for
pushing policies that led to deregulation, most egregiously the repeal
of Glass-Steagall (Summer, Rubin, Greenspan et al. in the 1990s--the
"Committee to Save the World", as infamously written on a "Time
Magazine" headline sometime in the late 1990s) and tax-cutting at all
costs (Hubbard during George W. Bush administration) are now at it again
with solutions to problems they helped create? How is this possible?
How are these men not discredited for coming up with models, and then
policies, that directly or indirectly blew up the world economy in 2008?...
credentialed people who more or less studied the economic distortions
leading up to the 2008 crisis, and predicted how that impending crisis
would unfold--the likes of Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini and Robert
Shiller--are never given this much press ink or given such august
platforms like the "New York Times Magazine" to explain in detail their
pet theories. There is something wrong with a system that keeps lauding
people who are brilliant, but whose economic theories utterly failed in
the real world, at the expense of people who actually got it right the
first time around (and who could conceivably be right the second time
Dave K from Cleveland