Este texto faz parte de um conjunto de artigos de Paul Krugman, publicado no “New York Times”. Trata-se de uma crítica demolidora do pensamento econômico neoclássico ou neoliberal, a partir da reconstituição histórica de sua evolução desde a Grande Depressão dos anos 30, em oposição às idéias de Keynes. Esta é uma aula muito interessante para estudantes, jovens economistas e pessoas em geral que se viram perplexas diante do colapso do receituário neoliberal, em especial os fetiches do mercado auto-regulado e do Estado mínimo, incinerados pela crise financeira mundial. Infelizmente, não temos um serviço de tradução, mas assim mesmo resolvemos disponibilizá-los.

VIII. RE-EMBRACING KEYNES

So here’s what I think economists have to do. First, they have to face up to the inconvenient reality that financial markets fall far short of perfection, that they are subject to extraordinary delusions and the madness of crowds. Second, they have to admit — and this will be very hard for the people who giggled and whispered over Keynes — that Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions. Third, they’ll have to do their best to incorporate the realities of finance into macroeconomics.

Many economists will find these changes deeply disturbing. It will be a long time, if ever, before the new, more realistic approaches to finance and macroeconomics offer the same kind of clarity, completeness and sheer beauty that characterizes the full neoclassical approach. To some economists that will be a reason to cling to neoclassicism, despite its utter failure to make sense of the greatest economic crisis in three generations. This seems, however, like a good time to recall the words of H. L. Mencken: “There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible and wrong.”

When it comes to the all-too-human problem of recessions and depressions, economists need to abandon the neat but wrong solution of assuming that everyone is rational and markets work perfectly. The vision that emerges as the profession rethinks its foundations may not be all that clear; it certainly won’t be neat; but we can hope that it will have the virtue of being at least partly right.

Confira ainda:

How did economists get it so wrong? (Part 1 of 8)
How did economists get it so wrong? (Part 2 of 8)
How did economists get it so wrong? (Part 3 of 8)
How did economists get it so wrong? (Part 4 of 8)
How did economists get it so wrong? (Part 5 of 8)
How did economists get it so wrong? (Part 6 of 8)
How did economists get it so wrong? (Part 7 of 8)