Related News
Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Of low finance, high finance and delusions about liquid wealth
By J. Bradford DeLong |
June 3, 2009, Wednesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
NO one questions the usefulness of "low" finance: the ability to use checks, banknotes, and credit cards rather than having to cart around chests of silver, scales, and reagents to assay purity, and needing armed guards to protect the silver - and more guards to watch the first set of guards - has obvious efficiencies.
So does the ability of households to borrow and lend in order not to be forced to match income and expenditure every day, week, month, or year.
But what use is "high" finance? Economists' conventional description depicts high finance as providing us with three types of utility.
First, it allows for many savers to pool their wealth to finance large enterprises that can achieve the efficiencies of scale possible from capital-intensive modern industry.
Second, high finance provides an arena to curb the worst abuses by managers of large corporations.
Finally, high finance allows for portfolio diversification, so that individual investors can seek high expected returns without being forced to assume large, idiosyncratic risks of bankruptcy and poverty.
But these are the benefits of high finance as they apply to the ideal world of economists - that is, a world of rational utilitarian actors who are skilled calculators of expected utility under uncertainty, who are masters of dynamic programming, and who breathe stochastic calculus (involving random variables) in their daily life. We do not live in such a world.
Economists have spent their lives attempting to evolve theories that would account for how salient features of reality might emerge if we did live in their ideal world, but since we don't, their theoretical enterprise is of doubtful utility.
If we take the world as it really is, we quickly see that high finance performs two further tasks that advance our collective economic welfare.
It induces us to save, accumulate, and invest by promising us safe and liquid investments even in extraordinary times. It also induces us to save and invest as a prerequisite to indulging our love of gambling.
It is a fact that we are much happier saving and accumulating, and that we are much more likely to do so when we think that the resources we have saved and accumulated are at hand.
It is also true that when we invest our wealth, it is not, in fact, at hand. Our invested wealth can only be made to appear liquid to any one of us, and only if there is no general shift in our collective desire for liquidity.
And it is also a fact that we are happier saving and accumulating if we receive positive and negative feedback on our decisions on a time scale that allows us to believe that we can do better next time by altering our strategy.
Of course investors who believe that their wealth is securely liquid, and that they are adding value for themselves by buying and selling are suffering from a delusion.
Our financial wealth is not liquid in an emergency. And when we buy and sell, we are enriching not ourselves, but the specialists and market makers. But we benefit from these delusions.
Psychologically, we are naturally impatient, so it is good for us to believe that our wealth is safe and secure, and that we can add to it through skillful acts of investment, because that delusion makes us behave less impatiently.
And, collectively, that delusion boosts our savings, and thus our capital stock, which on turn boosts all of our wages and salaries as well.
Seventy-three years ago, John Maynard Keynes thought about the reform of financial markets from the perspective of the first three purposes and found himself "moved toward... mak(ing) the purchase of an investment permanent and indissoluble, like marriage..."
But he drew back: the fact "that each individual investor flatters himself that his commitment is 'liquid' (though this cannot be true for all investors collectively) calms his nerves and makes him much more willing to run a risk..."
It is for these reasons that we have seemed frozen for the past generation or two whenever we have contemplated reforming our system of financial regulation.
And it is why, even in the face of a severe financial crisis, we remain frozen today.
(The author is professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org.)
So does the ability of households to borrow and lend in order not to be forced to match income and expenditure every day, week, month, or year.
But what use is "high" finance? Economists' conventional description depicts high finance as providing us with three types of utility.
First, it allows for many savers to pool their wealth to finance large enterprises that can achieve the efficiencies of scale possible from capital-intensive modern industry.
Second, high finance provides an arena to curb the worst abuses by managers of large corporations.
Finally, high finance allows for portfolio diversification, so that individual investors can seek high expected returns without being forced to assume large, idiosyncratic risks of bankruptcy and poverty.
But these are the benefits of high finance as they apply to the ideal world of economists - that is, a world of rational utilitarian actors who are skilled calculators of expected utility under uncertainty, who are masters of dynamic programming, and who breathe stochastic calculus (involving random variables) in their daily life. We do not live in such a world.
Economists have spent their lives attempting to evolve theories that would account for how salient features of reality might emerge if we did live in their ideal world, but since we don't, their theoretical enterprise is of doubtful utility.
If we take the world as it really is, we quickly see that high finance performs two further tasks that advance our collective economic welfare.
It induces us to save, accumulate, and invest by promising us safe and liquid investments even in extraordinary times. It also induces us to save and invest as a prerequisite to indulging our love of gambling.
It is a fact that we are much happier saving and accumulating, and that we are much more likely to do so when we think that the resources we have saved and accumulated are at hand.
It is also true that when we invest our wealth, it is not, in fact, at hand. Our invested wealth can only be made to appear liquid to any one of us, and only if there is no general shift in our collective desire for liquidity.
And it is also a fact that we are happier saving and accumulating if we receive positive and negative feedback on our decisions on a time scale that allows us to believe that we can do better next time by altering our strategy.
Of course investors who believe that their wealth is securely liquid, and that they are adding value for themselves by buying and selling are suffering from a delusion.
Our financial wealth is not liquid in an emergency. And when we buy and sell, we are enriching not ourselves, but the specialists and market makers. But we benefit from these delusions.
Psychologically, we are naturally impatient, so it is good for us to believe that our wealth is safe and secure, and that we can add to it through skillful acts of investment, because that delusion makes us behave less impatiently.
And, collectively, that delusion boosts our savings, and thus our capital stock, which on turn boosts all of our wages and salaries as well.
Seventy-three years ago, John Maynard Keynes thought about the reform of financial markets from the perspective of the first three purposes and found himself "moved toward... mak(ing) the purchase of an investment permanent and indissoluble, like marriage..."
But he drew back: the fact "that each individual investor flatters himself that his commitment is 'liquid' (though this cannot be true for all investors collectively) calms his nerves and makes him much more willing to run a risk..."
It is for these reasons that we have seemed frozen for the past generation or two whenever we have contemplated reforming our system of financial regulation.
And it is why, even in the face of a severe financial crisis, we remain frozen today.
(The author is professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org.)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
