Customer Reviews

Paving Wall Street : Experimental Economics and the Quest for the Perfect Market

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Miller provides in-depth insight into past financial market events and by doing so sheds light on what might happen today on several fronts. Three examples: His discussion of the 1998 Long-Term Capital Management debacle is relevant for understanding current risks in hedge funds. His analysis of 1980s portfolio insurance should add to concerns about the proliferation of capital guaranteed notes. His take on market circuit breakers, which he describes as regulatory folly, raises the question of what would happen today if these were triggered.

While the book reviews a large and varied body of academic research, focusing heavily on the experimental economics that the author subscribes to, it offers practical conclusions that anybody interested in finance will find worthwhile. As a financial journalist, I found it very useful.

However, because it covers a lot of ground, readers may want to pick and choose what they want to read from the index. The chapter and section headings, while entertaining, are not good guides for this purpose.

But that's not my only reason for thinking this a great book.

Ross M. Miller makes three large claims here. I think he makes good on the first two. I'm not so sure about the third, but even there he makes a case that needs to be made.

First, he explains that one branch of economics has become an experimental science.

Second, he says that this variant of economics has produced important results - theorems disclosing how markets might best be structured or restructured, and how the privatization of now-public goods might be accomplished, in ways that could produce enormous productivity gains.

He more pessimistically claims though, thirdly, that these theorems probably won't produce such gains, because in doing so they would hurt politically powerful interests.

The idea of "experimental economics" is simple enough: a college professor need only ask his students to co-operate in a simple auction-based game, so that he (and they) can observe the process by which prices come into existence under simplified conditions. Once a body of observations has developed, he and other experimenters can vary the rules and conditions of the game and observe the effect the changes have upon the trading strategies of the players and the game outcomes.

It was at Harvard University, in the 1940s, that such experiments got their start, in the classroom of Professor Edward Chamberlain. In the decades since, a body of observations has developed that in some respects supports neoclassical economic theory, but that in one crucial respect calls for its modification. Neoclassical theory needs to be modified to account for the possibility of irrational price bubbles. What is of greater policy importance, though, is that post-Chamberlainian experiments have given us a good idea of how markets can be structured to prevent bubble formation.

About 1975, when Ross Miller and I were grad students in economics, there was a consensus "economic view of the world." Economists who had to deal with the real world -- policy makers and development types -- didn't really believe it, but the mainstream did. Not only believed it, but took it for granted.

That's not true today. The consensus is fragmenting. If you want to understand the underpinnings of this intellectual shift, read Ross's book. It's written clearly, even excitingly, with well-chosen examples. And it is written by a real economist, who's trying to understand what's right and what's wrong about how we think about the economic world.

A solid, fluid look at experimental economics! In these turbulent times on Wall Street (and really in markets around the world) this proves to be a great source of how we've come to this point, but more importantly, where we can go from here.