- The Prize in Economic Sciences 2013（Kungl. Vetenskapsakademien）
- INTERVIEW WITH EUGENE FAMA（The New Yorker）←斜体は質問者
Many people would argue that, in this case, the inefficiency was primarily in the credit markets, not the stock market—that there was a credit bubble that inflated and ultimately burst.
I don’t even know what that means. People who get credit have to get it from somewhere. Does a credit bubble mean that people save too much during that period? I don’t know what a credit bubble means. I don’t even know what a bubble means. These words have become popular. I don’t think they have any meaning.
I guess most people would define a bubble as an extended period during which asset prices depart quite significantly from economic fundamentals.
That’s what I would think it is, but that means that somebody must have made a lot of money betting on that, if you could identify it. It’s easy to say prices went down, it must have been a bubble, after the fact. I think most bubbles are twenty-twenty hindsight. Now after the fact you always find people who said before the fact that prices are too high. People are always saying that prices are too high. When they turn out to be right, we anoint them. When they turn out to be wrong, we ignore them. They are typically right and wrong about half the time.
Are you saying that bubbles can’t exist?
They have to be predictable phenomena. I don’t think any of this was particularly predictable.
- Bailouts and Stimulus Plans（Fama/French Forum）
Unfortunately, bailouts and stimulus plans are not a cure. The problem is simple: bailouts and stimulus plans are funded by issuing more government debt. (The money must come from somewhere!) The added debt absorbs savings that would otherwise go to private investment. In the end, despite the existence of idle resources, bailouts and stimulus plans do not add to current resources in use. They just move resources from one use to another.
- Bailouts and Stimulus Plans - Addendum 1/16/09（Fama/French Forum）
1. Bailouts and stimulus plans must be financed.
2. If the financing takes the form of additional government debt, the added debt displaces other uses of the funds.
3. Thus, stimulus plans only enhance incomes when they move resources from less productive to more productive uses.*2
Are any of these statements incorrect?
The New Yorkerのインタビューで「信用バブルは人々が過剰貯蓄することか？」「信用バブルの意味が分からない」と語っていることからも、政府の国債発行によってマネー（預金）が増えることを理解していないことが伺えます。（参考：【国債がデフォルトしないことの常識的な説明】）
- Economics' odd couple highlights a Nobel folly（Business Spectator）
Years before Fama promoted the “Efficient Markets Hypothesis” as an equilibrium-fixated explanation for the obvious fact that it’s “extremely difficult to predict in the short run”, Benoit Mandelbrot had developed the concept of fractals which gave a far-from-equilibrium explanation for precisely the same phenomenon.