Todd Suomela's Library tagged macroeconomic →  View Popular

We need to take a close look at how the sociology of our profession led to an outcome where people were made to feel embarrassed for even asking certain types of questions. People will always be passionate in defense of their life's work, so it's not the rhetoric itself that is of concern, the problem comes when factors such as ideology or control of journals and other outlets for the dissemination of research stand in the way of promising alternative lines of inquiry.

I don't know for sure the extent to which the ability of a small number of people in the field to control the academic discourse led to a concentration of power that stood in the way of alternative lines of investigation, or the extent to which the ideology that markets prices always tend to move toward their long-run equilibrium values caused us to ignore voices that foresaw the developing bubble and coming crisis. But something caused most of us to ask the wrong questions, and to dismiss the people who got it right, and I think one of our first orders of business is to understand how and why that happened.

There is quite a bit of research on
monetary policy that is devoted to the issues he is worried about, particularly the literature on adaptive learning. See

here, and some of his publications
here for
and example from a European central bank. These ideas are also well-known and of considerable interest to
the US Fed, e.g. one example is

here, but there are many
more.
Some of the recent
work of Chris Sims is also of interest in this regard:

...Most recently, theories that postulate deviations from the assumption of
rational, computationally unconstrained agents have drawn attention. One branch
of such thinking is in the behavioral economics literature (Laibson, 1997;
Benabou and Tirole, 2001; Gul and Pesendorfer, 2001, e.g.), another in the
learning literature (Sargent, 1993; Evans and Honkapohja, 2001, e.g.), another
in the robust control literature (Giannoni, 1999; Hansen and Sargent, 2001;
Onatski and Stock, 1999, e.g.).

This paper suggests yet another direction for deviation from the seamless
model, based on the idea that individual people have limited capacity for
processing information. That people have limited information-processing capacity
should not be controversial. It accords with ordinary experience, as do the
basic ideas of the behavioral, learning, and robust control literatures. The
limited information-processing capacity idea is particularly appealing, though,
for two reasons. It accounts for a wide range of observations with a relatively
simple single mechanism. And, by exploiting ideas from the engineering theory of
coding, it arrives at predictions that do not depend on the details of how
information is processed.