In explaining the past or predicting the future, traditional economists seldom cite the opinions circulating in the streets or newspaper reviews. However, Robert Shiller, a 2013 Nobel Laureate in economics and a professor of economics at Yale University, affirmed the role of “narrative” in major economic events that has not been tested by classical economic methods. On the evening of August 12, Yale Beijing Center and Princeton University Press invited Schiller to participate in the contents of the line book “Princeton and bigwigs” to discuss how “narrative” determines economic prosperity or depression, and how narrative in the post epidemic era affects the development of the times. In the research paradigm of classical economics, rational person hypothesis is a very important basic hypothesis. However, behavioral economics, which helped Schiller win the Nobel Prize in economics in 2013, holds a negative attitude towards this fundamental assumption in traditional economics. This idea also runs through Schiller’s seven major works so far. In 2000, Schiller published the Irrational Exuberance:Revised and Expanded Third Edition, the first and second edition of the book, which successfully predicted the US stock market bubble in 2000 and the collapse of the real estate market in 2007. In 2019, Schiller returned to the public view with his new book “narrative Economics: how stories go viral and drive major economic events”. < / P > < p > < p > “people’s behavior can affect the market” is a view that most people will accept, but how is people’s behavior influenced by popular narrative? What is driving up the stock price when demand is slowing down investment and employment? How does Trump’s words and deeds affect the market as a narrative? How will the fear and anxiety left behind by the epidemic affect the future economy? Schiller answered one by one in this online activity. < / P > < p > Schiller: trump is very good at narratives. To my surprise, the United States has many faithful believers in his story. Trump has created himself a business genius: compassionate and tough. He also understood the importance of television programs, and his propaganda for himself far exceeded the traditional speech. Trump has successfully told his own story, although many of his words are not true and his story is illogical. He has written many books about self-improvement, and even in one book, don’t be afraid to boast. But he became president, which seemed to prove that he was a genius. Because ordinary people don’t like trump, they want to hear different stories, which makes them feel good, so the market performance is very optimistic. During Trump’s term of office, both the stock market and the property market in the United States performed very well. Schiller: there is a very important theorem in Economics: learning by doing. Kenneth Arrow, another Nobel Laureate in economics, wrote the economic implications of learning by doing Doing, 1962) refers to that people are accumulating experience and acquiring production skills and knowledge from experience while producing products and providing services. < / P > < p > zoom is changing the world, and the geographical structure of economic life will change as a result. The world will become more homogeneous because people can talk across borders at the same time. There will be more and more home office in the future. These behaviors change the geographical structure of the economy. Cities will become less important. I think it is very likely that house prices in central cities will fall in the future, and prices in some regions will even drop sharply. Because people will realize that they no longer need to live in big cities and there are no more important meetings to attend, which will change the price structure of the real estate market. Some jobs may no longer be needed and new jobs will have to be developed for people. Schiller: the United States was very prosperous in the 1920s, and it was also a very competitive society. The narrative of the great depression does not include this aspect: compared with the 1920s, the competition in American society during the Great Depression (1929-1940s) was much weaker, and Americans were generally more friendly and helped each other more. From this perspective, Americans may have been happier during the great depression because they didn’t have to worry about personal success, but it led to bad economic outcomes. For example, in 1932, new car sales plummeted by 85% compared with 1929. The good thing about the new outbreak is that it brings us together. Our common enemy is the virus. People care more about each other, and their mentality has improved a lot. We should take advantage of this opportunity to make life better for all. < / P > < p > Schiller: compared with the present, in order to deal with the crisis, people were more inclined to adopt radical solutions, which were popular in the United States at that time, and a lot of reform ideas emerged. Politicians know the need to tell stories and how to express themselves, and these “stories” are very powerful. The United States has done very poorly in response to the epidemic. In American mainstream narrative, citizens, especially male citizens, are tough and independent. Therefore, when the government says it is necessary to wear masks, they will say that I have the right not to wear them. This is our basic right. We need skilled politicians to change this “story.”. But the reality is that people like trump, who didn’t wear a mask before, and the president should set an example. This shows that such national narratives are sometimes problematic. The narrative of “independent citizen” in the United States has both good and bad sides, which needs to be changed. < / P > < p > Schiller: to try to understand why tiktok is so popular, I recently downloaded this app, and actually I started to like it a little bit (laughter). What’s interesting is that this is a very simple mode of interpersonal interaction, but suddenly it becomes a powerful force. < / P > < p > the biggest problem with social media is that you can’t get access to different opinions and interact with people like you. You can get a lot of recognition on these social networks, even on very private issues or areas. This may make your spouse or partner think it’s crazy, which can affect the intimacy. This is a bit dangerous. I haven’t thought of a solution yet.