But. If you're right about that, doesn't it mean that rather a lot of common economic wisdom is a load of horse manure?
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
These are many, and have been well documented here.
In particular, it assumes as "Value" something that is in fact its complete opposite - a "Claim over Value" created by Banks and based upon a small amount of "Regulatory Capital".
I think that's a bit strong. Conventional economic analysis is based on a coherent set of assumptions about the way the markets behave. If you're happy with the idea that the strong, smart, criminal, hard-working people will control everything, the analysis works just fine. It's only when you apply concerns about equity and compassion that the system breaks down.
Do you think that the multi-millionaires who own (not "hold mortgates on") several mansions in various countries will be in trouble in a real estate market collapse? They will simply hold on to their property. Do you think that the CEOs of the defense industry will be in trouble if there are revolutions about food? They will simply adjust their factories to make more machine guns. Do you think that the rich in your town will care if there are street riots (as recently advocated by our foremost American talk show host, Rush Limbaugh)? http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/25/limbaugh_says_hes_dreaming_of_dnc_riot/4093/
No, they will simply call in the SWAT teams to break heads. "Let them eat cake" is, I believe, the motto of the capitalist leadership...
