kjr63 raised a fundamental point that was ignored:

i don't really understand what Mr. Bezemer means with "accounting model"

While the question "what is wealth and how is it created" is interesting and important, for the purposes at hand, the issue of the "accounting, or flow of funds model" as opposed to "general equilibrium models widely used in academic and Central Bank analysis" is central to any attempt to resolve the systemic blindness that led us over the cliff.  That, after all, is the point of Dirk J. Bezemer's paper.  It is a continuation of the efforts of William White, the chief economist of the Bank of International Settlements for the fifteen years prior to June, 2008, whose efforts in that regard are described in the article from Der Spiegel posted by Crazy Horse above.  

The credit crisis and ensuing recession may be viewed as a `natural experiment' in the validity of economic models. Those models that failed to foresee something this momentous may need changing in one way or another. And the change is likely to come from those models (if they exist) which did lead their users to anticipate instability. The plan of this paper, therefore, is to document such anticipations, to identify the underlying models, to compare them to models in use by official forecasters and policy makers, and to draw out the implications.

There is an immediate link to accounting, organizations and society. Previewing the results, it will be found that `accounting' (or flow-of-funds) models of the economy are the shared mindset of those analysts who worried about a credit-cum-debt crisis followed by recession, before the policy and academic establishment did. They are `accounting' models in the sense that they represent households', firms' and governments' balance sheets and their interrelations. If society's wealth and debt levels reflected in balance sheets are among the determinants of its growth
sustainability and its financial stability,such models are likely to timely signal threats of instability.

Models that do not - such as the general equilibrium models widely used in academic and Central Bank analysis - are prone to `Type II errors' of false negatives - rejecting the possibility of crisis when in reality it is just months ahead. Moreover, if balance sheets matter to the economy's macro performance, than the development of micro-level accounting rules and practices are integral to understanding broader economic development. This view shows any clear dividing line between `economics' and `accounting' to be artificial, and on the contrary implies a role for an `accounting of economics' research field. Thus this paper aims to encourage accountants to bring their professional expertise to what is traditionally seen as the domain of economists - the assessment of financial stability and forecasting of the business cycle. (My bold.)

Neo-Classical Economics is a house of cards and virtually worthless except as a rhetorical underpinning for the existing, failed system, but the way in which it has been wired into the brains of so many of us is uncanny.  Once again, just when there is the opportunity to see something important and useful as a line of attack, we veer off on an unproductive tangent.  I am equally guilty as I didn't notice until after I had taken the time to read the cited articles.

While it may wound the pride of "Mainstream Economists" to accept that they need supervision by accountants, that wound is far less significant than the wound to the body politic and the entire world economy, especially their own, that their blindness has inflicted.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."