European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Lionel Barber editor of FT- Anglo Capitalism Swine Disease Carrier

by An American in London
Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 12:20:09 PM EST

An example of the problems with our society today is the media, politicians and capitalists all seem to think everything was hunky dory until the implosion of the financial institutions and with a little regulation; capitalism will be just fine. They ignore the social ethos which has to take precedent and has been missing from our society for decades.

If you listen to the interview of Lionel Barber by Charlie Rose at the following link; you will see what appears to be a rational,sophisticated person who is very much in tune with 'today's conventional wisdom' but who doesnt quite grasp the severity of our world and he could easily be seen as insane like many other commentators in the media and in our governments and institutions.

The impression one gets is a tweak here, a tweak there and growth will be the mantra again seeming to forget the previous growth was a mirage which masked the underlying problem of social justice and income inequality.

Link to interview is: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10252

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Lionel Barber editor of FT- Anglo Capitalism Swine Disease Carrier | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Anglo Capitalism Swine Disease Carrier (4.00 / 3)

Yes, he and Summers, of whom he is duly respectful, seem to come from similar molds, if different countries. We seem to be far from any "intellectual capitulation" on the subject of Neo-Classical Economics. The FT sees no need for fundamental changes here. Just ride out the storm.

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

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 02:27:03 PM EST

Re: Lionel Barber (none / 1)

Is Economics really any more of a science than Astrology? it just looks so much like Economists are sitting there with their theories based on Luminiferous Aether when they really need to be based on relativity. How many years away are we from having any real understanding?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun May 10th, 2009 at 11:20:29 AM EST

Re: Lionel Barber (none / 1)

Economics is even less of a science than astrology. I know four astrologers who accurately predicted what happened last year, well ahead of the time, with no particular economic insight. One of them was saying back in 2005 that we'd be very lucky not to be in a depression by 2010.

This is of course unpossible, but there it is.

As for rational economic theory - you can't have rational economic theory (and that's rational in the effective sense, not the ridiculous 'rational actor' sense) without a complete overhaul of political and moral philosophy.

What we have at the moment is an utterly medieval world view pretending to be rational - which is a very poor substitute for the real thing.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun May 10th, 2009 at 02:07:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lionel Barber (none / 0)

ThatBritGuy:

As for rational economic theory - you can't have rational economic theory (and that's rational in the effective sense, not the ridiculous 'rational actor' sense) without a complete overhaul of political and moral philosophy.
What we have at the moment is an utterly medieval world view pretending to be rational - which is a very poor substitute for the real thing.

I think it's a perfectly rational construct. It's just that its foundational assumptions are complete bollocks, but I guess that this is what you mean by the necessary philosophical 'overhaul'...

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun May 10th, 2009 at 04:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lionel Barber (none / 1)

Actually it's a perfectly effective construct for keeping the rentier class in power with the support of an expensive warrior class.

The irrationality comes from the fact that it's suicidally self-defeating in the medium to long term.

It's lemming politics, and no cleverer than that. The rentiers believe they're masters of the universe, but in reality they're just stupid animals.

Any rational reinvention has to include at least some evidence of strategy and rational planning rooted in higher brain function.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun May 10th, 2009 at 09:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lionel Barber (none / 1)

Classical Economics was effectively founded by Adam Smith, who did essentially develop a complete moral and political-economic theory in Wealth of Nations and Theory of the Moral Sentiments. Unfortunately, the profession of economics has been notably disinclined to even consider the significant advances we have made in the human sciences since Smith's time.

Economics, of necessity, deals with wealth, money and banks. Economists, of necessity, learn that they must respect the prejudices and the interests of the wealthy if they are to find wide employment for their educational qualifications in existing societies. And in our debased society, respect and acclaim follows wealth and worldly success. Combined, these factors are powerful forces for stasis in economic thought. The effectiveness and explanatory power of an economic system only comes to be relevant so long as it also favors stasis of existing wealth distribution.

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

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Sun May 10th, 2009 at 11:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lionel Barber (none / 1)

ARGeezer:

Economics, of necessity, deals with wealth, money and banks. Economists, of necessity, learn that they must respect the prejudices and the interests of the wealthy if they are to find wide employment for their educational qualifications in existing societies. And in our debased society, respect and acclaim follows wealth and worldly success. Combined, these factors are powerful forces for stasis in economic thought. The effectiveness and explanatory power of an economic system only comes to be relevant so long as it also favors stasis of existing wealth distribution.

But since banks are not in fact necessary for money generation (other than money as debt), and wealth need not in fact be a claim over wealth issued by a bank, then a new Economics may perhaps be developed to explain an emergent post-Finance Capital economics.

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon May 11th, 2009 at 03:45:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lionel Barber (none / 1)

Possibly. But then that new Economics must provide jobs (p2p credit consultants?) and funding for academics (lobby your politicians).

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon May 11th, 2009 at 05:30:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lionel Barber (none / 1)

ARGeezer:

Unfortunately, the profession of economics has been notably disinclined to even consider the significant advances we have made in the human sciences since Smith's time.

They have also been notably disinclined to read what Smith wrote.

We would do well to pick up where JS Mill left off around 1870...

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 11th, 2009 at 04:37:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lionel Barber (none / 0)

ThatBritGuy:

Actually it's a perfectly effective construct for keeping the rentier class in power with the support of an expensive warrior class.

Well, as the guy said, you can resist an invading army, but you can't resist an idea.

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon May 11th, 2009 at 03:46:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lionel Barber editor of FT- Anglo Capitalism S (none / 0)

The guy longs for Blair...

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 10th, 2009 at 02:07:40 PM EST

Re: Lionel Barber editor of FT- Anglo Capitalism (none / 0)

Lionel Barber may be self-serving, but I find the host Charlie Rose really creepy.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 11th, 2009 at 08:46:16 AM EST

Lionel Barber editor of FT- Anglo Capitalism Swine Disease Carrier | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]