Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I will put ehre the comment in Jerome diary....

There is something that does not makes sense.

And he reason it does not makes sense; I think, it is that economic theory is not right... it is not, it can not be epistimelogichally right.

The basics of the economy , or so called basic of the economy are not clear at all. It is not only about stuff, money around (M1, M2, M3), companies , consumers and money-value or money-debt.

There are tendencies, impulses and simbolic variables not taken into account.

I have not still seen any clear and new perspective, new way to look at the glbal system (and the US in aprticualr) which makes sense.

The "normal" way to look at this stuff is krugman eyes, it makes sense, sort of, but not quite completely. Banks were deregualted, they had a lot of liquidity, made awfull bets to enrich themselves, nobody knew exactly what they were buying, so they bought stuff that nobody knows how much it costs..s now there is no market.. if there is no market,there is no liquidity ina bucn of assets and no credit and economy halts..

But given that debt-money is a 30 trillion market (almost like GDP accordign to soem readings credit swaps are worth one year US GDP) what was really the bas bet? Well, actually the whole market.

Antoher approach is that the financial institutions, all of them except local banking, are useless. this is, this is a failure of Wall Street...We do not need finantial services.. but is it true? We do not need credit? But can capitalism exist without credit?

And what about the way stirling looks at it.. captalism does not exist as such, there are purely periods in history where particualr arrangements are set in place to make feel people happy by creating a particualr production-money structure. Stuff produced is no longer a problem: it is kept constant, the improtant thing is the sense of growth, which sicne the great depression came from land for money, then oil-for money and finally debt-mortgage for money.
Bt if this was the general structre in palce, what about doing stuff, you know making things (computers, planes, cars, medical apparatus). Why peple got moey in the frst palce by making things and selling them? who were the first money-holders who wanted huge profits for their money?

Probably it is because I do nto know enough details about economics, or maybe it is becasue economics never quite makes sense.

Structrually one would think that a major redution of wall Street is necessary, and that energy and public transprot investment shuold be the way to creat money-value for consumers. it really seems the best way to go... but I am nto so sure about if it is the way to go fro china, or India.. or even Japan..
So wat happens when some coutnries like the US would benefit for it, while probably europe would but not that much, and china probaby can get more money-value for tis citizens int he way of producing stuff we have adn 1 billion peple may want?

But we could all be wrong, maybe a small Wlall street does not address the problem, maybe debt is the problem as magnifico says, maybe is the investment nature of capitalism, maybe it is the economy fundation... maybe it is that this econmic system does not makes sense at all...maybe..

maybe Europe will avoid the meltdown... but again how is a balacned economy ,a s the german or french, suppose to grow? what is growth? maybe growth is just accounting.. or not..

only maybes...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series