The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But a recession is a dynamic process, not a mechanical one ... in the current stage, its in free fall because its in free fall, and magically and instantly providing a functional, prudent banking system would not be enough of a boost to create a bottom. Letting it find a bottom on its own gives the strongest likelihood of a low employment macroeconomic equilibrium.
Letting it find a bottom on its own gives the strongest likelihood of a low employment macroeconomic equilibrium.
But I still claim that as long as the banking system is not stabilised the crisis will not touch bottom. Not because their credit is needed but because it freaks out the business class to see the banks in bad health and it leads them to withdraw their capital from the "real economy". Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
So its the same as the banking system ... making a bottom is required for the financial capital to show up in any event.
Ergo the government has to be the driving force in finding a bottom.
We've known this about monetary production economies for over half a century, its just that the understanding of a monetary production economy is inconvenient for a range of private interests during financial bull markets, so quite a lot of money has been invested over more than half a century in creating willful ignorance regarding monetary production economies. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
quite a lot of money has been invested over more than half a century in creating willful ignorance regarding monetary production economies.
Between heterodox economists and orthodox economists who understand that there are stretches of the economy that the standard toolkit does not work for ... maybe 20%? I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Between heterodox economists and orthodox economists who understand that there are stretches of the economy that the standard toolkit does not work for ... maybe 20%?
NYTimes.com: Questions for James K. Galbraith (October 31, 2008)
Do you find it odd that so few economists foresaw the current credit disaster? Some did. The person with the most serious claim for seeing it coming is Dean Baker, the Washington economist. I saw it coming in general terms. But there are at least 15,000 professional economists in this country, and you're saying only two or three of them foresaw the mortgage crisis? Ten or 12 would be closer than two or three. What does that say about the field of economics, which claims to be a science? It's an enormous blot on the reputation of the profession. There are thousands of economists. Most of them teach. And most of them teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless.
But there are at least 15,000 professional economists in this country, and you're saying only two or three of them foresaw the mortgage crisis? Ten or 12 would be closer than two or three.
What does that say about the field of economics, which claims to be a science? It's an enormous blot on the reputation of the profession. There are thousands of economists. Most of them teach. And most of them teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless.
There are very few macroeconomists or financial economists remaining in the profession, having mostly been replaced by marginalist microeconomists pretending to do macroeconomics or financial economics ... and even an economist who is aware that the marginalist mainstream is radically incomplete would not have known the magnitude of the problem without the information.
I was online saying there was an unsustainable housing bubble in 2006, but I am a completely obscure regional development economist, and there's no reason that comments I make online would ever come to the attention of Jamie Galbraith. And I certainly did not expect the total meltdown, since I was not aware of how much financial fragility there was in the system. But if you had polled the individual subscribers to the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics and the Journal of Economic Issues, there would have been more than 10 or 12 who would have called a major financial system meltdown as a realistic possibility.
(2) At the 2006 ASSA meetings, there would have been more than 10 or 12 economists in the same room who would have argued that the housing bubble was unsustainable ... but it would have been the AFEE reception, and Jamie Galbraith would not have been there. Jamie Galbraith is a mainstream economist who understands some of the limitations of the approach, but that does not mean he is in close touch with large number of heterodox economists. And heterodox economists tend to be scattered across academe, in smaller institutions or lying low in state universities.
Indeed, the scattered nature of heterodox economics is on reason for the formation of ICAPE, the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics, with 13 association members, and between 30 members between associations, institutes, journals and individual academic departments. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
We've known this about monetary production economies for over half a century, its just that the understanding of a monetary production economy is inconvenient for a range of private interests during financial bull markets, so quite a lot of money has been invested over more than half a century in creating willful ignorance regarding monetary production economies.
And real capital in the productive sector cannot actually be withdrawn, its just that lack of replacement over time leads it to depreciate.
One of the arguments in favour of a tax on land rental values is that it gives an incentive for land to be put to productive use. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
But a tax on developed land rental values ensures that already developed land is put to use. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
that equal and opposite side to the argument should be present also, n'est-ce pas?
Preservation of 'wild zones' every so often, and not taxing too heavily for those who are cash poor, yet land rich. if they are not exploiting their land, it could be saving resources for future generations, why tax present owners for that. do you want them all to have to sell because they can't pay land taxes?
</devil's avocado> 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
Corporations are sociopaths, and that includes sacrificing strong immediate interests of the corporation itself for the greater good of "corporations as a whole". To get corporations on board, they have to be persuaded that it is in their interest. Now, this can and normally does include a substantial amount of self-deception, where the immediate interest of the corporation in the conventional wisdom of corporate managers and board members is not, in reality, the actual immediate interest of the corporation.
That is why one of the main tools for making real equipment lie idle is an aggressively anti-full-employment monetary policy ... in the specific US case, the FOMC is made up of government appointees and Presidents of not for profit corporations (Federal Reserve Banks) where the effect on the corporate bottom line nets out, as any surplus revenue over operating costs and a fixed nominal dividend is handed over to the Treasury, and where the short term interests of the commercial banks is often served by shying away from full employment conditions.
Creating the macroeconomic conditions in which it is in the perceived self-interest of corporations to idle equipment is far easier than convincing corporations with clear profit opportunities from the use of equipment to let that equipment lie idle. Without an immediate countervailing interest, such as the interest to gain the best bargain possible in negotiations with its own workers, its very hard to get a corporation to refrain from producing to meet a demand. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Corporations are sociopaths
It is the owners and managers of the corporations who are the sociopaths. They act out their anti-social tendencies through corporations as their instruments. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
And, no, it is not necessary for any individual in the corporate chain of command to be a sociopath for the corporation as a whole to behave as a sociopath ... it is only necessary for boards of directors to follow their fiduciary responsibilities under the law. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
The most prominent post-WWII Institutionalist was Galbraith, The New Industrial State, or A Short History of Financial Euphoria. And some who style themselves as Socio-Economists are not far from Institutional Economics ... (indeed, while Institutionalists founded the American Economics Association, we did not found our own organization until rather late in the process of marginalist capture of the AEA, so if Institutionalist want their ASSA meetings money to not go to supporting a marginalist mainstream association, we register under the Association for Social Economics, who were a founding member of the group that holds the annual economics meetings) ... and quite relevant to the current financial melt-down is Barry Bluestone, The Great U-Turn. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
This was especially evident in the handling of the then Architecture and Engineering Division, who had real expertise in building, maintaining and upgrading school facilities, by the rest of the organization. The stress became more acute as more bond resources came available. By now even the vestiges of that once fine organization are in ruins, while the district is paying an army of "consultants" far more than the old A&E Division cost and they accomplish little more than the depletion of the bond funds in endless design reviews and staff shuffles. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Land improves under idleness as ecological succession starts to work, either naturally or man-planted 'kick start.' She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Treating natural resources as a form of real capital is an absurdity ... and it has been argued in ET recently, that an important impetus behind the development of neoclassical economics was precisely to promulgate that absurdity ... so it may well be that the absurdities of "putty capital" assumptions, so completely destroyed by Sraffa's argument, are side-effects of the original absurdity that could be said to be a design feature (from the perspective of vested interests threatened by Georgist Economics), rather than a design flaw. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 8 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 31 8 comments
by gmoke - Dec 29
by Oui - Jan 14
by Oui - Jan 141 comment
by Oui - Jan 131 comment
by Oui - Jan 125 comments
by Oui - Jan 103 comments
by Oui - Jan 9
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 86 comments
by Oui - Jan 8
by Oui - Jan 84 comments
by Oui - Jan 7
by Oui - Jan 62 comments
by Oui - Jan 3
by Oui - Jan 212 comments
by Oui - Jan 11 comment
by Oui - Jan 124 comments
by Oui - Dec 31
by Oui - Dec 315 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 318 comments
by Oui - Dec 301 comment