Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
But, if after the fact, we find that government can nto control the monetary mass unless it controls directly the banks, we must conclude that banks generate debt first, find reserves later (via the lack of need for firms to hold any reserve on debt), we should conclude that all first year macro books, including Krugman, are wrong.

I can not even imagine a first book in Physics being wrong in the appropriate approximation...

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 Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 05:38:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
we find that government can (not) control the monetary mass unless it controls directly the banks

I think that it is more important is to regulate the purpose of the loans and the quality of the loans, but this has not yet been shown to be feasible over a century. Given the money that can be made through destructive lending combined with capture of regulatory enforcement and policy of the government by large banks, strict limits on political contributions may not work -- bankers will just capture that regulatory process, as they have done in the USA.

Given that, I think direct government control of banks might actually be worse than the existing arrangement. It certainly would require an actual functioning representative government that is based on votes and not contributions. In the USA monied interests have always had a disproportionate influence on government, but over much of our history there have been competing financial interests that prevented total domination by one sector. There still are a number of competing interests, but the relative weight of the financial sector is probably at an all time high.

The general population is becoming more and more aware of the disconnect between finance and the rest of the economy and society in the US, but they may well be effectively misdirected by Tea Party astroturfing on behalf of very self serving interests masquerading as libertarians, such as the owners of Koch Industries, Rupert Murdoch, etc. The broadcast media is owned by large financial interests and cannot undercut their interests.

And all of this is occurring within a society that has been transformed into an adjunct of the economy. One result is that, compared to economic claims, all other concerns are made to seem less legitimate. But the fact that the government is run in the interests of a loose alliance of wealth whose most basic interests are self serving has generated what I believe will be uncontrollable instabilities.

I do not see how this can be changed for the better without a larger portion of the population, including some monied interests, coming to see that it is in their interests to create greater stability by looking to sustainability and allowing more of the benefits of the economy to go to the bottom 99% of the population.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Oct 5th, 2010 at 02:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series