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.
It's not theory that's holding things up -- it's the power of banks to stop any progress regardless of the facts.
But I certainly agree about the problem of governmental capture by bankers and the need to break that control and impose the costs of the collapse on those who caused it. Any suggestions on how that might be accomplished, other than something like a neutron bomb over Wall Street, if even that would break the grip, unlikely and unwanted as that seems?
The only positive I see is that the awareness of the extent of the problem is starting to spread out of the blogosphere and into the general public consciousness. But the problem of the 99% forcing their interests onto the agenda still seems daunting, even if a majority of that 99% can agree on some common desiderata.
To the contrary, conventional economic theory, for all its faults, has been pretty clear all along that the Euro would be problematic for some European countries, and it has pretty clear solutions now -- let some Eurozone countries free of the Euro, and let defaults occur so that bankers bear the costs, not workers in indebted countries.
On the other hand, the rise of the neo-liberal/neo-classical project with its emphasis on privatization, globalization and "reform" and its infiltration into the EU administrative apparatus, culminating in a Brussels Consensus similar to the Washington Consensus has not helped the situation in the Euro-zone either. And much of that thrust was bound up with the same magic market mentality described above.
Then there is the problem that the role of debt in US mainstream economic analysis was denied, for instance, by Bernanke, and, even now, cannot be dealt with from the inside of the DSGE model and is not incorporated into "mainstream" theory except, perhaps, occasionally on an ad hoc basis. Nor does the mainstream theory include a mechanism for endogenous money creation or provide a means of dealing with stock and flow problems.
Finally, I would argue that the whole intellectual foundation of NCE, resting as it does on assertion of axioms and deduction of consequences, is adequate to support a science based analysis of the existing behavior of the economy. While I agree with you that we need a system capable of dealing with moral and political implications, to me it does not follow that such a system flows more reasonably from an axiomatic, deductive system than from an observational and inductive approach more typical of the evolutionary sciences.
"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 23 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 90 comments
by gmoke - Jan 7 13 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2729 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2523 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1590 comments
by Oui - Jan 144 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1215 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1031 comments
by Oui - Jan 921 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments
by Oui - Jan 717 comments
by gmoke - Jan 713 comments