Re: Ideology and Economics

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott,

 

I agree with the thrust of your argument - the task at hand is "how we [can] move onto something better".

 

Indeed, the only justification for revisiting ancient intellectual grounds is to identify and learn from past mistakes.

 

We failed to do so in the early 1970s, when the Bretton Woods system collapsed, partly because most economic scholars welcomed the advent of world monetary arrangements which now, three decades later, have brough the world economy to the brink of disaster.

 

Along the way, the economics profession has been caught by a succession of "surprises" in the financial field at both national and international levels - a sure sign that something is radically wrong with contemporary approaches to monetary and financial analysis.

 

In this respect, I strikes me as (nearly) self-evident that the world economy has been brought to the brink of disaster by the transformation of pre-1970s "capitalism" into contemporary "financial capitalism".

 

Therefore, "moving onto something better" will require fundamental changes in the world economy's financial architecture - changes which, judging by its track record, the economics profession is ill-equipped to identify. 

 

Gunnar

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Whitalone@xxxxxxx

To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 4:49 AM

Subject: Re: Ideology and Economics

In a message dated 5/24/2003 9:30:19 AM Central Standard Time, gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

Ideology and economics is a dangerous mix

gunnar,

I appreciate your passion for logic and for advancing economic policy that works...but ideology is and always has been from my research of history to be an intricate part of economic policy. Yet in the particular historical examples you quote.....I would have to agree with Robinson and say "bastard Keynesian' economics. While designed to cure social ills, they were misguided and based upon axioms that were fundamentally flawed, i.e., neoclassical axioms (i.e., from Reagan to Bush today). Perhaps I am wrong, but I do believe that Keynes initially was offering to the world an alternative to the socialist and communist economic threats of his time and to offer capitalism a true picture of how capitalism works within a diverse and uncertain future without defaulting to socialist or communist political system, with a particular emphasis upon how markets work. Without the governmental interventions and economic understandings of the time that Keynes help to initiate, I fail to see how capitalism could have generated the great economic advances from the late 40's to the 70's that were reflected in most advanced countries of that time. The fact that they were abandoned only testifies to me one reason our worlds' economic situation is in the state it is in now. Of course the greater question, is how does Keynesian economics mirror the world today....not as it was in the 30's and 40's.

So the question is how we move onto something better dont you think? Debating the intent of original writings some 60 years ago is just a side show. I am more interested in producing or should I say attempting policy that reflects an uncertain but hopefully useful end that advances goals that should be natural rigthts....ie...right to adequate housing, health, nutrition, and most importantly work. The fact that even Bush expresses the desire for full employment is not enough. He needs the theoretical understanding of how capitalism really works to achieve this....something not likely to occur under present economic policy prescriptions.

Scott Simpson




Scott Simpson