Economists-Say-Dumb-Things Chronicles: 'Debt Is Money We Owe To Ourselves'

Like so many sloppy discussions of economics to make an important policy point, but badly, this one diverges from common shared reality fairly quickly. 

Let me strike the key hypothesis in this, that prompts a leap of faith, over a cliff and into the abyss of fantasy.

"Debt is money we owe to ourselves."

Something on which Mr. Krugman can agree with Dick Cheney who said, 'Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.'   How is that for a twist?  

From an accounting standpoint and within the realm of theoretical identities this is true. Each debt is someone else's asset.

The key of course is how we define 'ourselves.'  

If 'we' are the entire planet, equally and without distinction of interests and property, then perhaps one might say, ok, although it loses all meaning and significance.   I would not mind pooling my household books with one of the Banking billionaires and to be able to step up to the Fed's free cash window anytime to do my business, with the assurance that I have a government guarantee underpinning my ledger, but alas.

And this is a problem because the paramount issue we are facing today is the historically extreme concentration of capital assets in a relatively few hands, and the burden of unpayable debts being imposed upon a large segment of the people by a system that has been hijacked by the moneyed interests.

If you take this pithless observation by Mr. Krugman down one level of detail in the States for example, one finds that the debt is an asset on the books of a increasingly small number of wealthy people, with much of it controlled for them by a handful of Banks.

This system is not sustainable, and I see no sign that it will even cohere, without substantial reform.

I wonder if the average American who is losing their car and house, and who is being hounded by debt collectors for whom those debts seems to matter a great deal, can use that argument with the Banks.

Putting aside private debts, let's just stay in the realm of sovereign debt, where the economic imagination can more easily take its flights of fancy.

Debt is just money we owe to ourselves is similar to the flat pronouncement that a sovereign that issues its own currency can never default. Money is just an accounting entry so why the fuss?  And from this comes a Pandora's Box of muddy thinking, a selective myopia towards history,  and Trillion Dollar Platinum coins. 

I wonder if Greece can use this argument, that debt is just money that we owe to 'ourselves,' when they meet with the Germans this week. 

But no, the US is different.  Every other country may fail, and many have including that insubstantial nation of Russia not all that long ago,  but not us. We are young and immortal.  Our benchmark for virtue is power, and we are virtuous enough to be able to say that when things are not working out as we planned, we are able to decree that 'money is whatever we say it is,' and God help anyone who does not agree.

And so we might presume that the mighty US is going to be able to make that case about debt forever to its creditors who are outside the direct thought control of its monetary system, a short list of which is contained below.

It is funny how the moneyed interests and their courtiers are always saying, 'debt doesn't matter,' especially when they want us to assume their gambling debts which they incurred by frauds using our own money.   Until, that is, they decide to call in the loans and the debts, and impose their will upon the people with foreclosures, garnishment, austerity, and debtors' prisons.

I agree wholeheartedly that the rhetoric around the discussion of spending priorities gets silly and overheated and quite frankly disgusting.  That has more to do with a society in the grip of a greedy few, corrupt public servants, sophistical theoreticians, and boisterous minions than it does with the need to expand our economic theories into existential irrelevance.  Madness is certainly attractive perhaps in a land going mad, but it is unlikely to be productive.

Arguments like those from the MMT crowd, both right and left, and economists like Paul do us no favors in concocting some fantastical solution to what is primarily a problem of governance, justice, transparency, and power gone horrible wrong.

The 'debt' and the 'budget' are not an economics argument but a policy argument.  What is important to us?  What do we continue to hold as these truths?   And how do we resolve those disagreements?  Avoiding that policy and priority discussion enables those who are caught in the credibility trap to continue to beg the question entirely, and the real task at hand, which is reform. 

We cannot discuss reform until we expose the corruption.  And therein lies the problem, because quite a few powerful hands have been dipping into the largesse, and quite a few courtiers have a vested interest in continuing to propagate the lies and myths of a failing system.

I am not a 'hard money' guy.  I am certainly not in favor of a domestic gold standard as a remedy for our current set of problems. 

 

What I am saying, and I think it has been consistently so, is that the system that we have now is so fundamentally broken that no matter what incidental things that we do, no matter how much stimulus is provided under whatever rationales, that all good will be turned to ill, the gap of inequality will keep widening, and that the situation will continue to worsen, lurching from crisis to crisis.

 

Is this not what we have seen since all the programs were put in place since the crisis of 2008?  That the rich are getting richer, because all we have really done is prop up an unjust, broken, and unworkable system.  And I think that this is the point that is being made by Greece in Europe today.

You cannot keep a game running when the insiders that control it are making up the rules as they go along, hiding their assets, dictating the judges' decisions,  dipping into the other players money at will, and generally cheating and doing whatever they wish when they wish, because they can.

The system is too flawed to be sustainable, and must change in order to cohere.

NY Times

Debt Is Money We Owe To Ourselves

By Paul Krugman

February 6, 2015

Antonio Fatas, commenting on recent work on deleveraging or the lack thereof, emphasizes one of my favorite points: no, debt does not mean that we’re stealing from future generations. Globally, and for the most part even within countries, a rise in debt isn’t an indication that we’re living beyond our means, because as Fatas puts it, one person’s debt is another person’s asset; or as I equivalently put it, debt is money we owe to ourselves — an obviously true statement that, I have discovered, has the power to induce blinding rage in many people...

More than that, as Fatas points out, rising debt could be a good sign. Think of my little two-classes model of debt, where some people are less patient than others — perhaps (to step outside the model a bit) because they have better investment opportunities. Moving from a very limited financial system that doesn’t allow much debt to a somewhat more open-minded system should, in that case, be good for growth and welfare...

And the problems with public debt are also mainly about possible instability rather than “borrowing from our children”. The rhetoric of fiscal debates has been, for the most part, nonsense.

Read the entire piece here.

Economic Roundtable Discussion: L. Randall Wray, Michael Hudson, and William K. Black

This is a radio show with the formidable title, 'Post Keynesian Economics' that is a very interesting discussion amongst Randy Wray, Mike Hudson, and Bill Black of the University of Kansas City, a bright light of thought in the economics profession.

Find out why the dynamics of private sector are essential to understanding the economy. Plus, we’ll discuss government transparency and accountability. If you're just little rusty on your economic theory and policy, join us at the table for the perfect refresher course.

The moderator, Jabulani Leffall, does a remarkably good job keeping the discussion on track, and managing the flow of questions from callers in to the radio show. I was astonished at how informative and listern friendly it was.

It discusses many current issues in the economy without getting too preoccupied with the economic school of thought and models beauty contests that seem to occupy so much economic discussion, turning them into snoratoriums for non-specialists.

It is a little wonkish at the beginning, but it broadens out quickly to a practical discussion of real, current things. I credit the moderator for this, as well as the three professors who are known as 'economic mavericks,' e.g. not on the corporate financial payrolls, which is a problem with other economic departments as illustrated in the documentary Inside Job.

Economics Roundtable - Post Keynesian Economics

You don't see these three economists on the mainstream media very often, which is a shame. But they aren't representing any corporate interests, so that is probably why they are not so popular on the corporate controlled media.

I enjoyed listening to it over a cup of coffee. It was remarkably pertinent to the real world, which is refreshing amongst economic discussions amongst three professors of economics.

Karl Polanyi On Liberal Economics and the Rise of Fascism

"Hobbes had argued the need for a despot because men were like beasts; Townsend insisted that they were actually beasts and that, precisely for that reason, only a minimum of government was required.

From this novel point of view, a free society could be regarded as consisting of two races: property owners and laborers. The number of the latter was limited by the amount of food; and as long as property was safe, hunger would drive them to work. No magistrates were necessary as hunger was a better disciplinarian than the magistrate...

The biological nature of man appeared as the given foundation of a society that was not of a political order. Thus it came to pass that economists presently relinquished Adam Smith's humanistic foundations, and incorporated those of Townsend...Economic society had emerged as distinct from the political state."

Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation, 1944

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Only the percentages and the methods of sorting seem to matter to a certain type of ubermensch mentality. And of course force and fraud are indispensable to the accumulation and protection of their wealth.

I have spent the last day or two reading Karl Polanyi's landmark work of economic history, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.

Polanyi's history is particularly good because he describes in some detail how the predominant economic thought changes and adapts itself to its cultural context, the changing attitudes and philosophies of people and particular historical developments. And how it even begins to shape history as a branch of political philosophy. What are people, and what is their relationship to society as a whole? What is power? What is moral?

It is a grave mistake to treat economics as a physical science like chemistry. Chemistry seeks to quantify and explain an essentially unchanging physical world in substance if not in incidentals.  There are real laws. Theory becomes verifiable fact, and new facts build to new theories. Chemistry evolves, in that it changes with a remarkably evident progression of one thing on another which can be seen against some objective standard.

Economics reflects the changing attitudes of politics and the other social sciences to the relationship among the individual, society, and nature.  That is not to say that there is no learning in a social science. There is plenty of learning, but also a strong tendency to have to re-learn the same hard lessons over and over again. 

If someone in astrophysics were to say that the sun revolves around the earth they would be laughed off the podium and booted out of their positions. But if an economist says even now that markets are naturally self-regulating and efficient if left alone, they might be given a large grant and the chairmanship of an economics department, even though this theory has been found wanting, or as some might phrase it, a howler. 

There is a remarkably poignant paragraph in Polanyi where he says that since self-regulating markets have been proven to be nonsense "we are witnessing a development under which the economic system ceases to lay down the law to society and the primacy of society over that system is secured." As John Kenneth Galbraith put it, there are no new financial frauds, just variations on the old familiar themes.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between monetary theory, which is more akin to finance, and macroeconomics, which operates more generally in the realm of broad relationships and what is essentially morals or public policy. It is well said that a little learning is a dangerous thing, because one does not understand the scope of the field and their own limitations.

A certain school of economics can, and often did as shown in this history, coolly observe that profits will be maximized if a large percentage of the workers are maintained on the verge of starvation and insecurity without any support or interference from society, in the service of a superior few. We can clearly see the descendants of that particular moral philosophy in the world today.

It should be understood that by 'liberal economics' is meant 'self-regulating,' or essentially unregulated markets, and not progressivism as we might think of it today.  Polanyi goes to some lengths to show that there are no self-regulated markets that are fair and efficient.  Mostly those markets that are called self-regulated are set up with a bias that favors the insiders that control them.  Or as I said the other day, naturally occurring self-regulated markets are as common as seals reciting Shakespeare.

It is a long book. I will almost certainly read it again in more leisure. I tend to read quickly online, and more carefully when holding an actual book. But it was enjoyable and those inclined might read it with some benefit.   It gave me a framework on which to hang quite of bit of independent thought and learning, providing some additional coherence.  I think I understand why certain things have happened in the way that they have.

Bear in mind that Polanyi is a man of his time. I disagreed with many of his thoughts on the gold standard for example, even though I am not even in favor of it today as I have said, for some of the same reasons he cites. I have seen another 60 or more years of history without a gold standard, and know that what he saw was not so much attributable to the gold standard but the inflexibility of a single currency system, much as we are seeing with a euro currency and a multiplicity of fiscal regimes in the euro zone today.   And for the dollar reserve currency in the world which is in a similar process of failing for similar reasons.  I still wonder at who conceived these monstrosities and what they were really thinking, except for an expedient solution that became institutionalized with a powerful set of adherents and beneficiaries, and so long outlived its usefulness.

I include here only key passages, by no means exhaustive or complete. I have left out whole sections of his thought on land for example. But the major progression of his thought is here.

A Utopian system leads to an impasse between the adherents attempting to sustain the unsustainable and those who are obliged to endure its conflicts with reality. Much in the manner of the Wall Street financialisation cartel and the real productive economy today. The system might function well during a spectacular growth period, but when some return to normal growth occurs the system fails and a standoff occurs.

Unless resolved by organic reform that impasse can lead to 'reform by other means,' or an extreme solution and with it a general unhappiness. This is in fact his thesis, that the failure of neoliberal economics and its unwillingness to relieve the deadlock in which it held the real world economy led to the rise of the extreme solutions of fascism, communism, and the second great war. He makes an interesting case.

Enjoy.

"A market economy is an economic system controlled, regulated, and directed by markets alone; order in the production and distribution of goods is entrusted to this self-regulating mechanism. An economy of this kind derives from the expectation that human beings behave in such a way as to achieve maximum money gains. It assumes markets in which the supply of goods (including services) available at a definite price will equal the demand at that price. It assumes the presence of money, which functions as purchasing power in the hands of its owners.

Production will then be controlled by prices, for the profits of those who direct production will depend upon them; the distribution of the goods also will depend upon prices, for prices form incomes, and it is with the help of these incomes that the goods produced are distributed amongst the members of society. Under these assumptions order in the production and distribution of goods is ensured by prices alone...

Nothing must be allowed to inhibit the formation of markets, nor must incomes be permitted to be formed otherwise than through sales. Neither must there be any interference with the adjustment of prices to changed market conditions—whether the prices are those of goods, labor, land, or money. Hence there must not only be markets for all elements of industry, but no measure or policy must be countenanced that would influence the action of these markets. Neither price, nor supply, nor demand must be fixed or regulated; only such policies and measures are in order which help to ensure the self-regulation of the market by creating conditions which make the market the only organizing power in the economic sphere...

A self-regulating market demands nothing less than the institutional separation of society into an economic and political sphere. Such a dichotomy is, in effect, merely the restatement, from the point of view of society as a whole, of the existence of a self-regulating market...

A market economy must comprise all elements of industry, including labor, land, and money. (In a market economy the last also is an essential element of industrial life and its inclusion in the market mechanism has, as we will see, far-reaching institutional consequences.) But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them (people) in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market...

To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment, indeed, even of the amount and use of purchasing power, would result in the demolition of society. For the alleged commodity "labor power" cannot be shoved about, used indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting also the human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar commodity. In disposing of a man's labor power the system would, incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral entity "man" attached to that tag. Robbed of the protective covering of cultural institutions, human beings would perish from the effects of social exposure; they would die as the victims of acute social dislocation through vice, perversion, crime, and starvation.

Nature would be reduced to its elements, neighborhoods and landscapes defiled, rivers polluted, military safety jeopardized, the power to produce food and raw materials destroyed. Finally, the market administration of purchasing power would periodically liquidate business enterprise, for shortages and surfeits of money would prove as disastrous to business as floods and droughts in primitive society...But no society could stand the effects of such a system of crude fictions even for the shortest stretch of time unless its human and natural substance as well as its business organization was protected against the ravages of this satanic mill...

But on the island of Juan Fernandez (an economic analogy described earlier) there was neither government nor law; and yet there was balance between goats and dogs. That balance was maintained by the difficulty the dogs found in devouring the goats which fled into the rocky part of the island, and the inconveniences the goats had to face when moving to safety from the dogs. No government was needed to maintain this balance; it was restored by the pangs of hunger on the one hand, the scarcity of food on the other. (This is the law of predator and prey).

Hobbes had argued the need for a despot because men were like beasts; Townsend insisted that they (people) were actually beasts and that, precisely for that reason, only a minimum of government was required. From this novel point of view, a free society could be regarded as consisting of two races: property owners and laborers. The number of the latter was limited by the amount of food; and as long as property was safe, hunger would drive them to work. No magistrates were necessary, for hunger was a better disciplinarian than the magistrate...

The paradigm of the goats and the dogs seemed to offer an answer. The biological nature of man appeared as the given foundation of a society that was not of a political order. Thus it came to pass that economists presently relinquished Adam Smith's humanistic foundations, and incorporated those of Townsend...Economic society had emerged as distinct from the political state...

To the politician and administrator laissez-faire was simply a principle of the insurance of law and order, with the minimum cost and effort. Let the market be given charge of the poor, and things will look after themselves...

What induced orthodox economics to seek its foundations in naturalism was the otherwise inexplicable misery of the great mass of the producers which, as we know today, could never have been deduced from the laws of the old market. But the facts as they appeared to contemporaries were roughly these: in times past the laboring people had habitually lived on the brink of indigence (at least, if one accounted for changing levels of customary standards); since the coming of the machine they had certainly never risen above subsistence level; and now that the economic society was finally taking shape, it was an indubitable fact that decade after decade the material level of existence of the laboring poor was not improving a jot, if, indeed, it was not becoming worse... (trickle down theory had not worked, mystifying economists.  The old canards are the best).

The acceptance of near-indigency of the mass of the citizens (roughly 47 to 99 percent apparently) as the price to be paid for the highest stage of prosperity was accompanied by very different human attitudes. Townsend righted his emotional balance by indulging in prejudice and sentimentalism. The improvidence (lacking personal responsibility) of the poor was a law of nature, for servile, sordid, and ignoble work would otherwise not be done. (born to be vile?) Also what would become of the fatherland unless we could rely on the poor? "For what is it but distress and poverty which can prevail upon the lower classes of the people to encounter all the horrors which await them on the tempestuous ocean or on the field of battle?"...

Robert Owen, in 1817, described the course on which Western man had entered and his words summed up the problem of the coming century...The organization of the whole of society on the principle of gain and profit must have far-reaching results. He formulated these results in terms of human character. For the most obvious effect of the new institutional system was the destruction of the traditional character of settled populations and their transmutation into a new type of people, migratory, nomadic, lacking in self-respect and discipline—crude, callous beings...

He proceeded to the generalization that the principle involved was unfavorable to individual and social happiness. Grave evils would be produced in this fashion unless the tendencies inherent in market institutions were checked by conscious social direction made effective through legislation...The Industrial Revolution was causing a social dislocation of stupendous proportions, and the problem of poverty was merely the economic aspect of this event. Owen justly pronounced that unless legislative interference and direction counteracted these devastating forces, great and permanent evils would follow...

The trading classes had no organ to sense the dangers involved in the exploitation of the physical strength of the worker, the destruction of family life, the devastation of neighborhoods, the denudation of forests, the pollution of rivers, the deterioration of craft standards, the disruption of folkways, and the general degradation of existence including housing and arts, as well as the innumerable forms of private and public life that do not affect profits...

Two vital functions of society, the political and the economic, were being used and abused as weapons in a struggle for sectional interests. It was out of such a perilous deadlock that in the twentieth century the fascist crisis sprang...

Economic liberalism (liberal in the sense of laissez-faire) was the organizing principle of a society engaged in creating a market system. Born as a mere penchant for non-bureaucratic methods, it evolved into a veritable faith in man's secular salvation through a self-regulating market. Such fanaticism was the result of the sudden aggravation of the task it found itself committed to: the magnitude of the sufferings that were to be inflicted on innocent persons as well as the vast scope of the interlocking changes involved in the establishment of the new order...

The global sweep of economic liberalism can now be taken in at a glance. Nothing less than a self-regulating market on a world scale could ensure the functioning of this stupendous mechanism. (one world government) ...No wonder that economic liberalism turned into a secular religion once the great perils of this venture were evident. There was nothing natural about laissez-faire; free markets could never have come into being merely by allowing things to take their course...The road to the free market was opened and kept open by an enormous increase in continuous, centrally organized and controlled interventionism...  (At the end of the economic continuum, both extreme laissez-faire and communism meet, becoming almost indistinguishable in their destruction of the individual and their particular social institutions which inhibit centralized control).

Stabilization of currencies became the focal point in the political thought of peoples and governments; the restoration of the gold standard became the supreme aim of all organized effort in the economic field. The repayment of foreign loans and the return to stable currencies were recognized as the touchstones of rationality in politics; and no private suffering, no infringement of sovereignty, was deemed too great a sacrifice for the recovery of monetary integrity.  (austerity anyone?)

The privations of the unemployed made jobless by deflation; the destitution of public servants dismissed without a pittance; even the relinquishment of national rights and the loss of constitutional liberties were judged a fair price to pay for the fulfillment of the requirement of sound budgets and sound currencies, these a priori of economic liberalism...

The root of all evil, the liberal insists, was precisely this interference with the freedom of employment, trade and currencies practiced by the various schools of social, national, and monopolistic protectionism since the third quarter of the nineteenth century; but for the unholy alliance of trade unions and labor parties with monopolistic manufacturers and agrarian interests, which in their shortsighted greed joined forces to frustrate economic liberty, the world would be enjoying today the fruits of an almost automatic system of creating material welfare.  

Liberal leaders never weary of repeating that the tragedy of the nineteenth century sprang from the incapacity of man to remain faithful to the inspiration of the early liberals; that the generous initiative of our ancestors was frustrated by the passions of nationalism and class war, vested interests, and monopolists, and above all, by the blindness of the working people to the ultimate beneficence of unrestricted economic freedom to all human interests, including their own.

A great intellectual and moral advance was thus, it is claimed, frustrated by the intellectual and moral weaknesses of the mass of the people; what the spirit of Enlightenment had achieved was put to nought by the forces of selfishness In a nutshell, this is the economic liberal's defense. Unless it is refuted, he will continue to hold the floor in the contest of arguments...

To separate labor from other activities of life and to subject it to the laws of the market was to annihilate all organic forms of existence and to replace them by a different type of organization, an atomistic and individualistic one.  (a vision of Orwell's 1984).

This effect of the establishment of a labor market is conspicuously apparent in colonial regions today. The natives are to be forced to make a living by selling their labor. To this end their traditional institutions must be destroyed, and prevented from re-forming, since, as a rule, the individual in primitive society is not threatened by starvation unless the community as a whole is in a like predicament...

Now, what the white man may still occasionally practice in remote regions today, namely, the smashing up of social structures in order to extract the element of labor from them, was done in the eighteenth century to white populations by white men for similar purposes... (the economic hitmen come home again).

Mankind was in the grip, not of new motives, but of new mechanisms., Briefly, the strain sprang from the zone of the market; from there it spread to the political sphere, thus comprising the whole of society. But within the single nations the tension remained latent as long as world economy continued to function...

Eventually, the moment would come when both the economic and the political systems were threatened by complete paralysis. Fear would grip the people, and leadership would be thrust upon those who offered an easy way out at whatever ultimate price. The time was ripe for the fascist solution.

The fascist solution of the impasse reached by liberal capitalism can be described as a reform of market economy achieved at the price of the extirpation of all democratic institutions, both in the industrial and in the political realm. The economic system which was in peril of disruption would thus be revitalized, while the people themselves were subjected to a re-education designed to denaturalize the individual and make him unable to function as the responsible unit of the body politic.

This re-education, comprising the tenets of a: political religion that denied the idea of the brotherhood of man in all its forms, was achieved through an act of mass conversion enforced against recalcitrants by scientific methods of torture.

The appearance of such a movement in the industrial countries of the globe, and even in a number of only slightly industrialized ones, should never have been ascribed to local causes, national mentalities, or historical backgrounds as was so consistently done by contemporaries...

In fact, there was no type of background— of religious, cultural, or national tradition—that made a country immune to fascism, once the conditions for its emergence were given. Moreover, there was a striking lack of relationship between its material and numerical strength and its political effectiveness. The very term "movement" was misleading since it implied some kind of enrollment or personal participation of large numbers. If anything was characteristic of fascism it was its independence of such popular manifestations. Though usually aiming at a mass following, its potential strength was reckoned not by the numbers of its adherents but by the influence of the persons in high position whose good will the fascist leaders possessed, and whose influence in the community could be counted upon to shelter them from the consequences of an abortive revolt, thus taking the risks out of revolution.

A country approaching the fascist phase showed symptoms among which the existence of a fascist movement proper was not necessarily one. At least as important signs were the spread of irrationalistic philosophies, racialist aesthetics, anticapitalistic demagogy, (and procapitalist demagogy for that matter) heterodox currency views, criticism of the party system, widespread disparagement of the "regime," or whatever was the name given to the existing democratic set-up...

What we termed, for short, "fascist situation" was no other than the typical occasion of easy and complete fascist victories. All at once, the tremendous industrial and political organizations of labor and of other devoted upholders of constitutional freedom would melt away, and minute fascist forces would brush aside what seemed until then the overwhelming strength of democratic governments, parties, trade unions.

If a "revolutionary situation" is characterized by the psychological and moral disintegration of all forces of resistance to the point where a handful of scantily armed rebels were enabled to storm the supposedly impregnable strongholds of reaction, then the "fascist situation" was its complete parallel except for the fact that here the bulwarks of democracy and constitutional liberties were stormed and their defenses found wanting in the same spectacular fashion...  (or as Orwell put it, a revolution is the kicking in of a rotten door - Jesse)

Fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function. Hence, it was world-wide, catholic in scope, universal in application; the issues transcended the economic sphere and begot a general transformation of a distinctively social kind. It radiated into almost every field of human activity whether political or economic, cultural, philosophic, artistic, or religious. And up to a point it coalesced with local and topical tendencies. No understanding of the history of the period is possible unless we distinguish between the underlying fascist move and the ephemeral tendencies with which that move fused in different countries."

Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation, 1944

The State of Economics: On the Seduction of Science in the Service of Power

"Tyranny is always better organized than freedom."

Charles Peguy

This essay by John Kay excerpted below is a nice summary of the problem we have in modern economics. It may be a bit dry for the layman, but it touches on the distortions that crept in to economic thought and their intellectual sources, and in particular the operational rather than political means.

I do not think it was unintentional.  Economics has served to distort public policy and blind people to their unfolding reality. Investments in think tanks and universities encouraged and paid for misleading reports and studies, draping propaganda in the faux garments of respectable academia and science.

This is certainly not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Medicine has a rather checkered history in service to power. These types of distortions can of course cut both ways, and science has been used to justify abuses from all ends of the political spectrum.

Economics and other sciences are no fair substitutes for a priori objectives in the creation of sound public policy. Policy is not an outcome of economic science, but rather, policy is set and renewed from first principles, a commitment to certain ideals and common objectives. Economics and other sciences play a role in shaping the details of implementation. But we must revisit and determine the effect which those details have on the achievement of first principles which are the sine qua non.

In other words, economics does not dictate anything.  It suggests differences and forecasts outcomes.  But there is no economic principle that says that we must disregard the role of regulation and the fostering of well being in society because the market dictates that it must be done.  This is sophistry and rubbish.

Unfortunately we must sift all the opinions and inputs to policy decisions with care, and especially the assumptions on which they are based, because the professions have shown a willingness to misrepresent, distort, and even lie for money and power.

One must always come back to first principles, to some notion of what they, and by extension their community, wish to be. Is the first principle of the US the maximizing of profit? By what measures, and to whom? Or is it something else again.

This philosophical notion that the end of all human activity is the maximization of profit is one of the most pernicious assumptions in all history.  It is the antithesis of all that is human.

This is the question that the protesters of Occupy Wall Street are asking in their own inarticulated way. People of the status quo say, 'What do they want? What is their desire?' No, it is the protesters who are asking the question of those comfortable people in their power. 'Where are we going?'  If they have any statement to make, it is that 'The Emperor has no clothes.'

And since the modern day Emperors do not wish to, or cannot, answer the people plainly and honestly, having only their tired old lies, they become uncomfortable and afraid. Instead they ignore, ridicule, and silence the question, offering new lies and scapegoats, claiming that all is well. And it is, at least for them.

If the people are ignored and abused long enough they will stop asking questions and begin to make demands and push them forward, and then it may be too late as these sort of social movements tend to obtain their own momentum.

Economics is a discredited science at the moment. A few practitioners sold its soul and honor to a small group of wealthy ideologues while the great majority remained silent. But certainly no more discredited than the doctors who served the policies of euthanasia or the Russian abuse of psychiatric wards. It is sad but true, that when the destroyers of civilization appear on the horizon, the quantitative sciences and their purveyors are often seen swimming out to meet the boats.

Those who promoted false theories and dreadfully ineffective policies in return for power and money  are still at work, and the results of their betrayal of conscience will be measured in piles of dead bodies, and a mass of broken dreams.

The answer is not to turn away from knowledge, and embrace a hatred of science like a new crop of passionate know-nothings.  Science has its proper place. But it is not at the top, dictating outcomes in the social world like the answers to irrefutable equations. And it is especially good that we remember this when science is abused, and used to justify cruelty, selfishness, and plunder.

"The preposterous claim that deviations from market efficiency were not only irrelevant to the recent crisis but could never be relevant is the product of an environment in which deduction has driven out induction and ideology has taken over from observation.

The belief that models are not just useful tools but also are capable of yielding comprehensive and universal descriptions of the world has blinded its proponents to realities that have been staring them in the face. That blindness was an element in our present crisis, and conditions our still ineffectual responses.

Economists – in government agencies as well as universities – were obsessively playing Grand Theft Auto while the world around them was falling apart."

John Kay, An Essay on the State of Economics

This intellectual and financial decline traces back perhaps to the closing of the gold window by Nixon, and the rise of the willful relativism of value with fiat money.  But more important is the subsequent rise of the financialization industry, under the flag of efficient markets and deregulation and globalization.

The country once again became gripped by a preoccupation with aggregating wealth from the real economy by manipulating paper. Not only were there real direct effects, but there were profound long term effects through the malinvestment and diversion of strategic resources.   And the absolute worst of it has come from the  most powerful corporations and those who serve them.

As Satyajit Das puts it in a book interview:

"The best and brightest went into finance because... it paid better than every other profession. So we had this whole generation of people — who would have been great scientists, great doctors, great creators of other things — attracted to a business which ultimately only provided, to a substantial degree, toxic waste. And that is the tragedy of our time. ... It was this diversion of enormous amounts of talent."

People can point to select innovations like Facebook and the iPod, but in fact America's technical and physical infrastructure has been distorted, and has languished, because public policy unleashed the financiers, the money magicians, and then became captive to them. And they have willfully led the country into a lingering period of decline.

I hope to have no illusions.  Those who give themselves over to the dark impulses of their imagination often prove more impervious to reason with each victory. 

No one knows how this will turn out yet. There is always hope against forces that seem far too powerful at the moment. And tyranny is always better organized than freedom.

Some inquiring student may read this little morsel of thought, and if his mind is provoked, a flickering light of truth will be struck from that spark, about the corruptibility of even the best, about the dark hearts of predators who walk among us, and about the danger of too much power in too few hands.

If not now, then perhaps in some better tomorrow. Nothing is ever wasted in God's economy.