Max Sawicky wrote: > On my ever-lengthening to-do list is investigating the mainstream's > counterpart to marxian crisis theory.
> Seems to me it is reduced to a currency crisis or bubble and, in contrast to > the claims of high theory, tends to the anecdotal and episodic -- maybe > historical -- rather than seen as a basic feature of capitalism.< My impression is that the orthodox approach involves pointing to adverse selection and moral hazard, while (as you say) being localized in the financial realm. Maybe I'm generalizing too much from Stiglitz. > ... Or, in re: the Great Depression, a consequence of imperfect economic > knowledge which has since been rectified.< A major view is that "we" know how to prevent future Depressions, so that "our" ignorance back in 1929 helped great the (previous?) Big One. This is reasonable (and is accepted by everyone from Milton Friedman to J.K. Galbraith and beyond). The question is how important is ignorance in the mix? For example, "we" seem to know what to do about Depressions these days (Bernanke actually wrote a paper on the subject back in the early 2000s) but the depth and breadth of the crisis compared to the ability to use knowledge seems to make that knowledge woefully inadequate. There seems to be a race between improving economic policy knowledge and the growing ability of capitalism to mess things up. Capitalism seems to be winning... This is partly because vested interests militate against the best policies. -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
