Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
I included Solow and Stiglitz as they are highly critical of the status quo in economics. Solow and Colander both testified about the problems of the dominance of limited views of economics before a House subcommittee in 2010, both being especially critical of DSGE and it being the only model for which Fed funding was available for research. While having Nobel prizes they have been willing to publicly criticize much of the rest of, for lack of a better term, 'mainstream economics'. There are 'top journals' and those journals are or were recently controlled by nominees of institutions with views whose implications soothe the prejudices of very wealthy donors to their universities - the insane 'new classical' views of Robert Lukas, currently emeritus professor at Chicago, described by Greg Mankiw of Harvard Mankiw as "the most influential macroeconomist of the last quarter of the 20th century." etc. And the overall prestige of Harvard compensates to a degree for any lacking in their economics department.

Within the professional lifetimes of current economists, such as Perry Mehrling, it was necessary for Columbia to accept published monographs as the basis for his PhD, as he could not get his work on money and banking published in 'top journals'. But you can dismiss this if you will. I cite it as Mehrling was the one from whom I learned about money and banking. And I see the stranglehold that such figures, along with the practices of the Fed have on what is acceptable in the economics profession as being very detrimental to what our society needs to do to create a livable and sustainable society. This might not affect you so directly as you are not currently on an academic track.

Wait too long for needed changes and the very possibility of such change can be eroded. That is what happened when Trump was elected. Had Obama even done what the Justice Department could do to bring Wall Street executives to account, that might have changed popular perceptions and the outcome in 2016. On the other hand, I appreciate Obama's restraint on foreign policy, especially as contrasted with Hillary. Hillary certainly is and has been her own person. In this election she might have done better to listen more to Bill and less to Mook and Podesta. And while having control of the DNC almost as an inheritance and Hillary's use of the DNC did stymie Sanders, that was and is indefensible as a practice for primary elections. And it did not work out too well this time.

Twice in the last eight years the selection of very centrist Democratic candidates for President has resulted in enormous missed opportunities. In 2009 we could have reset regulation of Wall Street to an updated version of what FDR bequeathed, but Obama was never going to do that. Opportunity missed. Then there is Sanders in 2016. Another opportunity missed. Are we ever going to learn? I hope so for your sake, as you might not be able to retire in place in your current home if climate change continues to exceed generally acceptable expectations. At least you are on the Gulf coast. The Atlantic coast will be worst and soonest hit.
   

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

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Feb 12th, 2017 at 08:08:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display: