naked capitalism

Tom Crowl says:

Regarding former Federal Reserve vice chairman Frederic Mishkin, and so many fine experts in economics coming out of our most venerable institutions in academia, government and finance… and who’ve done so much for our nation’s future…

I ran across an excellent brief article covering the history of this most honorable profession here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Jim says:

Just when I thought I had my arms around this mess comes this article on “trust-preferred securities” which I don’t recall reading about before – and I follow several great blogs (including NC of course). Greenspan is the gift that keeps on giving.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/22/105708/fed-could-have-saved-many-smaller.html

Jim

steelhead23 says:

The issue of academic freedom and the corruption of discourse by money is quite complex. There appears to be no limit on discussion between the neo-liberals (laissez-faire, privatize everything) and Keynesians, or as Krugman likes to position these two schools, freshwater and saltwater economics. But the need for discourse is in the dark corners of economics, finance, monetary theory and the dynamics between markets and governments. It isn’t that academia does not have good political economists, or financial theorists, it is that thoughts, like reconstituting the Federal Reserve (see Dennis Kucinich’s recent National Emergency Employment Defense Act), or financial regulation are being demagogued. These are “kooky” ideas. Discourse is not required. Behind this marginalization lies the general ignorance of the American People. I don’t want to write a dissertation, but there is something remarkably incongruous about a culture that disdains knowledge about money and finance, perhaps associated with a Calvinistic division of skills and perception that money is the root of all evil, while simultaneously worshiping at the money altar. If there is one thing we as a culture should learn from this crisis, this division of skills has led to an acceptance of economic ignorance that has placed us all at enormous risk. To be perfectly clear, note Charles’ reference to the enormous promise provided by Obama’s resounding victory, and his pathetic, virtually sycophantic response, “I don’t want to own a bank”. In the war the American People are in, this is a virtual declaration of surrender. Our illustrious president does not even understand that We the People, have been and are being, ripped-off.

In my humble opinion, the requirements for high school graduation should include at least 6 semester hours of finance and economics. Yeah, this would likely be about as popular as Algebra or Government, but I am convinced that an effective citizen must understand the rudiments of economics. Even more so for our leaders.

Francois T says:

Economics is the ONLY profession w/o a code of ethics.

Any questions?

Tim Goswell says:

Ironic quote of the year, from Kazakhstan, from Wikileaks:

“The Ambassador asked if the corruption and infighting are worse now than before in Kazakhstan. Idenov paused, thought, and then replied, “No, not really. It’s business as usual.

They’re confused by the corrupt excesses of capitalism. “If Goldman Sachs executives can make $50 million a year and then run America’s economy in Washington, what’s so different about what we do?’ they ask.”

I can just hear the response from Edwn, dr. horsemeat, as well as the defenders of Goldman Sachs, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Angelo Mozilo, etc

“What corrupt excesses of capitalism? I haven’t seen this in the New York Times, where’s the evidence, prove it”,

But let’s turn things around for a minute, based on what we’ve seen in finance the last few years, why should I give Mishkin the benefit of doubt?, why should anyone assume that Mishkin or any other financial leaders are honest and truthful and acting with integrity and good intentions?

Prove to me that he’s not a lying scumbag like Blankfein, Mozilo and all the rest of them.

Raphi says:

I’m a blue collar worker. Albeit old enough to have gone through well-funded public schools. Ones that taught me how to read, write, and think critically.

Due to a deep concern with the remnants of that old American ideal of the common good, I learned basic economic theory. Which often raised unanswered questions.

Economics is said to be the most rational of the social sciences. Basic theory says that the utility function, maximizing one’s economic position, (in plain English, greed) is the only real human motivation.

However, science is supposed to be about the accumulation of knowledge for its own sake. Scientists are motivated by discovery.

Do economists consider themesleves scientists? If so, then their theory is flawed since there is another factor other than the utility function.

Or do they still claim the utility function as the only validity? If so, their science is suspect. Especially when they are among those most rewarded by their own theories.

During the anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle (1999) I asked David Korten and Herman Daly. Both said I was essentially right.

I think the last two decades show that economists, at least those apologists for that orgy on Wall Street, do believe the utilty function. And the evidence revealed in the movie “Inside Job” is a horrendous confirmation.

Which implies that in their own twisted version of reality, they are “ethical.” Ethics, or any other considerations, is simply irrelevant to economic determinism.