As the markets continue to wallow in bear territory, and as consumer—and, more important, investor—confidence falls, writers and commentators of all stripes have weighed in to give their two cents’ worth concerning the key question: who or what is at fault?
here are those who want to believe that a market economy is itself unstable, prone to periods of excess and in need of stabilization by some outside authority. As Jeff Madrick wrote recently for the New York Times, “government itself is a necessary bulwark against recession.”
Facing a looming recession, the Federal Reserve resolutely lowered its discount rate and frantically expanded its credits. Eager to stimulate the sagging economy, it enabled and encouraged businessmen to invest more and consumers to go ever deeper into debt. Yet the specter of recession refuses to fade away. What is the Fed to do?
What we see in Japan has nothing to do with the mythical liquidity trap, writes Frank Shostak, and everything to do with an explosion in debt, a reckless monetary policy, and tight government controls of businesses via the ministry of trade and industry. To put it bluntly, the Japanese have been depriving themselves of real funding in return for American government promises to repay the debt.
The alarm raised by mainstream economists that corporate cost cutting will undermine the real foundation of the economy is based on a flawed view of the essence of savings. On the contrary, writes Frank Shostak, cost cutting is an important means in correcting previous erroneous decisions so that real wealth can be generated again.
Even apart from Hans Hoppe's policy prescription--that private ownership ought to characterize all of society, economy, and government, while all public ownership should be banned as a form of theft--his thesis offers a highly fruitful framework for understanding everyday political affairs. Jeffrey Tucker explains.
Let us repeat the following: Bill Clinton did not give us an era of permanent prosperity. Nor did his administration present the picture of "fiscal restraint." His administration created the economic boom that turned to bust, and now it is George Bush's turn to make a bad situation worse. William Anderson explains.
The June 3, 2002, issue of The Nation heralds the 2001 Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz as a "rebel with a cause." That characterization is certainly a stretch for an economist, who is former senior vice president of the World Bank and who adheres to orthodox Keynesian doctrine, the dominant economic paradigm of mainstream political and economic theory for the past 50 years.
The combination of collapsed pensions and accounting scandal is operating like the collapse of a dam, unleashing a torrent, not of water, but of hatred--hatred of capitalism and its most visible and valuable representatives: big businessmen. George Reisman counters propaganda with analysis.
