More and more people challenge themselves from liberal democracy and the economists who support it. But what are the nature and level of responsibility of the latter in the difficulties we encounter?
Economists often claim a political expertise for which they have no qualification, with, as you expect, disastrous results. Despite this, informed criticism claimed that they still have a lot of influence on economic policy, and that therefore they continue to harm. Is this situation due to a handful of individuals who have a long arm, or does it reflect a design defect in their way of approaching things?
I lean in favor of this last hypothesis. Not only did most economists not predicted the crisis, but, according to some, they would even have facilitated it. The proud apostles of globalization and technological change have enriched a close financial and managerial elite, redistributed the income and the wealth of work to capital, destroys millions of jobs …
However, according to economist Alan Blinder, politicians rarely follow the advice of economists. They use their analysis as a drunk use a floor lamp: to support each other, not to light up. Even if there are a number of them, not all economists are servile stains that adopt positions to please their master. The problem is rather than a good job can be used badly.
mea culpa
I think Mr. Blinder is right, but not always. US secretary to the Treasury of President Clinton from 1999 to 2001, Lawrence Summers used all her intellectual power, her knowledge and persuasion strength to alleviate restrictions on international flow fund flows, derivative products and other instruments more exotic financiers. On the other hand, other economists (including MM. Blinder and Stiglitz) have fiercely opposed to this proposal. Many observers later said that these Clinton era changes contributed to the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis and the global financial crisis a decade later.
At the time, most economists had all more or less adhered to the idea that the modern economy had given us the tools necessary to get rid of the old regulations which limited growth and many of which were based on prejudices and myths, not on science. I suppose that a mea culpa is essential now.
You have 48.93% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.