This past weekend had one particular difficult visit and then a number of visits where the visitors entering the booth tried to figure out what our political approach was. Mostly it was libertarians looking for an opportunity to argue against a socialist, often they would walk away. Some stayed to ask questions, and others were more interested in arguing. When I explained that we were interested in having economics being results based and that it should serve the meaning derived from its root words, oikos-nomia, management of home or community they often didn't have much to say.
The difficult encounter was with a full blooded free market zealot, who really didn't listen to anything other than as a basis to refute and argue around. Faith based economics is a theology not a science or a scientific discourse, so there is really no way to reason and examine an issue using history or democratic principle. Free market economics in all of its current forms has failed miserably, pure and simple. Religion is not something that can be successfully argued, though historical fact and real life experience are available to invalidate elitist bloviation.
So now, the conventional economics courtiers are fighting back to defend their cult indoctrination. Those economists who have spoke out against their insanity and the various writers and non-academic economists who are criticizing the vast harm being validated as "real" economics are being attacked. It is a foolish tactic actually, because we will not stop, and trying to discredit a mixed discourse will make it all the more credible, particularly given the great pain people are in as a direct result of theology squeezing out any semblance of an open and informed discourse. The result are pretty simple actually and economics will remain pretty complicated when you are attempting perpetuate a legacy scamming, pretensions, and dis-information all in the service to private profit and looting of the public. Much of this battle will play out differently in the corporate media, as in alternative perspectives and the application of real history will be obscured and ignored.
When I was preparing a flyer on John Maynard Keynes I visited the Wikipedia enty. I was astonished at how deeply wrong the author distorted Keynes in multiple ways. Remember too that Franklin Roosevelt's banking and finance reforms were actually strategically moderate in favor of the banking industry. The FDIC for instance is an insurance for which the banking "industry" pays no premiums, all claims resulting from failed banks are paid by the public, not by the "industry" which was made more credible by that "reform." Because there was no basic reform of the banking sector, once de-regulation was in full motion it is no wonder really that the first Great Depression returned in full force.
Incidentally, "conservative" becomes a term which implies restoring a particular system rather than restructuring it. In effect "conserve" reforms are by definition not reforms at all. Tadit Anderson
Weighing in for self labeled “expert economists,” including figures from the Milton Friedman Chicago School is Kartik Athreya of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
(“Economics is Hard. Don’t Let Bloggers Tell You Otherwise. (June
Among those Athreya labels as oversimplifying economics are Paul
Krugman and William Greider.
So the counterattack is on, framed as a battle between economics
“experts” and blogger “hacks.” So who will join the fray? Maybe
this is “as good as it gets.” If so, Omerod, Keen, Yves Smith, – forget
‘em. Their critiques and criticisms didn't get much traction during the
economic meltdown. Meanwhile, the neoliberals are riding high and are
getting some additional support by writers such as Athreya. How
extensive this counterattack is might be might be monitoried, but given
the dominance of benign neglect and indifference has worked to insulate
"hard working" economists it may be a "done deal." All that's needed is
genuflection before the "hard working" economic "experts. For wailers,
"this shouldn't be."