Minsky? Are you kidding? That believer in big government, regulation, sock-it-to-em taxation, and debt. He was standard reading during the "Revolution" like Baran and Sweeny. His solution for the '90s would have been, "if the FED was going to create a big pile of money, the government needed to raise taxes in order to prevent a speculative bubble". The guy was supposedly anti-Keynesian but in reality, was even more interventionist. What's humorous is that the guy thought the boom and bust cycle was natural and his conclusion was that government should try to control it. He was just another control freak who was a true believer in the pretense of his own knowledge.
Trying to follow Minsky the author states:
The question then is always what institution does the best job of meeting our needs, which from a classical (Smith, Ricardo, Marx) and moralist perspective amounts to asking how best we can a) provision society and b) share the fruits of society equitably.
That tells you that the author is a standard product of the university socialist machine. The proof in this conclusion:
There certainly is no static equilibrium, as the most simple textbook presentations (and even many of the more sophisticated mathematical models) seem to suggest. If anything, the absence of large scale non-market institutions (big governments, central banks) make crises worse, not better.
Static equilibrium is oxymoron. The absence of large intervention powers in the 19th century meant there were hectic, but shallow short swings. The advent of controlling institutions makes the swings long and deep, and of course, speculative, the very opposite of their intent. |
