Stitch,
I think he has a point, but I also think he overplays it. His description of the changes in the financial system is accurate, but I'm not sure his conclusions flow as naturally in reality as they do in his argument. Economists have always wished that financial movements would obey laws as predictable as those of physics, but I really don't think they do, not in any reliable way at least. One of the odd things about modern economics is that it proceeds from the assumption that people behave rationally, a questionable notion at best. Maybe economists should study a little less mathematics and a little more history - or am I reflecting my own bias?
His argument against regulation of the flow of wealth also seems a little weak. Yes, it's a question of putting baffles and valves back into pipes that have been stripped of them. But any plumber knows that pipes need check valves to keep pressure down. The analogy is as imperfect in my hands as it is in his, but if money is going to flow like turbulent water, is it wrong to work out systems to control flood and drought?
All very brave to say "let the system work, those who will fall desrve it", but it's not wise to expect amiable cooperation from those that get fallen on.
Or am I reading the whole thing wrong...
Steve
|
