Thursday, October 23, 2008

Genealogy of a crisis

The crisis had numerous causes, amongst others irrationally high consumer debt and regulation that relied on liberal ideology instead of sane policies, which permitted malfeasance by banks and investors. When the bubble burst a collapse of the banking system caused a severe economic depression lasting for a decade, after which the economy limped on until a world war finally helped it to its feet. No, this is not a science fiction future, just history. But - as the metaphysical Hegel noted - history has a tendency to repeat itself, and - as the materialist Marx added - first as tragedy, then as farce. I can not help myself to find all economical deliberations somewhat farcical, especially their compulsive immersion in means, ends not being seen anywhere on the horizon. When you have a crashed car that was going way too fast into a tight corner on a wet road with a drunk driver behind the wheel, you can certainly find a group of economists arguing whether he should have braked or accelerated, pulled the wheel to this or that side, but the obvious "don't drink and drive" is nothing short of unimaginable. Milton Friedman's analysis of the great depression is just such a virtuoso account of the minutiae of a financial crash - the question why a gang of lunatic investors was let loose to wreak havoc is not asked, and can not be lest the economy should be seen as a political problem in need of regulation (god forbid!). Knowing nothing of economics it is surely pure naivete that makes me believe the Marxist idea that a basic mismatch of consumption and production, the need to artificially create consumption (even by giving consumers loans they will never be able to repay) to match the needs of production is what causes the periodic crises of capitalism. That actually the functioning of Say's law is the problem. Even more naive probably is the idea that regulation of markets (risky loans to consumers and trickstery in financial markets) might be a way to prevent such breakdowns.

2 comments:

shakub said...

Hmm, I think that although not viewing the current crisis as farce so much as the inevitable result of self-interest, greed and wrong-doing (uhum... that thing Good Social Democrats like to think of as Bad Capitalism (as opposed to soft, kind hearted, logical and good Capitalism) ... the writer in the article below would agree with your analysis.

http://www.creative-i.info/?p=1772

And here I am rubbishing neither the idea of shades of grey within Capitalism, nor of more and less illiberal versions of Social Democratic Economic, simply agreeing with you if they cannot consider ever getting out of the situation entirely (either because they think it has been done and FAILED (really???) or because they simply cannot imagine it, then the kind of happenings we see going on at the moment are inevitable.

Sašo said...

I'm not completely convinced by the theoretical underpinnings of the article (I think there is some merit in criticisms of the labour theory of value), nonetheless I find the conclusions very sound, much more so than those proposed by many economically better informed authors.

What I find most intriguing about the reactions to the crisis is hearing all the Keynesians going "told you so" and the liberals throwing accusations of "socialism" all over the place, which triggers a bitter reminiscence of the opening lines of the Communist manifesto:

"Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?"

Why bitter? Because the political spectrum has narrowed to a stranglehold, we are left without a left - the most radical position being the one of a "soft, kind hearted, logical and good Capitalism". I think it was bad enough before the crisis, with destruction of the environment, imperialist exploitation of developing countries, rising class divisions, militarism, progressive reduction of politics to administration and generally poisoning every seed of a humane society.

About the failed attempts: I think we should remember all the sprouts of democratic socialism that were violently crushed during the 19. century. The fact that only the Bolshevik seed could hold its own among the sinister foliage of capitalism says more about capitalism than it does about socialism, wouldn't you say?