Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Folie de Grandeur

When Gordon Brown  declared "No more boom and bust" it was not one of the occasions on which he was telling lies.  He believed it.   Why would anyone think that such an economic outcome could be achieved?  Naive, undiluted, crass keynesianism is the explanation for 'no more boom and bust.'

So we come to the next question.  Who would have been the purveyors of these  pseudo-keynesian platitudes to an economics ignoramus?  There is a considerable group of academic economists who are guilty of effecting this thinking while ignoring the fact that they were advising, indeed pontificating,  in an open, relatively small, economy with a floating exchange rate, in which the unrestrained pursuit of this kind of bastardised  Keynes can lead to external imbalances/devaluation/inflation/ gross increases in government debt (would you like more?); in spite of the fact that in a very large economy running the world currency -  in  such an economy -  they might just get away with giving such advice.

It's still not clear if the United States will get away with it; certainly the United Kingdom could not.

The siren voices calling for the UK to continue following US responses to the crisis are as deluded as the man they advised and who got us into this in the first place.  It did not start in America.  It started with Northern Rock, and a retail  run on an English bank.  The assaults on the American belief in 'no boom and bust' followed this so public disgrace for our financial system.

So tomorrow, when we hear the consequences these folies have brought upon us as individuals and as a society, do not listen to those who argue for keynesian demand management .  America is a case unto itself.  We must cut, regain lenders' confidence and face up to our real economic status and almost ruined financial reputation.

ps Politicians should not swallow whole advice from academics: academics carry no political responsibility for their wildest recommendations, or the realisation of their silliest intellectual stances.

No comments: