wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Economics has always been an ideologically driven discipline, dependent upon the assumptions one begins with (owners of land and money got wealthy fairly rather than stealing the land and labor of others, capital should be able to move across any border but laborers should not, the rich deserve subsidies because they will know how to wisely spend it while the poor will waste it on alcohol and drugs, etc.)

Conclusions about policy flow from these assumptions

In addition to the left liberal voices cited by others, check out the Marxist economists who were completely prescient about this unfolding crash:
Monthly Review magazine --- the best source anywhere; Paul Sweezy, Harry Magdoff, Fred Magdoff,
John Bellamy Foster
Left Business Observer --- Doug Henwood
The Indypendent -- Rick Wolfe, Max Fraad Wolfe

The only people who couldn't find voices of dissent were those committed to maintaining the present system.

They have lost all credibility and should no longer be consulted for predictions or "solutions".

I took ecconomics at brooklyn technical high school...it was a core course for all students...the text was Paul A. Samuelson,
ecconomics second edition. I am no rocket scientest but what I got out of reading it was the concept of the desirability of equilibrium.

Money is made when the the markets are not in equlibrium by those who understand that. Computer programs make this more reliable. Computers have gotten very powerful and are themselves dependent on technology advances.

superf88 - the problem is systemic... it would take a complete overhaul of our collective mentality in regards to capitalism. i don't see much hope for the kind of reform we need (and deserve). sad to say.

Funny that your guest should mention Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas. Paul Krugman, at the start of "The Return of Depression Economics" quotes Lucas as saying in 2003 that "the central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes."

Chalk another failure up to the Chicago School.

Question # 1: what's the difference between astrologers and economists?

Answer # 1: astrologers know they're bullsh_ting on the future and economists seem to think they can accurately predict the future.

As we all know, economists are excellent predictors of future economic conditions, as evidenced by their successful predictions of five out of the last three recessions.

----------------

Question # 2: what do astrologers, economists, securities analysts, political pundits, military strategists, business futurists, evangelical rapturists, global warming alarmists, movie directors, tarot readers and fortune tellers all have in common?

Answer # 2: they always get the future dead wrong--consistently.

top preformers in any business or industry will always be in demand. These so called bankers are only sales men with contacts. The guy with the best contacts and skill, who has a track record, will always be in demand. a good salesman has a client list to sell to his new employer..

decision makers don't need computers they employ people who use them.

Larry Summers = sleaze.

I am so angry about the outright arrogance of these bankers, hedgefund operators and financiers of Ponzi Schemes......., but particularly the politicians that looked the other way. Bring back Spitzer to prosecute them all.

gabrielle, mike -- How do we improve the connection between economists and decision-makers? It's one thing if the arrogant-ignorant lose their money but now that it's spread to all...

Simon Johnson of MIT and Michael Perino of St. John's Law (both on the Bill Moyers Journal last Friday) disagree with the guest from Business Week. So do many others -- Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia, Paul Krugman, et al.

Didn't Geithner promise that all the banks would "pass" the "tests"?

I agree with Gabrielle. There were plenty of economists who saw this economic disaster coming. How could they not? It was almost an exact repeat of the events leading up to the Depression. It was the economists who were saying that this time was different that were full of it.

But come on, this was during the Bush years. Scientists who claimed that Global Warming were treated like their opinion was shared by real scientist. Political scientists who said it was a good idea to invade Iraq dominated the news. Economists who said that subprime mortgages were the second coming were given all the good jobs.

Mr Coy: Can you see a future for "Quals" -- that is, analysts who synthesize the work of Quants w that of economists, traders and market-pulse readers in order to measure risks and rewards?

Currently bank analysts are most often just out of college and in their first job. Safe to say their ability to gather useful data could use some improvement. Yet often it's this group that is providing the raw data and even conclusions that economists (along with execs, investors, etc.) work with.

Do you think a an experienced class of Quals operating alongside Quants could supplement and/or interpret the work of today's economists?

dean baker warned about the housing bubble long before it burst but was laughed at. paul krugman, simon johnson, joseph stiglitz, etc. are warning about the bank bailout but no one is listening. economists do warn of forthcoming crises and bad policy but the powers-that-be do not listen because it's bad for the shareholders... let's be honest.