I watched "Inside Job" for the first time last night

[socialist_n_TN]

Nothing really new in it and it didn't even piss me off. At least not any more pissed than I already was.

The thing that was SOMEWHAT new to me, and only because I hadn't really thought about it, not because I didn't know it, was how deep the Freidmanistas had penetrated into the university system in economics.

Never mind Marxists, there doesn't even seem to be any Keynesians in authoritive positions in college economic posts, especially in the leadership posts. And these guys are the "experts". The "experts" that cheerled and provided the ideological basis for the deregulation that destroyed the economy and made paupers of the "rest of us".

[Fumesucker]

1. Follow. The. Money

It's really as simple as that.

And as complex.

[socialist_n_TN]

3. Agreed. That's an old cliche......

but cliches are cliches because, in most cases, there's a lot of truth in them.

[palm_to_forehead]

7. The last time I heard that

it was a racist ass hole justifying cliched stereotypes.

[socialist_n_TN]

12. Maybe there's a difference between stereotypes

and cliches? One usually is directed toward people and the other toward events. Anyway even cliches aren't ALWAYS true and stereotypes never are.

[astral]

29. "Follow the Money" is racist? n/t

[ixion]

2. and the 'experts' claimed they didn't see the meltdown coming

which means that a) They're not really experts at all; or, b) they were being intellectually dishonest; or, c) All of the Above.

I'm going with (c).

[socialist_n_TN]

4. I agree. "C" it is!.........

I worked as a grunt in the mortgage industry from '02 to this past February and I could have told you that someone with a 500 credit score, buying a house with 100% financing would probably get forclosed on.

And BTW, these were NOT government loans that the companies "had" to write because the customers were black or Latino or whatever. These were loans made by entities in the PRIVATE sector. The "Invisible Hand of the Market" at work.

[grasswire]

20. the author of "Too Big To Fail" claimed that just the other night...

...on TV. He said he didn't see it coming.

Liars.

[themadstork]

26. If we're talking about the Freidmanites. . .

I think you had a perfect-storm-type confluence of fundamentalist believers in the infallibility of the utterly free market, and those who were willing to take advantage of this fundamentalist belief to prop up their thieving with academic "cred."

I'll have to watch this movie. . .

[malaise]

5. The rise of the Management Studies schools

and business schools destroyed the Marxists and Keynesians - it was orchestrated and financed by men who supported the Chicago school agenda.
Most of them don't know shit.

[Bozita]

15. Koch buys the right to screen and sign off on new hires in economics at FSU

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/billionaires-role-in-hiring-decisions-at-florida-state-university-raises/1168680

Billionaire's role in hiring decisions at Florida State University raises questions
By Kris Hundley, Times staff writer
In Print: Tuesday, May 10, 2011


A conservative billionaire who opposes government meddling in business has bought a rare commodity: the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university.

A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise."

Traditionally, university donors have little official input into choosing the person who fills a chair they've funded. The power of university faculty and officials to choose professors without outside interference is considered a hallmark of academic freedom.

Under the agreement with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, however, faculty only retain the illusion of control. The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it's not happy with the faculty's choice or if the hires don't meet "objectives" set by Koch during annual evaluations.

more...

[socialist_n_TN]

17. Exactly what I meant.........

Except now it's overt rather than covert.

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Yep. When the Freidmanistas became the darling

of Reagan, they started taking over. And the longer the supply side deregulators were in control of the argument, THROUGH political power, the more EVERYBODY considered that they were correct and therefore, "experts".

Even notable fuckups, like the S&L scandal in the 80s, the tech boom in the 90s, the housing boom in the Aughts, NONE of these screw ups has shaken their hold on claims of economic expertise.

[Capitalocracy]

19. They started taking over before Reagan.

They just did it in other countries first, then starting with Reagan, neocolonialism came back home.

[socialist_n_TN]

30. Also true. That's what the Naomi Klein book was

all about.

[SkyDaddy7]

6. I am almost sure the reason behind the...

lack of "respect" for Keynesians in the Universities is the fact no one has yet been able to create an economic formula or mathematic model that can show human error within an economic system. They common thinking right now is that the markets weed out errors! However, we all know this is NOT TRUE! But until some bright mind can generate an economic model that can PROVE the market can be wrong due to human error Keynesians will not be respected & the push for as little regulation as possible will be the main objective.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. Well the more power, fewer and fewer people collect

over economics and the "market", the more one stupid and/or greedy CEO or group of same can screw up EVERYBODY. That's just logical.

If 5 greedy people have control over 50% of the economy, they can do a LOT of damage to the overall economy, ESPECIALLY with the interconnectedness of it all. That's actually what happened.

[reorg]

8. incidentally, I did the same

had watched it previously, though.

What stood out for me this time was how these guys, every last one of them, look their parts: gangsters and phonies.

And it was great to watch these self-confident, seemingly innocuous and affable academics get muddled and stumbling when asked a few pointed questions.

[socialist_n_TN]

11. Oh yes! And so defensive.........

The guy that headed up Harvard economics ESPECIALLY!

[Starry Messenger]

25. I wanted to slap that guy.

[Bozita]

9. Great companion work is the CBC's "Meltdown" - link to video

I watched this four part documentary in September, 2010 on the CBC channel and have since been looking for ways for viewing the series online. The CBC website does not allow viewing in the USA. I found it posted on Youtube in March.

Last month, I watched "Inside Job." It was excellent. IMHO, "Meltdown" does it better.

http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/meltdown/about.html

EPISODE GUIDE - HOST
Doc Zone has traveled the world - from Wall Street to Dubai to China - to investigate The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse. Meltdown is the story of the bankers who crashed the world, the leaders who struggled to save it and the ordinary families who got crushed.

September 2008 launched an extraordinary chain of events:
General Motors, the world’s largest company, went bust.
Washington Mutual became the world’s largest bank failure.
Lehman Brothers became the world’s largest bankruptcy ever:

The damage quickly spread around the world, shattering global confidence in the fundamental structures of the international economy.

The CBC’s Terence McKenna takes viewers behind the headlines and into the backrooms at the highest levels of world governments and banking institutions, revealing the astonishing level of backstabbing and tension behind the scenes as the world came dangerously close to another Great Depression.

Meltdown also tells the stories of desperate foreclosed homeowners in California, disillusioned autoworkers at the end of the line in Ontario and furious workers in France who shocked the world by kidnapping their own bosses.

Since the financial meltdown began, trillions of dollars have been spent rescuing banks and jumpstarting economies, yet recovery remains fragile. Fears abound of a “double-dip” return to recession.

The millions around the world who lost homes and jobs are demanding answers: How did it all go so wrong? Who is to blame? They are angry because to date, only a few smalltime players have been held to account. No major banking, regulatory or government figures have yet been convicted of any wrongdoing.

Meltdown is the first comprehensive documentary portrait of the worst economic crisis of a generation.

PROMO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWRphrYmj94&feature=related (33 seconds)

HOUR 1: The Men Who Crashed the World - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3xsr_W5JwI
Greed and recklessness by the titans of Wall Street triggers the largest financial crash since the Great Depression. It's left to US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, himself a former Wall Street banker, to try and avert further disaster.

HOUR 2: A Global Tsunami - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biU6QTYvnSs&feature=related
The meltdown's devastation ripples around the world from California to Iceland and China. Facing economic ruin, desperate world leaders are at each other's throats.

HOUR 3: Paying the Price - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3eFdNMbOTg&feature=related
The victims of the meltdown fight back. In Iceland, protestors force a government to fall. In Canada, ripped off autoworkers occupy their plant. And in France, furious union members kidnap their bosses.

HOUR 4: After the Fall - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMKYn8l15IU&feature=related
Investigators begin to sift through the meltdown's rubble. Shaken world leaders question the very foundations of modern capitalism while asking: could it all happen again?

[coalition_unwilling]

18. Thank you for the heads-up and the links. Plan to watch this later - n/t

[jwirr]

22. Is this document available on Netflix?

[Capitalocracy]

10. Any Keynesians will be described by these people as Marxists

and thus Keynes will be marginalized into nonexistence.

[socialist_n_TN]

13. That's going on in every facet of life...........

I saw a story on here about RWers talking about unions. He basically said, "If you're a union member you're a socialist. If you're a PROUD union member, you're a communist".

What they're trying to do is claim the middle with radical RW positions.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I studied econ in college (recently) and didn't seem to find a problem with it

My university was pretty mainstream and I'd say standard for an economics department. Keynes is still dominant in macro, although admittedly macro is being de-emphasized somewhat. Friedman dominates micro, but that doesn't mean professors are teaching Reagan policy as gospel. It means that they are teaching Friedman's neoclassical academic work from the 1950's, which is really just a revival of Pre-Keynesian thought. Paul Krugman has a good article about the difference between Friedman's academic work and Friedman's policy work here....

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/feb/15/who-was-milton-friedman/

I distinctly remember my Econ 101 professor explaining to a college Republican how the Laffer Curve was bullshit because in order to increase tax revenues by cutting taxes to the levels that Reagan did, people would basically have to work more hours than there are in a day.

The vast majority of my professors didn't do research in order to advance any policy agenda. They mostly researched topics that were too obscure for policymakers to understand or care about. And privately when I discussed politics with them, I'd say they were a good mix of Democrats and Libertarians.

I admit that there were no Marxists in the econ department and I found that unfortunate. You could study Marx in a history, political science, or philosophy class, but I think I would've enjoyed learning it most in an economics class.

I never studied financial economics, business, corporate strategy, or any other of that type of "economics", though, so maybe those departments are filled with free market fanatics.

[Hannah Bell]

24. econ depts were effectively purged twice -- post-war & in 80s.

combination of outright firings + tenure, hiring decisions & institutionalized ways of excluding heterodox economists from participation in mainstream conferences/journals.

this is what i gather from econ boards i used to follow.

e.g.:

A Brief History of the Post-Autistic Economics Movement

Theories, scientific and otherwise, do not represent the world as it is but rather by highlighting certain aspects of it while leaving others in the dark. It may be the case that two theories highlight the same aspects of some corner of reality but offer different conclusions. In the last century, this type of situation preoccupied the philosophy of science. Post-Autistic Economics, however, addresses a different kind of situation: one where one theory, that illuminates a few facets of its domain rather well, wants to suppress other theories that would illuminate some of the many facets that it leaves in the dark. This theory is neoclassical economics. Because it has been so successful at sidelining other approaches, it also is called “mainstream economics”.

From the 1960s onward, neoclassical economists have increasingly managed to block the employment of non-neoclassical economists in university economics departments and to deny them opportunities to publish in professional journals. They also have narrowed the economics curriculum that universities offer students. At the same time they have increasingly formalized their theory, making it progressively irrelevant to understanding economic reality. And now they are even banishing economic history and the history of economic thought from the curriculum, these being places where the student might be exposed to non-neoclassical ideas.

http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Again, I think these are much less problematic than they argue

I'll take that open letter point by point.

1) The broader conception of human behavior is being studied in what is called behavioral economics. It's a relatively new field, but it is rapidly gaining mainstream acceptance.

2) I think this is just an expansion of #7. There are plenty of researchers who study culture. Economists tend to focus more on what is universal about human behavior. There is (and maybe there should be more) fascinating interdisciplinary research on how the two are related.

3) I felt like there was no shortage of economic history available where I was in school. Again, fairly mainstream university. Maybe we were an exception somehow, though.

4) I agree that the investigator's values are inescapably involved in scientific inquiry. But if we spent all day discussing that, we'd never get around to actually looking at the research. I'm not entirely sure how to reconcile these two issues, other than to make sure and teach students to read with a healthy degree of skepticism.

5) I found no shortage of attempts at empirical grounding taught in economics. The question is more whether or not the reality actually reflects the model or it's just that reality has yet to prove the model wrong.

6) Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in economics two years ago for doing this.

7) I agree that interdisciplinary approaches are a great idea. I don't necessarily see a shortage of interdisciplinary research, but maybe there ought to be more.

I certainly agree with those who wrote the letter than neoclassical economics is the dominant paradigm. I don't agree (at least not from my own experiences) that this leads to teaching that neoclassical economics is absolute gospel and equivalent to hard scientific fact. Nor do they dismiss other approaches besides modeling. Maybe some of this is recent development though. One of my professors told me that you're much more likely to get published right now if you do econometrics or behavioral economics than if you do traditional modeling.

[socialist_n_TN]

32. I'm sure it's a school by school thing....

and obviously, they just interviewed the ones that were cheerleaders for the deregulation, so QUITE possibly it might not have been entirely representative.

What struck me though we the fact that these department heads were at IVY League schools. I'm used to thinking of Ivy League schools as being MORE liberal than the average university. Once again though, I've been away from school for a LONG time, so things might have changed a great deal n 40+ years. :)

[socialist_n_TN]

31. Well, you're obviously closer to it than I am...........

However, the people they interviewed in the movie were top dogs at EXTREMELY prestigious universities. Universities where, if you're looking for an expert to validate your economic politics, you would be impressed by. Harvard and Columbia were two that I remembered.

Now even at Harvard and Columbia maybe the grunts teaching in the department were not exclusively Friedmanistas, but with the HEAD of the department being one, you would expect they would have a heavy representation.

[jwirr]

23. Many in this post have suggested that a meltdown of the worlds economies

is something that no one wants but I think this is just another step in the Chicago Boys Friedman plan for another disaster capital grab. Sure a few banks had trouble but they got their bailout so they did not get hurt.

What I think may be upsetting the Chicago bunch is that they are ending up owning a bunch of "assets" that are useless in a world without money. They have a raft full of houses and no buyers. I read that they do not even pick up repossessed cars anymore because they have so many. Yes, they can grab anything they want now but most of it they do not even want.

What they do want is our safety net programs. Not because they want to destroy the little guy but because they can make money off of these programs. Insurance companies are already making money off of the health care programs.

We are in the midst of corporatism and I do not know how to fight it from within. We fought it from outside in WWII but how do we beat it from within?

[BOG PERSON]

27. i don't like the recent style of documentaries

too many interviews, too much narration. too "newsy".