When I listen to all the multi-media prognosticators and read past and present deliberations of expert thinkers some of whom are heavy laden with the lauriates and accolades of their peers and awards by panels and knowing of the brain trusts of experts to support their initiatives: after all these I still see the feeble results around the world in all economies. In the context of these feable intellectual and academic environments, the timidity I feel about offering an alternative paradigm to the worn out Aggregationist Paradigm of Classical and Keynesian Economics.
These schools are semi right in much of what the propose but being semi right can be a greater threat than beng completely wrong. Granted the vested interests that produce text books that reinforce what John Kenneth Galbraith would deem economic comment as no more than religious belief with no more scientific validation than institutionaized religion and in some cases even less.
Despite all the verbiage and even a consensus being gathered together concerning what to do, I am not convinced in even the very least part that any one of the plans for a practical implimentable solution and a process by which a way out of the present economic quagmire is viable given the vision of what to do and the attendant goals that are purportedly being set by economic manadrins to arrive at the goals.
In one of the shorter but very succinct of the Parables or learning stories found in the New Testament, Jesus compares the building practices of two contractors. One build his structure on sand that shifted and was washed away by a storm. The building collapsed. The other built his structure on solid rock. The storm that destroyed the other building was ineffectual against this structure with a solid foundation.
Note the present day damage to the economies around the world that built their structures on what can be seen to be the sand of Classical/Keynesian Theory.
Even the patch work repairs or "soft landings" that have been instituted are still being added to the same faulty foundation and will have no other result than the reduction of economic activity making permanent the reduction of employment. The cause: the theory that is based on false premises and specifically the false premise that what is necdessary in the present circumstances is an increase in "Aggregate Demand" when, in fact what is needed is a BALANCE of the economie(s) at a higher level of both employment and economic activity which the Aggregationists see simply as larger numbers but needs to be seen as a balanced structure at a higher level of activity.
Subtle slight differences in peception and targeting of the addition of money into the economy is necessary. What is not needed is the willy-nilly throwing of money into the economic mechanism that only buys time at the cost of increased joblessness.
The dilema is not one of a weak economy but of leadership that does not have the proper economic compass in hand.
Even though the reduction of Keynes' ideas have resulted in Aggregationist Economics, there is reason to believe that Keynes may be interpreted using a structural framework as a foundation, that is with a focus on how the stock and flow of wealth is distributed and how this, in turn. In this process the two sides of Keynes' concern, the distribution of wealth as seen in his concern for inequality and the distribution of wealth shown in his concern for levels of employment can be united in the several structures that constitute an economy.
The task in neither great nor impossible except at the foundational level of the great difficulty it is to give up or transcend the network of ideas that produce a false knowledge cloud that makes clear sight impossible and/or what even Keynes saw as a reluctance to adopt new ideas even when the old had become untenable.
In his words, The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds.
