Hayek

/ / , , , , , , , , /

Smith’s Curse

I am not easily swayed by talk of curses. They make for good gossip and a laugh, but have no explanatory legitimacy. All except Smith’s Curse. Adam Smith that is. Here’s why:

Ever since Adam Smith wrote, just once, about the mysteries of the “hidden hand”, economics has had its brains addled by the allure of those magical powers Smith postulated as the reason he saw order rather than chaos around him. His was possibly the first insight into what is now called the self-organizing properties of a complex system.

The problem with this is the absurd lengths to which economists have gone in order to give credence to Smith’s insight. Instead of embracing the muckiness, and infuriatingly indirect nature of complex systems, they have gone the other way entirely. They have been driven to simplify at inordinate and quite ridiculous length in order that they come up with the answer Smith first thought of. Their tools and methods are wrong. Their desire runs deep. That combination makes for some pretty ugly reasoning. This doesn’t mean that complex systems are not comprised of very simple components. It’s just that they are not deterministically thus constructed. Therein lies the big error of orthodox economics. It is still rooted in a mechanical vision where the economy is a vast machine playing out in an orderly fashion from a set of basic assumptions.

When we observe apparent order, such as we see in the confines of a well behaving market, we must be careful not to interpret that observation as implying that the underlying system is, itself, well ordered. Disorderly systems are far more common. In fact they are the norm. Yet sometimes they give rise to patterns that belie their true nature.

This was Smith’s error. And by making such an error he bequeathed economists a long lasting curse.

They imagined that markets are orderly structures. They are not. They have people in them, which means they are can be whimsical, subject to fashion, or tightly ordered and efficient all at the same time. They are human, not magical.

We could simply end at this point by saying that the rest is history. Economics, or at least its orthodox versions, has labored long and hard to detect and theorize about the mystical forces necessary to ensure, not just orderly outcomes, but orderly workings. In a deterministic system the outcome is orderly because the systems itself is precise. It plays out along known and predictable lines. Hence the theories of people like Walras who conceived of the economy as giant machine capable of arriving at a single best solution to the problem of allocating resources. Only his machine needed help. He wasn’t able to solve his equations without the assistance of an external “auctioneer” who directed the traffic to make sure everything resolved itself neatly. Some of us think of this as cheating, but to the orthodox it was simply a challenge to try harder.

As Walrasian thinking became to pervade orthodoxy all sorts of bells an whistles were added to try to get around the fictional auctioneer. The humans within the system were invested with superhuman powers of calculation and information. Gathering information was made costless. What people wanted or needed was crushed into something called utility so it could be fitted within a mathematical structure. Time was reduced to a single point by using the trick of futures markets. And so on. Smith’s curse drove a great many intelligent people to extraordinary and, frankly, almost psychotic, lengths to discover and articulate the magic he imagined lying beneath the surface.

In the end orthodox economics was reduced to getting rid of humans in order to make things work well at all. And even then the prime movers of the final edifice, Arrow and Debreu, were not sure of the relevance or use of the monster they created.

This is because there isn’t any use. It was always a wild goose chase. The order Smith saw was a chimera. A mirage beckoning economists and no one else.

Now here’s the really big problem with Smith’s Curse:

It can make clever people do bad things.

Ever since the 1930’s classical economics has taken on a morally superior tone. It has been preached rather than taught. Free markets are, according to the orthodox, superior because they produce “the right answer” without any intervention by governments. Thus they are untainted by the wants, requirements, and biases of mere mortals. Markets march, so they say, to the beat of immutable forces that are impervious to human intervention. So they are ideals we should strive to achieve. As if Smith was channeling Plato when he devised his curse.

If this sounds vaguely religious, you are not the first to notice the resemblance.

In the hands of folks like Hayek and Friedman classical economics was used as an ideal bulwark against the intrusion of the dark side of human calculation. Hayek meant it when he talked about “The Road To Serfdom”. Friedman meant it when he wrote about being “Free To Choose”. Both imagined that a free society whose economic relations were determined by the forces that drive unfettered markets cannot end up in a bad spot. It just works out that way. It just is. Perhaps a mystery. But it just is. Worse: whenever silly and limited humans get involved things will alwatys go awry. Those of us who a tad more skeptical are told to keep our tawdry questions to ourselves and not to sully the beauty of the free market vision. We should allow the faithful to go on believing. Their faith unquestioned because it is unquestionable.

Such was their fervor, and such was the hold Smith’s Curse held over them, that no amount of foolishness was allowed to sway their thinking. Thus Friedman could write, presumably in earnest, that no matter now ridiculous, absurd, or other worldly the assumptions needed to make a free market systems superior in theory – let alone practice – those assumptions were justified if they drove the theory to the “correct answer”. By which he meant the answer he, like Smith, first thought of. Where there is science in this is questionable. But you have to admire the zealotry.

Now comes the damage I mentioned.

So smitten by Smith’s Curse are orthodox economists that they engage in social engineering. By their own logic people like Hayek and Friedman should aver all attempts at imposing a system upon society. After all that way lies the road to serfdom. And surely we – the rest of us – are free to choose. Yet Friedman in particular, and his army of righteous followers, think nothing of advocating all sorts of changes to society in order to get things ordered the way most conforming to their theoretical views. This is why Friedman was a major, if not the major, force behind establishing a free wheeling derivatives market. You know like the one that just blew up the world economy. This explains the ardor with which orthodox economists advocate deregulation, the dismantling of social safety nets, and other community oriented devices. Their faith drives them to preach and alter anything they deem inappropriate. Like society, or any construct with word word “social” in it.

So in the end Smith’s curse has produced a prodigious paradox: the theorists most stricken by his vision are both the most ardent advocates of freedom, and the most determined social interventionists at the same time. They think nothing of forcing the rest of us to conform to their utopian visions. More to the point: the past few decades have been a prolonged social experiment in free market economics. In any number of places orthodox economists have influenced society in an effort to make reality reflect their theories. Society, as it had evolved by the 1970’s, needed to be saved. It needed to be shunted back into its rightful place. If that meant imposing order and restricting the choices of others, so be it. Nothing should get in the way of the neoclassical crusade.

This is, of course, back to front. In respectable science theory reflects or explains reality.

But then it might not come up with the right answer. And Smith’s Curse would lose its grip.

And it’s such a warm and fuzzy feeling when slip into the dreamworld described by that curse.

It can’t just be a myth can it?

I don’t know. Maybe we should ask the unemployed.

/ / , , , , , , , , , , , , , /

Its Official! The Recession’s Over … Yawn.

Hang out the flags. Set off the fireworks. The recession is officially over. Whoopee. The National Bureau of Economic Research says so. In fact, by their count, the recession ended in June 2009.

There, don’t you all feel better?

Not really.

The “Great Recession” was officially 18 months long, making it a full 2 months longer than the slumps of 1973/1975 and 1981/1982. Those two recessions were doozies and unemployment surged in both. Banks shuddered. Businesses lost money. Shops were closed. But neither felt like this last one. The reason being that both were followed by decent recoveries. Obviously I have a personal gripe about the 1973/1975 slide since its aftermath was sufficiently meandering to set the stage for the Reagan takeover and all the deterioration in our economy that his slippery illusion has implied.

Still, here we are, on the other side of what history will record as the worst slump since World War II. We are edging slowly away from the abyss. So slowly that many of us cannot tell the difference between being in recession and being in recovery. But let’s not be churlish: we should acknowledge that we are afloat and not sinking. At least those of us still gainfully employed. As for those other folks …

If you are someone who believes in market magic, let’s say you were schooled in textbook economics, then the slump has failed to clear out the dead wood sufficiently for the recovery to be robust. In particular you are really annoyed that wages have not dropped low enough to make it attractive for businesses to hire workers in droves. For you magic lovers the lunacy of government intervention has prevented the market from solving our ills. This slow growth is a direct result of that persistent and foolhardy intervention. If only, you mutter to yourselves, unemployment had reached 20%. Whatever it takes. Maybe 25%, like back in the good old days of depression era economics. Back when workers took their medicine like the undeserving ingrates that they are. Silly things like the minimum wage have stopped the market from “clearing”. Demand for workers is too low only because – you suggest – wages have failed to drop to a market clearing level. Then there’s all those payroll taxes imposed by the silly politicians who seem to think we should set aside cash for workers retirement. Phooey! If workers cannot save for their own retirement they should starve. That’s what the market says. And you believe the market magic myth.

It helps if you are a tenured professor when you articulate this myth. That way the slump never actually gets too close to the comfortable surroundings within which you pursue academic freedom.

But that’s another story.

No one ever said that hypocrisy and academia were not entwined.

Meanwhile those of us who base our economics on reality, and not magic, see it very differently.

We see the entire problem as one of insufficient demand. There are no jobs because businesses are being very sensible. They aren’t hiring until they can expect to make a profit from the labor of those new workers. Until business expectations turn more optimistic unemployment will persist. So the central aim of government is to stoke the economy in order to boost expectations. Once we get the engine rolling it will take off on its own and we can withdraw our support. Since the taxpayers are the ones who benefit from the growth in the economy, they get new jobs, pay raises, and all sorts of other neat stuff, it is not unreasonable for them to chip in up front and pay for the necessary boost to get the engine going. They chip in by taking on the responsibility to pay back the debt the government issues as it primes the pump.

Its a perfect example of “we the people” taking responsibility for our own welfare. Its also reality. It also is an affirmative rejection of the notion that “we the people” have to get hammered before we react to the mess that the bankers made.

We are grown ups. We will fix our own mess thank you. We do not have to wait for the market fairy to awake and wave her magic wand.

I am always astonished at how many good people grow up to reject the idea of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, yet still cling to the Market Magic Myth.

It was always a made up story designed to keep the workers supine. The suffering inflicted by the depressions of the 1800’s and that of the 1930’s was turned into a punishment for the ills of the laboring class. It was converted into a parable about the “natural workings” of an economy. The story telling reached its apogee in the arcane and obscure pages of academic economics. Generations of workers were told that the decentralized mechanisms of the free market produced wealth for all. They would get a share of that wealth if only they obeyed the workings of the mechanism. Sometimes that meant hunkering down and starving as the market sought to work its magic and locate a new wage level. That new level seemed always to be lower than the old. But hey, there were new jobs in new places if only you all were willing to take that new wage.

This was the essence of the myth that became modern economic theory. In the hands of people like Schumpeter – he of the “gales of creative destruction” – and then the postwar wave of right wing theorists like Friedman and Lucas, economics became an apologia for naked capitalism. It gave up the pretense of being a science. Instead it contented itself with a justification of a particular form of economic activity.

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, is there a scientific argument that free markets work to the benefit of society. Nowhere is there a body of scientific proof that central planning is worse than decentralized planning. On the contrary. You may be shocked to hear that during the 1930’s a great debate raged within economics between those who argued central planning was at least as efficient as capitalistic decentralized planning. The argument became known as the “Socialist Debates”, and engaged some of the most famous thinkers of that time. Oscar Lange defended socialism, while Hayek and von Mises defended capitalism. You might be even more surprised to hear that it was generally agreed that the socialists won the debate. There is no proof to support the contention that markets are better at anything. There never was. There was simply assertion and assumption. The victory was hollow. Poor Lange lost on points because of the horror of authoritarianism in Nazi Germany and then in the Soviet Union. That horror so tainted the discussion that postwar economics in the West became single mindedly pro-market, even in the absence of proof.

Back in the 1930’s it was Keynes who acted as the bulwark. He provided the realist view that saved capitalism from its own doings. He saw that the magic was a myth, and argued for a realist intervention in order to prevent the carnage that an imploding market can inflict on the workforce. By mitigating those effects he realized that he could stabilize democracy and allow the middle class to flourish.

This is, of course, nothing new to you. I bring it up because the Great Depression acted as an inflection point. The great debates back then were left incomplete and the proofs were never provided. Keynesian economics prevailed for three decades. It was only when the 1973/1975 recession seemed to disprove Keynes that market magic theorists like Friedman were able to get back into the discussion. With voters disillusioned by the oil shock and the falling away from the heady postwar growth rates of the 1950’s and 1960’s, it was easy to turn their heads back to the capitalist side of the 1930’s debate. Only this time, the Cold War ensured that there was no socialist or centralized side in the discussion. The debate was entirely one sided.

I think, perhaps, that our Great Recession is another inflection point. It is time to redress the one sided nature of the debate and ask simple questions of the magic believers. Questions like: where’s your proof?

I think of the last thirty years as a great experiment. The economy has been managed, by Republicans and Democrats alike, along free market lines. Regulations have been limited and reduced. Taxes have been cut. Welfare has been gutted. The minimum wage has been held down. Laws protecting trade unions have been eliminated or neutered. The list goes on. It may shock you to learn that it took a personal call from Milton Friedman to the SEC in order to persuade that body to allow the establishment of options trading. Up until his call the SEC saw options trading as a form of gambling. Friedman’s reputation was sufficient for them to open up trading. The derivatives melt down of 2007/2008 was thus a direct heir to his theorizing. It was his set of ideas that underpinned the financial collapse. To Friedman and magic believers derivatives are a way markets mitigate risks. Realists see them as gambling.

The experiment failed.

We now have the proof.

Then again, we always did. Ask any CEO whether they believe in free markets and they will respond with a resounding “yes”. Just as long as we retain patent laws; copyrights; restrictions on unions; import quotas where “necessary”; subsidies for agriculture; price supports etc. And just so long as they can establish centralized strategic plans to guide their businesses.

In other words not one CEO truly believes in market magic. Not one. They all run their businesses along centralized planning lines. General Motors is not a free market. Nor is General Electric. Apple. Microsoft. None. They are centrally planned mini economies.

In fact more economic activity in America goes on within the safe harbor of corporately constructed centrally planned economies than takes place in supposedly free markets. Even the OECD, hardly a socialist haven, supports that observation.

Now I am not going to support socialist economics. I find it fails too. But we must be more realistic about the economy in which we operate. We need to recognize that the free market experiment failed. It was always going to fail. It was based on ideas that were incomplete or highly tailored to the 1930’s. In the hands of ideologues masquerading as economists it became twisted. Economics was conflated with politics. It became the American state religion to argue that unfettered capitalism was the only economic system to believed. And like all state religions it turned from being believed, to being revered, to being enforced without thought.

We forgot why the debates of the 1930’s took place. And we forgot that neither of the two sides was correct. Keynes was. And he was in the middle.

I hope we can forget the extremism of the free market magic myth, and return to practical realistic economics. There are jobs depending upon it. Indeed, our respective futures do.

/ / , , , , , , /

Class Conflict?

It is taboo in America to talk of “class” as if it doesn’t exist. Of course it does, we just don’t like to admit it. I say this because so much of the current crisis seems to have class-like connotations, and more commentators are arguing in ways that indicate they agree.

A case in point is the recent article in The Nation by Joshua Clover – thanks to Phil Cunningham for pointing it out to me. James Kwak at The Baseline Scenario posts a parallel article. Finally Tony Judt, the historian, devoted almost his entire book “Ill Fares The Land” to the increased separation within American society.

The common theme that all three of these writers is their focus on the enormous shift in wealth that the last three decades have wrought. This shift was no accident. It was deliberate, and orchestrated by those who benefitted most. That they were enabled and assisted with enthusiasm by middle class Americans who have been left much worse off remains a mystery in need of thorough explanation.

The facts are clear and well known: wealth has been systematically concentrated by the very upper tier of wage earners, and by corporations whose policies and activities are, in general, dictated by that tier. The professional elite took full advantage of the tax regime put in place by Reagan and then modified by Clinton and the two Bush’s to secure their income stream. They also were the best positioned to exploit the deregulatory environment that has been the predominant governance structure since Reagan also. Pay scales were twisted towards the upper echelons, and those infamous bonuses in banking poured riches into the hands of a very few. A new privileged generation was created, and they are defending their privilege fiercely and astutely. Any talk of class warfare is squelched immediately as “un-American”. The only folks who benefit from dismissal of such talk are those who have the wealth. The rest are left to their anger and increasing sense of disconnection from the old “American Dream”.

I have hammered this issue recently, so I won’t repeat myself except to say that I think that the imbalance in wealth that now is so pronounced within American society is a major, if not the major, contributory factor in our crisis.

That no one on the left in politics has roared against the injustice being done is testimony to how thorough the ideas of the right have taken hold: even our media and academic elites are entrapped by the illusion. Further, politicians of all stripes have succumbed to the money that the power brokers can throw into elections. We have so many elections that the ability of a politician to resist the cash is reduced to zero. Members of Congress are now devoted to fundraising rather than governing. Senatorial races are so expensive that even the six year cycle is not long enough to allow for sufficient fundraising. Our Senate is fast becoming – if it is not already – a rich person’s club. It is no wonder that the banks and big corporations have disproportionate influence. They are the ones with the deepest pockets.

This theme will only loom larger as the wealthy attempt to stave off a return to the better balance of the 1950’s and 1960’s. They stand to lose a great deal, they will not go down without a fight.

But that’s no news.

My point today is to illustrate the gulf that now has opened up in our society.

I was fortunate enough to spend much of the summer this year in Dorset Vermont, a town characterized both by its physical beauty and its comparative wealth. Home prices in Dorset are established by the flood of money from New York City and Boston. True Vermonters cannot afford to live there. The locals are reduced to living on the periphery and providing the services needed by the largely absentee property owners: they mow lawns, clean homes, and shovel snow. They run gift shops and take care of the golf courses. In other words they ensure that the property owners can enjoy their privileges with ease.

This arrangement is two edged. The locals certainly benefit from the jobs generated by the influx of cash. But they are priced out of the community. The town is beyond them. Discontent lurks very close to the surface, and can easily be detected in conversation. While New Englanders are not exactly known for their warm embrace of outsiders, the situation has become more acute as more and more of the town is devoted to large and expensive homes that are occupied only occasionally. My own observation is that most of the homes on one prestigious street are used by their owners once or twice a summer. One at least seems to be simply a Labor Day retreat. The luxury implied by the ability of an owner to use a very expensive home a few days a year is the point to be driven home.

Inequality has always existed. And it always will. But not for decades has the distortion been so great that we have enough families to own enough towns like Dorset that they can reduce so many others to a support function. In the old days the folks providing the services were tied to a family. They were servants. That they are somewhat less closely tied nowadays simply means we can avoid calling them servants. They are now the service economy. But they are just as dependent. They are just as incapable of experiencing the life of luxury as the servants of yore. It is no accident that the majority of jobs generated in the recent past have been in these low wage service functions. The middle income layer has been stripped away either through global shifts to low wage nations, or through the destabilization of “flattened corporate hierarchies”. We have no middle management anymore, so we should not be surprised to have fewer middle income wage earners. In each case – globalization and lean management – the benefits flowed to profits and those with professional skills. Those left at the top of the now narrower pyramid received a disproportionate share of the increase on social wealth created. They used their advanced educations to “rent seek”. Which they did with a vengeance.

That this is now America and is not worthy of commentary is my issue. The division exists and is opening up. Eventually, as it always has in the past, it will breed a backlash. I believe the Tea Party challenge to the Republicans is part of that backlash. Anger is rising. It needs to be well understood and not dismissed.

One last thing: both Joshua Clover and Tony Judt point the finger at Hayek. I would add von Mises, Berlin, and Popper as well. As Judt articulates there were a number of Austrian born theorists back in the 1930’s who devoted their analysis towards a justification, and spirited defense, of a liberal worldview. That they overcompensated in their zeal is easily understood: they were embroiled in a passionate defense of capitalism and democracy in the face of the apparent success of communism – in the Soviet Union – and fascism – in Germany and Italy. During the 1930’s the depression and the manifest failure of capitalism represented a true existential threat to the liberal conception of society. Hence the works of Hayek and von Mises in economics and Popper and Berlin in philosophy. Most postwar neo-liberal economics can be traced back to Hayek or von Mises as reinterpreted by Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas and their cohorts at the University of Chicago.

I can excuse Hayek and von Mises for their mistakes. They were made in a good cause as they fought to save the liberal worldview from the extremism threatening the West back then. I cannot excuse Friedman et al since they were under no similar existential threat, and had the opportunity to see the benefits that the greater income equality of the immediate postwar years had brought to America.

That greater equality was a result of one major idea: that the government can, and should, play a positive role in society by ensuring all its layers of income earners prosper and derive benefit from the productivity increases brought about by technological advance. This idea was best articulated by Keynes whose work both Hayek and von Mises attacked with vigor. They failed to appreciate that capitalism requires limits if it is to not to be antithetical to democracy. Untrammeled capitalism runs headlong into the democratic ideal. Why? Because capitalism is essentially elitist. It inevitably concentrates wealth. Not just in the hands of the successful, but in their offspring. It creates class structure through time. Democracy, in direct contrast, is egalitarian. It presumes a degree of equality. It degrades class, and presumes opportunity is available to all. By involving everyone it inevitably ends up redistributing wealth through social programs and entitlements.

So democracy and capitalism collide in their extreme forms.

It is only when both are modified that they provide mutual support. Capitalism only survives when the middle class benefit from it. Democracy only survives as long as inequality remains within bounds and there is some engine for the provision of greater wealth.

It was Keynes who saved capitalism from its failures in the 1930’s. He insisted on it being limited. Hayek, von Mises, and their later followers reviled and ignored Keynes by insisting on its purity. Their’s was an idealism born of zealotry. It was decoupled from history and reality. It was easily co-opted by the elites for their own ends. It provided an easy story to tell. And it fitted nicely with the pre-existing American mythology of the rugged individual. The Keynesian message was too pragmatic and failed to resonate with voters during the sharply defined Cold War era. Americans sought, and then fell for, an ideal that could not produce its promise in the uncertain and flawed environment of the real world.

Just as the rugged individual was never real, nor was the free market and its supposed cure all qualities.

But by choosing the myth Americans have undone the great leveling that created the wellbeing that characterized the postwar years. The middle class was complicit in its own downfall.

So now we have rampant capitalism and weakened democracy just as Keynes would have predicted. That the two great liberal ideas are now in conflict does not augur well. They need reconciliation. We need to throw out the rotten purities advocated by Hayek, von Mises, Friedman and Lucas. They were an illusion that generated a class conflict.

Which is something we can do without.

/ / , , , , , , , , , /

A Mockery of It All: Wall Street, The Joke’s On Us

Here I am, late at night reading accounts of the implosion on Wall Street. We are sufficiently past the peak of the crisis that we now have a few good books that explore or describe in detail what went on. They penetrate deep into conversations and exchanges that took place at the epicenter of the disaster.

And I am stunned by the arrogance, stupidity, cluelessness, and outright willful lack of ethics.

More to the point I am overwhelmed by the total abrogation of economic theory. Everything we know as standard economics is wrong. Totally and completely.

And I must admit, I love the idea of having to start over. There is nothing more exhilarating than learning. And boy do we all have a lot to learn.

Wall Street, hallowed as it is to market magic theorists was a demented fools game, rigged and self-serving, and completely beyond anything resembling what we read in economics text books. It was a colossal failure as a market. It was inhabited by people who had no idea what they were doing: bankers, lawyers, and accountants who were so incompetent that they genuinely believed in the inanity. They misled each other. They lied. They spoke in jargon in order to cover up the fact they didn’t understand even that most basic of banking rules: get your money back. They fell prey to the laudatory sewage published in the financial media, whose depth of analysis was so shallow that I doubt that even today, with the benefit of hindsight, that the commentators we see there actually have a clue as to what happened.

What we have just witnessed, folks, is a collapse of an entire elite. Wall Street has been exposed as an intellectual fraud of epic proportions.

Deals were made with the full knowledge that the paper being exchanged had no value. banks with sterling names and reputations were inhabited by idiots and dolts who sold assets they knew were valueless and yet swore up and down that those same assets had enormous value were they still on their own balance sheets.

We witnessed CEOs who knew little or nothing about the details of deals sufficiently large to sink their banks.

We saw risk management systems replete with elaborate math and sophisticated models, whose sole purpose was to obfuscate and hide the lie long enough for it to be traded to some other sucker.

We watched as traders larded their own bank accounts while not caring a jot about the bank where they worked. And we watched as the supporting cast of ‘professionals’ sliced and diced the legalese so finely that no one knew anything about reality.

The deal became the driver and be all of life. Anything more substantial, sensible underwriting for instance, became seen as retro and passe. Risk was something to be traded away not managed. Everything, absolutely everything, revolved around the next bonus. And since the next deal was the source of that next bonus, the deal became the reason for being. Shareholders, responsibility, longer time frames, and even the truth itself were tossed overboard in pursuit if the next deal. Quantity of effort dominated quality of effort. Mediocrity could masquerade as brilliance as long as it put in the hours.

The mockery this makes of standard economic theory is difficult to describe to anyone who isn’t familiar with the details of that theory.

It destroys it.

It is a total repudiation of everything we learn in introductory economics.

The market, and remember the money market is always held up as the closest approximation we have to a text book market, was a shambles. It was so far from the perfection we read about that it seems almost surreal when people who still advocate market magic theory try to defend it. I have to pinch myself when I hear anyone mouth a defense of free market economics. Exactly what about the implosion do they not understand? Markets, it turns out, are riven through with inconsistencies, errors, and foibles. They are not the perfectly smooth all knowing, infinitely adjustable, and hyper sensitive mechanisms for exposing the ultimate truths of an economy. On the contrary they are murky, dark, and dingy places full of mistakes and misalignments.

Free market economics has always been more an ideology than a science. To make the models work in order to defend the notion that markets are better at asset allocation than anything else they have to be so perverted as to be utopian and almost mystical.

The greatest of the free market advocates: Hayek, Friedman, and others worked very hard in order to avoid taking into account the real world. They cut away vast swathes of reality from their modeling in order to distill the ‘essence’ and explore the efficacy of the unreal world of their ‘perfect markets’.

Generations of students have been taught free market economics subsequently, but few have been told the exact nature of the sham it represents. The American population at large has been persuaded that markets work magically in ways that other forces – usually the government – cannot. Somehow the market achieved mythical status, and to attack it was to expose your ignorance or lack of sophistication.

And always Wall Street and its heroic denizens, those multi-millionaire whiz kids and their super suave managers, were held up as the epitome of the truths embodied in free market economics.

Well no more.

They are incompetent fools with very limited ability and even more limited ethical standards. They may make fortunes, but they make those fortunes by rigging and twisting the market not because they inhabit or understand the market’s magical forces.

There never were any magical forces.

It was all an illusion.

An illusion inside people like Hayek’s and Friedman’s minds. An illusion they forced into existence in order to justify their political views rather than to provide a scientific explanation of reality.

The big banks would not make a penny were it not for our subsidy of them. None of them. Not Goldman, not Citi, not JP Morgan Chase, not Wells Fargo, not Morgan Stanley, and not Bank of America. They all rely on us, and in particular our guarantee that they will not fail.

Don’t believe the hype: none of these organizations is well run or sophisticated. They are all a sham. They would all crumble back to a much more humble level were it not for our constant support.

The sad part, the truly sad part, is that most of them don’t realize the mockery they have made, not just of decades of economic theory – that is way too abstract for them anyway – but of themselves.

They have become a caricature. Like the grotesque figures of Hogarth’s satires, they are exposed as deluded, corrupt, and venal. They are cartoons to laugh at as they continue their incompetent ways.

Even worse, they continue. And this is, perhaps the biggest mockery of all: their ability to continue and make fortunes as they wallow in blissful ignorance, safe in the knowledge that we will bail them all out again, mocks our intelligence. It is a slight to all those who try to do the right thing, or who try to work honestly. It is an insult to those who seek to learn and apply knowledge diligently in the hope of a fair reward. And it is a total mockery of the notion that the American economy rewards those with the most merit or those who work the hardest. they are the exact opposite of the story book reward for hard work. They are being rewarded despite their continuing incompetence.

Wall Street, as we now know it, is a ship of fools.

They mock us. They mock economics. They mock themselves.

Truly: they made a mockery of it all.

1 2 3 4 5