Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
by closeparen on Sunday March 31, 2019 @02:34PM
(#19537327)
We’ve actually had a taste of a world without Goldman Sachs and its ilk performing their functions: the credit freeze right after the crash. Was that better?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
by coldtea on Monday April 01, 2019 @04:44AM
(#19541556)
That's like: "We had a taste of a world after segregation, the LA riots. Was that better?".
The "credit freeze right after the crash" still happened within the crash that Goldman Sachs and its ilk caused, and still happened in a world where Goldman Sachs and its ilk set the rules.
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
by closeparen on Monday April 01, 2019 @12:54PM
(#19545354)
The LA riots are what happens when we continue to have excessive and racist policing past the end of public acceptance of it. No excessive and racist use of force, no LA riots.
The financial crisis is what happens when we don't have access to credit. Whether the financial industry self-destructs as in 2008 or is destructed by the guillotines outside, you're going to have a hard time getting credit without it. No credit, we'd just be in the 2009 world at steady state.
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
by mcguire on Sunday March 31, 2019 @03:37PM
(#19537814)
Oh, hell no! :-)
On the other hand, there's a difference between the ilk performing their functions and the tail wagging the dog.
(I specifically picked on GS because this weird sense I have that US economic policy has been outsourced to Goldman-Sachs for several decades.)