Sections
Personal tools
You are here: Home News Items 2009 A Crisis of Misunderstanding Economics
Document Actions

A Crisis of Misunderstanding Economics

An open letter to policy makers and the American people. We simply can't expect to do the same thing and expect a different result. It just doesn't make sense. Feeding money to corporations with no checks and balances, or less regulation, is not helping, it's hurting. Spending money on areas where productivity gains are less, rather than more, is equally risky. We need to exercise reason while the economy is losing weight, in order to return to a healthy productive potential.

A Crisis of Misunderstanding Economics

Dow Jones 1928-2009 – Can you spot where the bubble began?

A few words about economics:

It is worthy to note that economics is not merely a monetary reality. Economy by definition encompasses management of affairs and expenses, thrifty use of material resources, and efficiency.

Most notably, the definition includes the mode of operation of 'something', and 'systems' of interaction and exchange. By extrapolation we can see that economy deals with how things interact. This includes money, material, and even information.

In the context of human exploitation of resources, which is the basis of human material productivity, our understanding of economy, in order to be complete, must include global resource capacity, and rate of human consumption of those resources; along with our monetary economy and the well being of our human society.

Only in a complete consideration of all economies of money, material, information and environmental factors including earth systems, resources and human capacities, can we begin to understand what a healthy economy might actually be.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economy

Main Entry:
1econ·o·my           Listen to the pronunciation of 1economy
Pronunciation:
\i-ˈkä-nə-mē, ə-, ē-\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural econ·o·mies
Etymology:
Middle French yconomie, from Medieval Latin oeconomia, from Greek oikonomia, from oikonomos household manager, from oikos house + nemein to manage — more at vicinity, nimble
Date:
15th century
  • 1archaic : the management of household or private affairs and especially expenses
  • 2 a: thrifty and efficient use of material resources : frugality in expenditures ; also : an instance or a means of economizing : saving b: efficient and concise use of nonmaterial resources (as effort, language, or motion)
  • 3 a: the arrangement or mode of operation of something : organization b: a system especially of interaction and exchange <an economy of information>
  • 4: the structure or conditions of economic life in a country, area, or period ; also : an economic system

Learn More About: The History of Monetary Economics


First and foremost,

both sides need to drop the rhetoric and political ideology. The Republicans want less regulation. The Democrats want program spending. Dropping earmarks is essential to address the core of the dilemma. President Obama is pushing down the earmarks and promoting responsibility. The legislative branch needs to work with the President to achieve this quickly.

Conservatives and liberals need to consider reason and become earnestly conservative... to actually conserve resources including dollars and commodities to achieve needed productivity with purpose, for the long-term health of the economy.

We must stop over-exploiting beyond reasonable sensibility, resources and capacity. We must stop giving away money without expectation of reasonable return and productivity that is meaningful in the long-term. We must not we shall wallow or even wade in the mire of short-term economic thinking.

We know the challenge is large.

In all centrist considerations we wish policy makers to keep these core ideas in mind:

  1. We do not exist in an objective market, we exist in a regulated market. For anyone to claim that we need less regulation in a regulated market is patently insane. Such ideological views are not rational, they are the foundation of the economic turmoil we are now in.
  2. Any form of earmark or bill stacking should be culled out of the bills. It is critical to precision target the essential problems of economic stability, ignore political agenda and keep the national and state interests of 'the people' at the center of attention.
  3. All bailout funds must be connected with performance and productivity. No money should be given away without performance guarantees, limits, requirements and checks and balances.

As we stated last fall in a press release, without checks and balances, any effort will ultimately dig the hole deeper. We gave 800 billion dollars to bankers and instead of loaning out the money they hoarded it, and some of them even went on vacation with it, or redecorated their offices.

Let us not be lulled into complacency, or false hope, that throwing money at the system is a cure all. Everything must be tied to productive, responsible behavior. As has now been proven, the first bailout bill did nothing but pad the accounts of the banks.

To those that 'believe' we should reduce regulation...

on the bailout, please consider the fact that we are not in an objective market. If you make decisions based on that false assumption, your decisions will be wrong.

To those that believe money alone is the answer...

and that it is only about jobs, please consider that jobs that are not directly tied to long-term benefit of the needs of the nation, and the people, will weaken the system.

You can't put band-aids on a cancer and expect it to get better. Covering up the problem only makes it worse. For the sake of all careers, even your own, look down the road and explain these facts to your constituencies. It is the bitter pill of reality we must now take.

The Centrist perspective is simple. Lack of regulation, objectivity and responsibility got us into a huge mess. This combined with consumerism, promoted to increase corporate profit, at the expense of the people, created a disproportionate bubble based on artificial value, rather than real market value based on consumer needs. This can also be seen as corporate profit at the expense of the health of our nation.

We have degenerated into a situation where we are promoting socialism for corporations to save our economy. Simply put if we feed the system that got us here in the first place, we can expect the system to fail in an even larger way in the future. It makes no sense to maintain the status quo of corporation held higher than the long proven sustainability of small business as the market driver and engine of our economy.

Where should the money go?

The money should go directly into productive mechanisms that provide income more for the people and less for the corporations. We need to tighten our belts and get to work. if we fail to do so, expect further economic declines in the future due to unproductive capital usage out of balance with the global economy of resource capacity and resource usage.

The 'Keynesian Model' is inherently flawed

Simply put, you can't have growth forever in a limited system. An unregulated, unconstrained fiat dollar system is the formula for bubbles. Exponential compounding interest has the potential to topple the entire economic system. To promote less regulation in this reality is to say, I liked this bubble, let's make an even bigger one and watch that burst in a few years too. The only difference being that the (near) future bubble will be even bigger, based on the factual reality of compounding interest.

Regulation is required to tame the excesses that have infected corporate governance, the lack of which fostered corporate malfeasance. We must temper the market with value, utility, economy and reason considerate of short and long term needs.

We need to return to an objective market basis as able.

In the mean time, regulation is required to tame the excesses that have become profoundly prominent in the executive levels of corporate governance, which in turn have been the impetus for corporate malfeasance, which is contrary to the fiduciary trust placed in public corporations in the first place.

We remind all that public corporations are not people. They are entities given a trust by the states, a fiduciary agreement by the people and supposedly even the government. That trust has been abused. We have little time to squabble.

To policy makers,

do and promote these things in statements, deliberations, and actions on these important matters:

  1. Increase regulation to ensure that transparency becomes your top priority. Since we are in a regulated non-objective market basis, largely due to over reliance on the Keynesian model with less than responsible attention to the regulation needs required to maintain a fair and healthy market.
  2. Push no earmarks, seek balance in all policy between states and keep the national needs of the people rather than local needs at the center. Otherwise there is increased risk of delay and monies that may go to unnecessary infrastructure.
  3. Set aside personal agenda as best as you are able. Sacrifice is needed to save the economy. In this case, the needs of the many must be held high in order for the needs of the one to even have a chance at a better future.

Let us hope that Congress and the Senate will work with President Obama in a well-reasoned approach to solve this crisis fostered by years of ignorance and greed.

To the American people:

Left, Right and Center, Write your representatives and senators, call their offices, demand reason and sensibility. Delay only raises the tax on every citizen. We encourage you to become active. Let us not leave this to the politicians. It is our country.

http://www.house.gov

http://www.senate.gov

This is a crisis with potentially devastating ramifications if decisive, responsible action is not taken quickly. We need to rally behind reason and our President and do difficult things. In doing so, we will put our country on a road to deal with other pressing challenges that are in dire need of attention as well. Let us begin.

With best regards,
John P. Reisman
Related content

Stimulate the Economy, Not Just Votes

Posted by John Bale at 2009-03-03 12:32

I believe Mr. Reisman makes some excellent points above.

While I am not against spending to stimulate the economy, a stimulus project should not simply be “shovel-ready”; it should stimulate economic activity beyond the completion of a particular project. Will it generate further private investment down the road? At a time when the situation is so serious and our credit so over-extended, we need restrained, efficient and thoughtful spending, not blank checks.

For years, Republicans and Democrats have treated our tax money as an unlimited commodity. They both support legislation more for stimulating votes rather than shepherding the economic welfare of the United States.

The Democrats pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get people into houses they couldn’t afford, so they could get votes. The Republicans helped deregulate the financial sector, one not known for its ethical restraint, again for votes. Fiscal and ethical restraint are needed more than ever. Neither major party has provided much in this way.

  1. R. Bale

In response to "A Crisis of Misunderstanding Economics"

Posted by Mark Gresham at 2009-04-24 07:33

John P. Reisman writes (his words in "<< >>"):

<< President Obama is pushing down the earmarks and promoting responsibility. >>

Unfortunatley, he is also pushing massive increases in overall spending, so while pushing down earmarks is important, it becomes relatively symbolic compared to the overall picture of federal spending and federally allocated spending to state and local government (with strings attached). We need to assess how the latter is not unlike "earmarks" but is controlled by the executive branch rather than being a form of "discretionary" spending of Congress.

<< Conservatives and liberals need to consider reason and become earnestly conservative... to actually conserve resources including dollars and commodities to achieve needed productivity with purpose, for the long-term health of the economy. >>

But it must be not merely "doing with less," rather "doing more with less."

<< We do not exist in an objective market, we exist in a regulated market. For anyone to claim that we need less regulation in a regulated market is patently insane. Such ideological views are not rational, they are the foundation of the economic turmoil we are now in. >>

The real problem is that we need appropriate regulation and de-regulation in different economic and social areas. Unfortunately, there is too much regulation in some areas and insufficient regulation in others. It isn't a simple matter of broad-brush "regulation" vs. "deregulation" across the board. These are co-existing tools which allow for checks and balances in civil governance, helping keep the real engines of democracy from flying apart due to vicissitudes of economic environment, whether national, local, or global. Civil governance (aka "government") is not the engine of democracy--it is only the flywheel. The purpose of flywheels is to regulate when needed, but neither too little nor too much. In the latter case, the engine grinds to a halt; that is the primary danger of over-regulation.

<< To those that believe money alone is the answer... Lack of regulation, objectivity and responsibility got us into a huge mess. This combined with consumerism, [...] We have degenerated into a situation where we are promoting socialism for corporations to save our economy. >>

I find myself astonished to agree with Rick Warren on one significant point: "The solution isn't the redistribution of wealth or the monopolization of wealth, but the creation of wealth." Wealth and money are certainly not the same thing.

It is also important to keep in mind that "consumerism" isn't only economic--it has in the last half-decade become a "cultural" mindset, certainly worse now than ever. We, as individuals, as citizens, must re-invent our mindset and quit defining ourselves (and letting ourselves be defined) as merely "consumers" of wealth. We must redefine our self-images to also see ourselves as "creators" of wealth--whether or not our wealth-production is visible or measurable in strictly "monetary" terms.

<< We need to rally behind reason and our President and do difficult things. >>

We need to be cautious that we don't blindly do stupid things by jumping on a "bandwagon" that ultimately turns out to be a proverbial "handcart to you-know-where," going from fire to frying pan, from one extreme to the other.

Cheers,

Mark Gresham

an addendum

Posted by Mark Gresham at 2009-04-25 07:44

I said earlier:

<< "consumerism" isn't only economic--it has in the last half-decade become a "cultural" mindset, >>

I should have said, instead, that it has progressively become the cultural mindset over the last half-century. That coincides with the larger cultural shift of that time frame where a youth-oriented popular culture rapidly became the dominant culture of the United States.

Caution is wise.

Posted by John P. Reisman at 2009-10-13 11:12
I think Marks words of caution are to be heeded, the question remains, do they really understand what is going on in our economy? I can only hope.

nice article,

Posted by Collin Simonsen at 2009-05-11 15:40

Mr. Reisman,

I appreciate your article and agree with much of it. I wish that you would not say things like "patently insane." It is "blogger talk" and not very respectful to people who disagree with you. But I did really like your article. Once I get a job, I'll contribute to the party. :)

patently insane?

Posted by Mark Gresham at 2009-07-02 20:25

I have no problem with that expression itself. If I could patent insanity, I would become wealthy very quickly. It seems there's so much of it going around! :-)

Four and a Half Months Later

Posted by Mark Gresham at 2009-07-02 20:39

Ok, here we are 4.5 months after John Reisman's original article was posted. What has changed in the economic situation between then and now?

"The Keynesian Model is inherently flawed" says a subtitle, and yet we have people out there crowing about a "2008-2009 Keynesian Resurgence" as a bright new economic era.

What we need to see is a brief follow-up report from Mr. Reisman about what shifts have happened economically since President Obama was inaugurated, either toward a "Keynesian Resurgence" or a (Centrist-advised) move away from it, and the consequences, both observable and foreseeable.

Mark Gresham

Economics

Posted by Timothy Gates at 2009-10-10 01:25

The last thing we need in this country, is to spend money we don't have. For some reason Obama is pushing for spending that will put this country so far in debt, we may never recover. To make damn sure his Government Run Health Program passes, they are going to take money from our already strained Medicare and Medicade Programs.

Healthier solutions?

Posted by John P. Reisman at 2009-10-13 11:09
Timothy, I don't think any president would be great at getting us out of this, we have been suckling on the bubble for quite some time. If we are to rationally look at it, this is a problem that has been brewing for decades. As far as I can tell, his government run health care plan was and or would have been a mechanism to provide competition in the market which is now controlled by increasingly by corporations and their manipulation of the legislative process.

I think we all need to look deeper into the realities of what is going if we are to get closer to healthier solutions.

Economic possibilities?

Posted by John P. Reisman at 2009-10-13 11:04
Mark, I think the talk of Keynesian resurgence is in my opinion hopeful based on false assumptions. It was Keynes that got us out of the great depression, but that was at the expense of inflation. In other words inflation was the method to get America moving... borrow from the future so we can pay for today.

But, as far as I can tell, it only works if you can continue expansion..., and in a world of increasing population and demand for limited resources, it's pretty easy to see that there is a limit to expansion, hence the comment that the 'Keynesian model is inherently flawed'.

I have not seen and significant shift during the Obama administration. What I find myself hoping for is more of a stability, until we can figure out a way to establish value that can be reasonably attached to the dollar. To date, I still do not have sufficient intelligence to know how to do it but could only make an educated guess.

As to 'observable and foreseeable', things are at least stable for now. But I don't expect that to last. We will eventually need a new strategy for the economic system. I hope we do not get into any kind/form of irrational exuberance again. It is possible that even now the market is getting ahead of itself. Transparency is key to healthy capital markets and we still don't have that.

There is already some talk that other economies are planning to unpeg oil from the dollar and favor a basket of currencies. Even this solution I see as temporary though and it is not expected to happen for some years.