In Orwell's novel 1984, the dictator (Big Brother) unfolds terrifying instruments of social control, particularly in Assen length of time on the airwaves as the country's borders are at war. This atmosphere of war gives him the ability to keep the population in a state of constant fear conducive to the installation of a totalitarian society. Then the population has no choice but to turn to the protection of "benevolent" a state that cares for at the same time the final gag. Fortunately, we do not yet live in such a world and it's not deny reality economic crisis. However, continuing its media plays a similar role. I studied economics in the 80s. During all my years of study, my teachers always spoke of the crisis ... And this has not stopped since. Listen to sketches of Coluche: Crisis! President Giscard d'Estaing, who sees the end of the tunnel in 1979. Mitterrand nationalized the banking system, already undergone all the demonization, to conduct an industrial policy that would get us out of the crisis. Finally, unemployment explodes and right returns to power to end the crisis ... The Governments come, but the crisis is still there.
Generally, the political stars captured the theme of crisis often s'étriper them especially during election campaigns, often to explain. Do they have interest in explaining the crisis? Did they reduce the interest in crisis? See how the Irish "no" to Europe is about to vote "yes" now being hit by the crisis.
For all potential victims of the crisis are turning to the state, and therefore to politicians who welcome the return of political economic life as if they had the tools of interventions of proven efficacy? This situation is however likely to keep us in a state of permanent crisis.
researcher in economics that I'm trying to understand the economy as an object, trying to find logical relationships and sequences relentless cause and effect, apart from any consideration personal or corporate, even if there is intense debate (and chapels) among economists. But it is the nature of science because it is through debate that knowledge progresses despite everything. The economist is not liked because it often contains things that we all know but nobody wants to hear.
The fact is that the economy can not be permanently in crisis even if there is a logical discourse permanent crisis. The leading experts of the IMF or INSEE can not predict the outcome of the ongoing crisis. The IMF forecasts are adjusted regularly, sometimes lowered, now revised upwards. Economists are like political analysts: they are always erudite and sophisticated explanations to be given after that phenomena have occurred. Not that the experts are incompetent but the functioning of the economy is at least as complex as the climate and it is this complexity that makes economic phenomena often unpredictable if not mysterious (and the weather are difficult to predict beyond five days).
knowledge of the movement of the stars does not change the trajectories. By cons, knowledge of economic phenomena certainly alters their course. This is what economists refer to as "self-fulfilling expectations." Imagine that households have more confidence in the banking system, fearing a bank fails. Then they rush to stop to remove their assets, thus causing the unfortunate event dreaded and vindicating their decision. Thus, the provision of a crisis can be a trigger for a crisis. On the other hand, being afraid of a crisis can prevent it too. Everyone has compared the current financial crisis to the crisis of 1929. Yet the widespread collapse of 1929 did not happen. If it has not (yet) product, is through the coordinated action of monetary authorities All major countries have reacted to avoid the worst, or is it because we were wrong in making such a comparison?
Basically, we have no way of knowing which is both frustrating to the researcher, for citizens and for those who have political responsibilities at the highest level.
0 comments:
Post a Comment