Finance as an (ever more fragile) ‘perpetual mania’: have they all lost their collective minds?

IF 2 2区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Cambridge Journal of Economics Pub Date : 2022-08-24 DOI:10.1093/cje/beac031
J. G. Palma
{"title":"Finance as an (ever more fragile) ‘perpetual mania’: have they all lost their collective minds?","authors":"J. G. Palma","doi":"10.1093/cje/beac031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper analyses events in financial markets since the 2008 financial crisis in both the developed and the developing worlds, giving especial attention to the processes of ‘financialisation’. Its main conclusion is that we are paying the price (a huge one) for two related phenomena. The first relates to the failure of economic theory since the 1970s, especially (although not only) of the mainstream type, to really take on board those developments in the world of international finance that ‘did not fit in their models’ (such as the 1970s stagflation; Volker’s subsequent radical monetarist recession; the ‘savings and loan’ debacle following Reagan’s financial liberalisation and deregulation―policies reinforced in the 1990s; the inability of both monetarists, and traditional Keynesian policies to revert Japan’s ‘lost decade’; and the ‘endogenous’ nature of the 2008 financial crisis). Basically, economic theory has failed to reinvent itself when needed as it did after the 1930s crash. The second, in turn, relates to the fact that rocketing the net worth of a few individuals was a rather odd way to reactivate fragile economies after the 2008 crisis and the 2020 pandemic. But when rentier agents were allowed to become ‘too-large-to-be-challenged’, it was likely that these newly (and artificially) created ‘whales’ would capture policy-making and take it in this direction―leaving the politicians and central bankers to tell stories explaining why the very rich should become the biggest welfare recipients of all time. As one group of Native Americans used to say, ‘Those who are better at storytelling will dominate the world’.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beac031","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper analyses events in financial markets since the 2008 financial crisis in both the developed and the developing worlds, giving especial attention to the processes of ‘financialisation’. Its main conclusion is that we are paying the price (a huge one) for two related phenomena. The first relates to the failure of economic theory since the 1970s, especially (although not only) of the mainstream type, to really take on board those developments in the world of international finance that ‘did not fit in their models’ (such as the 1970s stagflation; Volker’s subsequent radical monetarist recession; the ‘savings and loan’ debacle following Reagan’s financial liberalisation and deregulation―policies reinforced in the 1990s; the inability of both monetarists, and traditional Keynesian policies to revert Japan’s ‘lost decade’; and the ‘endogenous’ nature of the 2008 financial crisis). Basically, economic theory has failed to reinvent itself when needed as it did after the 1930s crash. The second, in turn, relates to the fact that rocketing the net worth of a few individuals was a rather odd way to reactivate fragile economies after the 2008 crisis and the 2020 pandemic. But when rentier agents were allowed to become ‘too-large-to-be-challenged’, it was likely that these newly (and artificially) created ‘whales’ would capture policy-making and take it in this direction―leaving the politicians and central bankers to tell stories explaining why the very rich should become the biggest welfare recipients of all time. As one group of Native Americans used to say, ‘Those who are better at storytelling will dominate the world’.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
金融是一种(越来越脆弱的)“永久狂热”:他们都失去了集体意识吗?
本文分析了自2008年金融危机以来发达国家和发展中国家金融市场发生的事件,特别关注“金融化”过程。它的主要结论是,我们正在为两种相关现象付出代价(巨大的代价)。第一个与20世纪70年代以来经济理论的失败有关,尤其是(尽管不仅如此)主流类型的经济理论,真正接受国际金融界那些“不符合他们模式”的发展(如20世纪70年代的滞胀;沃尔克随后的激进货币主义衰退;里根金融自由化和放松管制后的“储蓄和贷款”崩溃——20世纪90年代加强的政策;货币主义者和传统凯恩斯主义政策都无法恢复日本“失去的十年”;以及2008年金融危机的“内生”性质)。基本上,经济理论未能像20世纪30年代经济崩溃后那样,在需要的时候重塑自己。其次,在2008年危机和2020年疫情之后,少数人的净值飙升是重振脆弱经济的一种相当奇怪的方式。但是,当租房中介被允许变得“太大而不能受到挑战”时,这些新(和人为)创造的“鲸鱼”很可能会抓住政策制定的机会,并将其推向这个方向——让政客和央行行长讲述故事,解释为什么非常富有的人应该成为有史以来最大的福利接受者。正如一群美洲原住民曾经说过的那样,“那些更善于讲故事的人将主宰世界”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Journal of Economics, founded in 1977 in the traditions of Marx, Keynes, Kalecki, Joan Robinson and Kaldor, provides a forum for theoretical, applied, policy and methodological research into social and economic issues. Its focus includes: •the organisation of social production and the distribution of its product •the causes and consequences of gender, ethnic, class and national inequities •inflation and unemployment •the changing forms and boundaries of markets and planning •uneven development and world market instability •globalisation and international integration.
期刊最新文献
Economic growth and the foreign sector: Peru 1821–2020 Asymmetrical, symmetrical and artifactual man: group size and cooperation in James Buchanan’s constitutional economics Polyarchy and societas: an extended continuum of discrete structural alternatives What politics does to the economic analysis of the employment relationship: a critical perspective on personnel economics Truth or coherence? How Adam Smith used philosophical sources to explain how paradigms change
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1