4 ms·
The paper's intent is to articulate a particular ideological element within the current mainstream(finance being equated to the real economy), identify its appe
by buzzybee 10y ago
The paper's intent is to articulate a particular ideological element within the current mainstream(finance being equated to the real economy), identify its appearance, and set the stage for a counter ideology that pushes finance away from power; it's more historical-political in nature than anything.
So yes, saying it says nothing new is missing the point, because it's not really aimed at economists who have already started critiquing these distinctions. If it aimed to craft new theory or policy, it probably wouldn't be referencing more detailed, years to decades old, sources in every other paragraph.
- YZF 10y agoI see. I guess I'm not that familiar with ideologies in the world of economics academia. In the real world I don't think there's anyone, including central bankers, who currently thinks (or really ever thought) that bailing out banks that give bad loans is a good idea or e.g. that companies taking debt to buy back shares is a good idea. Central bankers also don't think (any more) that QE or reducing rates can restore real economic growth to the pre-crisis levels. What do you think looking at "finance" vs. "real" economy is going to get us? How will it impact policies? What does it mean to "push finance away from power" and what are the implications? Not to mention the futility of trying to track what's finance and what's real. Is VC "real" or "finance"? When Microsoft buys LinkedIn is this "real" or "finance"? Is Facebook a part of the "real" economy? Disney? My retirement savings that are sitting in the bank, is that "real" or "finance"?