Laden wir nochmal nach. Wie dämlich die Aussagen von Yellen waren, ist mittlerweile geläufig. Steve Keen, Lesern von bto durchaus bekannt, ist entsetzt.:
Hier sein prägnanter Kommentar:
- “Janet Yellen has been as saying that ‚she does not believe that there will be a run on the banking system at least as long as she lives‘. The only word I can use to describe this belief is ‚delusional.‘” – bto: Da hat er wohl recht, sie hat sich damit einen festen Platz in der Geschichte gesichert. Wie der arme Wetterfrosch der den schlimmsten Sturm Großbritanniens nicht vorhergesehen hat.
- “The only way in which her belief could be justified would be in financial crises were truly random events, caused by something outside the economy — or just by a very bad throw of the economic dice. This is indeed the perspective of mainstream “Neoclassical” economic theory (…) So what we are getting from her is not merely her own personal complacency, but the complacency of an approach to economics which has always been grounded in the beliefs that (a) capitalism is inherently stable, (b) that the financial sector can be ignored when doing macroeconomics, and (c) that the Great Depression was an anomaly that can also be ignored (…).” – bto: Und diese Ökonomen bestimmen auch heute noch den Diskurs, weshalb sie uns absichtlich immer tiefer in die Probleme reiten.
- “Someone who would not have been deemed suitable to run the Federal Reserve, before the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08, was the maverick American economist Hyman Minsky. Minsky began from the perspective that, to be realistic, economic theory had to answer the question: Can ‚It‘ — a Great Depression — happen again?” – bto: Die Thesen von Minsky sind so einleuchtend wie klar. Ich frage mich immer, weshalb die traditionellen Ökonomen es nicht verstehen (wollen).
- Minsky argued (…) that financial crises are not random, but are a manifestation of the innate nature of capitalist economies. They can be anticipated by trends in private debt (though their precise timing can’t be determined because their occurrence depends in part on firms’ willingness to borrow, or banks’ willingness to lend terminating in response to levels and rates of growth of private debt that are too high relative to GDP). – bto: Wie auch die BIZ schaut er auf das Kreditwachstum. Zu Recht!
- “But most conventional economists don’t know that Minsky argued this, because he could only get published in journals that most conventional economists never read.” – bto: Warum sollte man denn auch mal was dazulernen? Kommt auch in anderen Berufen vor.
- “Janet Yellen knows who Minsky was. (…) She gave a speech there just 18 months after the crisis began, at a conference named after Minsky, in which she praised Minsky (Janet Yellen, April 16 2009, ‚A Minsky Meltdown: Lessons for Central Bankers‘). She noted in it the irony of her giving such a speech, when the previous time she had spoken at the Levy Institute, she had extolled the virtues of derivatives: ‚Just as I cannot imagine that our present system of regulation will remain unchanged forever, I cannot imagine that we will ever reach a ›perfect‹ system of regulation and supervision. However, we can, and I believe will, make the system better as we strive to adapt to changing realities.‘” – bto: was zeigt, dass sie eben nicht gut vorhersehen kann.
- “When she spoke at the Levy Institute in the Spring of 1996, she clearly had no idea of Minsky, nor of his diametrically opposed view of how financial markets operated. But Minsky was alive when she spoke, and may well have attended her talk. If he had, he would have shaken his head at the naivety of the views she expressed then. So back then she said she couldn’t imagine a ‚perfect‘ system of regulation, but now she can imagine a world in which another financial crisis doesn’t occur in the lifetime of her audience in London (…).” – bto: was eine echte Dummheit war, wie gesagt.