Epistemologist

FIRST: I think everyone should see this. SECOND: I did notice 1 error, but it depends on the framework of time - that it 2x'd the national debt (now: ~31 T; WAS ~10 T in 2000, ~13T 2007 reached 26T in 2019 (film is from 2010.) However: up until the 1980s, the national debt was around 3 T from '47-81 bumped around 3-4T (mostly 3). THIRD: recommend "Age of Easy Money" from PBS Frontline (8/22) to see how things have played out since due to the Great Recession, wrt to monetary policy, national debt, etc. So WHAT happened in the 1980s? Banking deregulation. There are 2 basic schools of economics - those who are free market fundamentalists ("FMF") who think regulation is unnecessary. In fact, FMFist Stiglitz created an edited version of "Wealth of Nations" (presumably the FMF's "Bible") removing most of the comments regarding the necessity for regulation. (Oreskes & Conway, see below) The takeover by economics, economists since the 1950s, and then the takeover by the FMFs deserves a history in itself (The 1st Nobel Prizes were in 1901 - the 1st Nobel Prize for Economics? 1969.) As the film points out, regulation after the 1929 stock market crash kept US relatively safe from financial crises for 30-40 years. For an incisive view of how free market fundamentalists have spread their version of economics, see Oreskes & Conway's "The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us To Loathe Government And Love The Free Market." Just read the introduction (download the Kindle sample from Amazon.) Those reviewers who recommend Sowell (an FMF) or decry govt intervention, really need to review the part about Iceland, described as the most pure experiment in market deregulation. Or read the intro to "The Big Myth." Allowing the banks to fail as another reviewer suggested is an (unproven!) attempt at a cure, for which regulation is the preventive. The problem was the reverbrating impact of the bank failures worldwide. The last 30 minutes does a good job of showing the HUGE conflicts of interest between profs of economics who then go on to advise govt, take govt jobs, and so on -- all while having been HUGELY financially advantaged by the financial industry. Not to mention the attempt of the G7 nations to reign in conflicts of interest between govt advisors & regulators and industry. All but the US enacted such regulation (as the film mentions.) It occurs to me the econ guys, regarding conflicts of interest, seem to be the template for Clarence Thomas' excuses for getting multiple financial advantages from Harlan Crowe. Since he apparently started getting gifts in 1996-7, hard to know which came first, though. We have plenty of proof in the degree of huge economic pain inflicted on everyday humans by FMF; and proof regulation can work, has worked in the past. I recommend watching at least twice: first to get the general gist; the 2nd to start diving into the details. I'd recommend 3x. Or at least watch the intro & read the #s. Thanks for reading. This is available on YouTube (free), on HBO Max. Watch it, recommend it, and get involved to change it.