CAPITALISM OR CORPORATE FACISM? KEYNESIAN OR CRONY KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS?

In a world of 24 hour news cycles, social media, print media, the internet it is hard not to get caught up in the moment. The media circus has turned REAL NEWS into a sensory overload experience in ways never thought imaginable. Twitter followers may sometimes get news 10 minutes before it becomes a breaking news story on any of the major networks, slate gives you text news with a blurb and an estimated read time so that you can assess instantaneously whether you feel it is worth the 3, 4 or 34 minutes to read!

The evolution of the way news gets reported and the speed with which it can be sourced is about as fast as it can get. As news has evolved, so has the politics of it, the campaigns, the promotions and of course the slogans. Everything has a nice catch phrase to bring comfort or generate confidence. Everything must be carefully crafted to execute for the media.

Who could forget the Obama “Yes we can” campaign and after he or we didn’t of course it was “Forward”. The “Forward” campaign slogan was important because no one really wanted to look back, least of all the Democrats.

The slogans are not limited to political parties, comforting economic terms to describe monetary policy or political/economic decisions are almost laughable. Here are some examples, Quantitative Easing, sheeesh that sounds good right? It’s quantitative and its easing?

 What are your thoughts on the use of military terminology to define monetary policy with “Operation Twist”?

Last but not least the term “Austerity”. Sounds fair does it not? Why won’t the media and policy makers tell people the truth? Austerity generally means higher taxes, cuts in government spending or perhaps both simultaneously so it follows that the media cannot possibly report that as the mushroom dribble fed plebs would be out on the streets protesting… So “Austerity” it is!

There is no doubt that the global economy is in a dangerous and volatile situation. The global debt bubble is inescapable in my opinion without either a major economic crisis (bigger than the last one) or a period of unprecedented global inflation driven by one big global debt jubilee where debt is monetised in a multinational agreement.

The different attempts at stimulating economic growth that include the easiest monetary policy the world has ever seen is still failing. In conjunction with this easy monetary policy the USA Government has embarked on some of the biggest deficit budgets in an attempt to support the lag and deceleration in aggregate demand from the private sector.

The massive budget deficits of course could not be called that so the term “Stimulus Package” became the accepted politically correct way of misleading the public. With the “Stimulus package” came additional slogans such as the one coined by the BRILLIANT Larry Summers in his testimony before the USA economic committee.

Stimulus packages were the way to go according to Brilliant Larry, but of course the stimulus had to be “Timely, Targeted and Temporary”. HA!. That sounds great and perfectly reasonable. I would support that policy as I am sure many others would, a temporary targeted and timely fix might be great at supporting ailing aggregate demand.

Reading Brilliant Larry Summers testimony I pondered whether the words he spoke would have been echoed by John Maynard Keynes. Students of Keynesian economics would have seen the Summers testimony as filling the criteria set out by Keynes as the targeted, timely and temporary stimulus aimed at supporting aggregate demand in the short run.

In a recent discussion with a close friend of mine back in Australia, a topic trigger and blog idea was born. As we discussed the USA economy, the GFC (don’t call it the Global Financial Crisis) he raised the issue of the humanitarian side to Keynesian economics. It seems an economics professor from his home town had engaged him in the justification of Keynesian policies saying the deep hurt without the Government stimulus would be profound.

In once again agreeing that fiscal stimulus if it is “timely, targeted and temporary” has benefits as a short term fix, the implementation of the fiscal stimulus to satisfy the slogan is a completely different proposition. Let us address each of the Brilliant Larry Summers’ criteria looking in the rear view mirror from today all the way back to his testimony in January 2008.

To provide for open discussion and debate, along with my opinion I would like you to read the link below of the American Recovery and Reinvestment act of 2009 (ARRA).

. http://www.ask.com/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

TIMELY – Debate will always rage over the timing of the stimulus package as the crisis was already rolling and the devastation had already been felt. The stimulus package was more of a clean-up effort after a massive tsunami than it was a barricade built to protect the economy before the storm. President Bush enacted the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 as an outgoing president however this was largely a watered down attempt and a patch fix than a fully-fledged program or recovery policy.

TARGETED – This is where I have my biggest issue with the Keynesian economic “demand side” theory in that it tends to be driven by short term aggressive spending measures to raise short term aggregate demand. This aggressive spending largely gives a misguided improvement signal by masking the structural economic issues at hand.


A monetary solution to a structural problem may offer relief, but that relief comes at the expense of a planned mixed policy that targets real jobs growth and the private sector which ultimately offers a more sustainable humanitarian solution. I would suggest that the fiscal stimulus package should carry a larger weighting on bigger incentives to promote employment rather than spending measures on public sector projects which provide temporary jobs that may terminate once the project is exhausted.

One measure may include tax concessions for an employer for providing a new job equal to the tax that will be paid by the employee in the job. A cash neutral tax policy aimed at jobs which will directly feed into raising aggregate demand from the private sector through earned wages that takes the burden off the public sector. This measure, may assist in raising efficiency and cost effectiveness in the public spend whilst promoting a more sustainable and organic growth environment.

Looking at the tax concession section of the ARRA you can clearly see that of the nearly $800bn package only $51bn was offered as incentives for companies and $237bn in incentives for individuals. Before you think I am beating the corporation drum at the expense of the individual I am not. I support the $237bn incentives for the individual, but believe at least $300bn should have been provided for business targeting employment promotion. The remaining $250bn could be used on targeted public sector infrastructure projects aimed at assisting in raising productivity. Improved roads, transportation, ports etc.

The fact is that there was over $350bn in stimulus spending including $155bn on healthcare, $100bn on education, 100bn on infrastructure. There was also $40bn allocated to extend unemployment benefits, $20bn for food stamp program, 14bn in one off $250 social security payments. In the same section is the provision of  $3.2bn for “temporary welfare”. The upside of this section was a miserly $3.45bn on training programs and an absolutely insultingly low $500m for vocational training for the disabled!  

All of the above were implemented with the backdrop of public sector wasteful spending that include the government trying to pick winners through initiatives such as the auto industry bail outs and green energy sector (solindra) just to name a couple.


 Airport runways were fixed in towns where literally only 5 or 6 planes land per day, potholes fixed on Rodeo Drive, heck there was even a few million spent by the department of defence to try and determine how democratic goldfish are (not kidding you, worth a google). It is absolutely absurd to think that in a true capitalist economy the private sector would facilitate any of the above especially the goldfish study!

I am sure when Keynes proposed his theory of government fiscal support he did not intend it to be inclusive of waste. Sure a monetary solution to an economic problem that is structural is not ideal, but a targeted and efficient government stimulus spending program would not be so bad if it was cost effective and provided similar returns on investment than would be achievable out in the private sector.

There should never be waste because the debt incurred by the government in enacting the stimulus will ultimately be serviced somewhere down the line by the tax payer, or felt by the country’s citizens in the form of inflation as the debt gets monetized.

Looking back over the last 6 years the USA Federal Government, under President Obama has doubled the public sector debt adding some 8 or more Trillion dollars to the bottom line. With this in mind I pose the question how “targeted” could the spending have been given the fact that the workforce participation rate here in the USA is the lowest it has been in nearly 3 decades? GDP even under the new calculation methods is lagging and signs of improvement now appear a pipedream not a chance of becoming reality.

TEMPORARY – Well this one should be self-explanatory, we all know that the Government deficit spending has been at record highs since 2008 and that is represented by the double down in public sector debt in that corresponding period.

So from a humanitarian perspective, my contrarian view to the Aussie professor is, that Keynesian fiscal stimulus that is not implemented with a timely, targeted and temporary focus will end up a short term fix at the expense of a deeper humanitarian issue into the future when the public debt has to be serviced.

I would also argue the point that Keynes advocated tax cuts in conjunction with government stimulus spending. Governments seem to ignore the former and concentrate on the latter more for political and not economic reasons.

If Government spending through stimulus is largely inefficient and wasteful vs private sector then surely the stimulus is more of an inefficiency enabler rather than an economic restructuring promoter and the adverse effects will be felt into the future rather than in the now?

To illustrate my point more simply, if an individual has a certain propensity to borrow, to service their debt and have their credit card maxed out they have no other option but to either work another job or begin to deleverage or save. A shift away from consumption and spending to savings and production is needed, that is a recession!

The economy needs to recalibrate and restructure. Right now despite the fact that there have been massive year on year government deficits investment into the private sector which will ultimately drive consistent and sustainable employment growth has been slow. As has been discussed in previous blogs the correlation between employment and credit acceleration/deceleration are undeniable.

Below is a chart which illustrates the “private sector” investment from 2007-2012

 The correlation between employment and credit acceleration/deceleration is also supplied for those reading my blog for the first time.

I will also add a link to view money velocity chart as a point of reflection to illustrate that it is the private sector that drives the employment, money velocity, credit acceleration in a cyclical growth loop.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=stp

If the Professors justification of Keynesian economics is to give the debt laden individual another credit card to ease the pain in the short term and it is proven that the credit card will be used inefficiently (just like government spending v private sector) surely the new maxed out credit card simply exacerbates the problem already at hand.

So whilst the theory has merit the policy implementation is far too inefficient and ineffective. It does not address the issue of debt driven deflation as household and private sector try and deleverage as central banks and government try and force feed the economy more debt.

The theory has also been tested and proven largely ineffective in producing real thrust into investment into the private sector that is needed as this is the engine room of the economy. The problem with policy makers and indeed many economists is that they read and rely on text books and largely ignore the problems of the dynamic global economy which tosses up real evolving problems that require flexibility in policy not rigidity.  

The stimulus policies along with the term “Too Big To Fail” are destroying capitalism and morphing it into global corporatisation where oligopolies rule. Oligopolies lead to idiocracy and you only have to take a look at where the USA is headed with the number of low paid jobs increasing at the expense of high paid jobs.

The four words “Too Big To Fail” according to Gerald Celente were the words that signalled the end of capitalism. I feel he is right, right now we have either crony capitalism or corporate facism where  the incestuous relationship between government and big business is becoming more and more of a blur. The relationship is so incestuous now it leaves me pondering from a historical perspective the question of who co-opted who?

Was it the Government representatives that co- opted big business or was it big business that co-opted government? It may be a case of the chicken or the egg, but really who cares when it’s a rotten egg!

A further example of this shift away from true capitalism into corporate facism can be found in the number of ex GOLDMAN SACHS executives now involved or heading up Central Banks. There is Carney, Draghi, Paulson and of course MF Global’s Jon “The Don” Corzine. Below is a link with a revolving door list CBS composed, reading it will take your breath away and have you questioning how any of this has been allowed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/goldman-sachs-revolving-door/

I have arrived at the conclusion throughout my personal study and analysis that we do not have a capitalist economy, we have corporate facism or crony capitalism.  I am also saddened for the destruction of Keynesian economic theory as governments have, for political reasons (my opinion) implemented Crony Keynesian policies in an attempt to kick start a recovery. These have been largely ineffective and inefficient and therefore lump more public sector debt burden on to an economy that is trying to restructure and recover.

To those that disagree I would like to leave you with a few thoughts and questions to think over and critically analyse. These are the questions I had sought answers to and the answers derived formed the backbone for my assertions in this blog. Perhaps if you answer these questions you may come to similar conclusions.

1. Given the benefit of hindsight on his policy implementation of QE, operation twist etc which has added over $3tn to Fed balance sheet. Would Bernanke do the same given the sluggish recovery since the programs were implemented?
2. Considering the fact that US public sector debt has added over $8tn or 8,000 BILLION for those not familiar with what a TRILLION is. Why has the unemployment scene not improved significantly? Why are GDP numbers still representative of a sluggish growth economy? What will be the impact this additional $8tn will have on a recovering economy when interest rates move up and the cost of the borrowing mean higher tax impositions to service the debt?
3. Finally after assessing all of the above consider if the policy agenda in 2009 targeted private sector growth, more tax cuts for small and medium business, tax incentives to employ people in the private sector, reduction in red tape constraining private sector would there have been a better result?

My point is if one were to assume that the $8tn that was added to the public sector debt was not used on Government “stimulus” packages where the government tried to pick the winning projects, rather the stimulus money targeted private sector growth. Could we or would we have a more sustainable and organic growth story now driven by employment growth which will drive real GDP?

I have no doubt that $8tn spent driving employment in the private sector, a more aggressive tax reduction and a reduction in red tape would by now be netting a positive return as the economy recovered. Permanent jobs in the private sector and not temporary project jobs in the public sector is the answer. Employment growth means an increased taxation base, a reduction in the welfare drain, a boost in perceived recovery, increase in money velocity, increase in GDP and a REAL recovery.

If Keynesian economics is passed off as being more of a humanitarian policy as the professor back in Australia asserts, surely a stable secure job creation policy driven by private sector provides the best avenue. Perhaps I am making the assumption that he supports true Keynesian economic policies not crony Keynesianism, just as I support true capitalism not crony capitalism or corporate fascism.  If that is the case, I apologise, but still thank him for the idea for this blog and hope that he can find the time to critically analyse my piece and offer his ideas on my assertions.

The right of rebuttal is open to all and I welcome feedback from all of my readership.

If you like this piece you can follow me on twitter @carneycapital

OVER TO YOU!

BLACK SWAN EVENT STRAIGHT AHEAD – KEEN, MINSKY AND A COMPLEX ECONOMY

I was inspired to write this piece after a dream I had of my father who sadly passed away suddenly with a huge heart attack exactly 6 years ago today. The piece is not going to be a melancholy one so if that first sentence gave you that impression, ignore it and read on, as this blog topic is one I have been meaning to write and rant about for the longest time.

The global economy is headed for a black swan event, I believe it is straight ahead, imminent and when it arrives will be catastrophic. For those of my readers that do not know what a “black swan” event is, Investopedia defines it as “An event or occurrence that deviates beyond what is normally expected of a situation and that would be extremely difficult to predict. This term was popularized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a finance professor and former Wall Street trader”

Taking a look at the definition, as given by Investopedia, the sudden passing of my father was a text book example of a black swan event. He was only 61, he was retired, had lost weight and was exercising. Statistics say that he should have lived at the very least another 15 years right? So why did that not happen? Why did he not live to be 75 or 80? I have wrestled with all of these questions as his son, and in fact added to them, could I have done more? He mentioned acid reflux, did he report that issue the last time he attended the doctor for a check up? Did the doctor ask the right questions or moreover did my father answer honestly?

To ponder all of the aforementioned questions highlights the complexity of human psychology, how this affects perception and behaviour.  The diversity and complexity are just part and parcel of what it is to be human – to think, feel, touch, smell, emotions, love, hate, trust, faith etc.

 Feeding into this psychological and behavioural human aspect is our natural tendencies to want to control outcomes. We study and formulate statistics, average life expectancy, climate change, economic growth, unemployment, the list is endless.

Once these statistics are derived and analysed we then assume at a subconscious level that everyone or every system is stereotypical and apply constraints and assumptions to future predictive models. I believe it is here where the flawed logic begins as it is these very constraints and assumptions in models that make the “black swan” the unpredictable phenomenon it is. I will address this point in more depth later in this piece.

I would like to begin this next section of the blog by acknowledging that I have been both humbled and blessed to have had some truly remarkable teachers in my life. The lessons I have learned and the manner with which they were taught were dynamic, interactive and involved traditional conventional methods along with unconventional and sometimes borderline strange.

Thinking back on my life during my early 20’s, I have many fond memories. Lessons learned through rigorous debate, challenged thought processes, to pick the right road even if it was the one less travelled.

My mind was wired to challenge theory, positioning, strategic and tactical planning. I was blessed having a father who was such a great mentor. I remember fondly our debates on proposed business decisions over a Sunday pasta lunch.  There were so many lessons but the theme was always that I had to think about business from a competitors’ perspective. If I were in their shoes, what would I do to kick my own butt? To answer those questions meant challenging thought and theory, the way the business operated, my assumptions and reasoning.

The thought was simple yet profound and affects just about every part of human life including my views on the global economy. Retrospectively looking back through the cyclical history of the global economy of booms and busts I often pondered why a better model had not been developed.

It is here where my truly blessed upbringing took a monumental twist. After graduating out of high school I had gained the grades to attend Sydney University to study a Bachelor of Commerce degree with a plan to major in economics and sub major in marketing. Most of my friends had decided to attend our local university which at the time was not held in the same esteem as Sydney University. I wanted to remain with friends so chose UWS Macarthur and had the unbelievable opportunity to study under Professor Steve Keen.

After contacting Professor Keen recently on Twitter it seems we both landed at UWS Macarthur at the same time, 1996, it seems so long ago! As time has passed I have followed Professor Keens work on Minsky, as I was drawn to Keens persistence at questioning and challenging the validity of existing mainstream neoclassical economic theory and modelling.

Although most of my adult life has been spent (post my university days) in the private sector, my passion for economics has never faded. I will say that in the lead up to the crisis of 2008 I was in the corner of the likes of Professor Keen and Peter Schiff in sounding the alarm bells. I will admit that my timing was off, I was calling the crash in 2005/06 and so was seen as one of those “broken clock” prediction makers!

Annoyed at seeing the crisis coming and having been right in so many ways other than the exact timing, my thirst for a better predictive model grew stronger. It seems I had to work at review, and that review began with a study of my former Professors work.

Professor Keen has been outspoken about Minsky’s work and has done a tremendous job in building a Minsky software package which offers features to build your own version/model of today’s financial system. Below is a link to the open source site from which you can download the program.

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/minsky/

Keen has also been outspoken on the role the financial sector with a focus on banks and the role debt plays both in financial crisis creation and the duration the crisis lasts. Professor Keen asserts “debt matters” and puts particular emphasis on private sector debt rather than public sector/government debt.

It seems to me that the assertion that “debt matters” has some solid statistical data to support it. Strong correlations between indictors such as credit acceleration and change in unemployment and also change in private debt and unemployment etc support Keens case.

Below are some of the correlations taken from Keens blog www.debtdeflation.com/blogs. The strength of the correlation is strong and striking and provide a great starting point for examination and analysis of where an economy is at present and perhaps where it will be tracking into the future.

I believe that the development of the Minsky software has provided a huge framework for developing a more robust systemic risk assessment model that can be used to implement a tail risk investment strategy for those heavily exposed to the markets.

I have wrestled with Keens Minsky model, on his data supported case that “debt matters”. I cannot help but think that the missing pieces to the Minsky software are non statistical empirical data that tackle the issue of the human psyche. If the case that debt matters is statistically proven through correlation, then how do we get a more proactive predictive model that may provide more dynamic detail rather than a retrospective model?

I feel the answer is not in answering the question does debt really matter, but rather WHEN DOES DEBT MATTER ENOUGH to begin the psyche shift from a risk on to risk off position?. To add flesh to the Minsky model perhaps code needs to be written to scan for the psychological feeders that swing the pendulum from risk on to risk off, triggering the deleverage cycle and move away from consumption to savings.

A more dynamic model needs to find those indicators. The model needs to find the "right signal amongst the noise” in a world of 24 hour news cycles and other feeders such as social media, surveys, obscure statistical data, changing demographics and lifestyles, perceptions, zeitgeist, political and geopolitical environment etc. Whatever these factors are, the human aspect needs to be the flesh to the framework for it is the human psyche that ultimately drives behavior.

I also believe that a predictive model needs to make an assessment of risk that is not based solely on the lead up to previous financial collapses but also major divergences from economic cycles of the past. Given that a black swan event is largely an unpredictable event by definition, why do we constrain ourselves by assuming that the next crisis will be the same as the last, have the same set of indicators, conditions and stages? Why do we assume it will be triggered by the USA or CHINA? Why not Japan? Or the Eurozone? Or a large international event like a derivatives market meltdown? 

If the idea is that a black swan is unpredictable then surely we need a model that can also determine when certain markers (statistical and non statistical) are moving away from historical norms. Risk exists when divergence increases from previous cycles or where none of the cyclical progression is the same, none of the economic conditions are the same. The model needs to evaluate/calculate then correlate the predetermined human psyche markers with the patterns prevailed in the lead up to previous financial crisis.

 Major divergences or shifts away from “norms” must carry a weighted risk assessment that should be integrated along with previous proven statistical indicators so that a more rounded model can be derived. Having both means that the model will assess risk based on the correlation certain “markers” have with boom bust cycles of the past but also assess risk when there is a major divergence away from these indicator/marker norms. 

My assessment is that Minsky and Keen are right in their modelling direction. The theory can be supported and substantiated with data and statistics and the assumptions underpinning the theory are more reflective of how a dynamic global economy works.

My hope is that the work begun by Minsky and developed further by Keen are explored further and that the global economy can be set on a path of sustainable growth in which every participant has an equal chance at receiving maximum benefit for their contribution. I believe this will include a significant contraction in the financial sector and the need for funds to flow back into the real economy that produces real goods of real value.

Below is a chart that a fellow twitter follower @JordanEliseo sent to me which appears to be sourced from www.dailyreckoning.com – The chart shows that “real net domestic private business investment” is still less than 60% of what it was in 2006/07 in the USA. The chart highlights the fact that despite the fact that the Federal Reserve has embarked on the greatest monetary policy experiment the world has ever seen investment in the private sector of the economy has remained sluggish at best.

The chart also provides clues as to why real unemployment and underemployment has remained stubbornly high in spite of the Feds massive QE programs and its lunatic pursuit of ridiculously easy monetary policy.

The fact is that investment dollars are not filtering into the domestic private sector economy in the USA and this has been the catalyst for both the creation or reinflation of asset bubbles including the equities market. It also stands to reason that the lack of investment in the domestic private economy is strangling employment growth and stunts the drive of innovation and productivity that flows directly through to an economy’s real GDP.

A debt laden economy like the USA that is largely dependent on consumption to drive growth (USA economy is 70% consumption) depends on a high employment participation rate and feeds of psychological factors like job security to grow. A household is likely to borrow to spend if they feel safe financially, have a handle on job security etc. This job growth and security will come from the private domestic economy if the right mix of policies are in place both from a fiscal and monetary policy position.

The USA is not alone when it comes to the financial sector holding the real economy hostage. It appears to me that many of the developed economies have legislated for herd investment mentality designed to support exponential and unsustainable growth in the financial sector. To provide another example need look no further than my homeland of Australia ( AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE OY OY OY). I would ask my Australian readers to stop and think about life as an employee as well as a business owner and employer of over 150 people across the family businesses. Examining the system from an employer’s perspective I often ponder the sanity in the superannuation system which is paid by the employer via contribution into a designated fund chosen by the employee. Before you go crazy calling me a greedy capitalist read further because my rationale and concern is not for my own welfare.

The legislated 9.25% contribution comes out of my private businesses bottom line and goes into the designated fund. These funds are then legislated in where to invest this money based on certain individual preferences. Many have lauded the fact that it was Australia’s superannuation system that assisted Australia in getting through the Global Financial Crisis better than nearly all other global economies.

In acknowledging that this may have been the case I cannot help but think that think this is still assisting in the promotion of a financial sector bubble if not a mini Ponzi scheme. This mini Ponzi is becoming more evident as government pushes for more contributions from employers like me via new legislation aimed at raising compulsory superannuation to 12%.

These progressive increases in contribution place additional burden on private sector businesses, inhibiting their growth by strangling cash flow restricting potential investment pipelines. Compounding this point is that the money then flows into supporting an already out of control finance sector in which P/E’s and company valuations dwarf what is attainable within the private sector economy.

As the financial sector inflates employees watch their superannuation balances grow, simply as the legislated super money funds it. A Ponzi scheme is one which relies on the “sucker” mentality and can only be perpetuated when a new “sucker” can be found to buy the old “sucker” out. It goes without saying that a moderating stagnate rate of compulsory superannuation is not enough to feed the growth of the financial sector.

Furthermore the need to increase the rate of compulsory superannuation to 12% from 9.25% is a Ponzi stabiliser rather than a real economic growth promoter. The increase in superannuation leeches money from the private sector robbing real investment, stunting innovation and employment and ultimately economic growth.

The most damaging part of the system is that by design it forces savings for the future, but it channels those savings into a financial system and other bubbles via legislative investment requirements. The timing of the next financial crisis and the effects it will have on retirees in Australia when it hits will be painful. Those employees looking at their balances of their superannuation funds would have been smiling in 2006, but were hurting in 2008!

I have highlighted this case because I know many that watched their “savings” cut to ribbons when the last crisis rolled through the global economy. Since that crisis, all the world has done is paper over the mess and continued down a similar if not identical path than the last.

The same old will not suffice and the next crisis is bubbling under the surface waiting to erupt. The current system (same as the old one) is broken and we need a new think tank, new ideas and contributions. What we need is to put our collective economic minds to the task of answering the question, how is the current economic system going to kick its own butt and present us with the new economic crisis? Critical analysis not done ideologies is needed to try and get the economy moving firstly, then ultimately on a better and more sustainable course.

It is for this reason that work done by Minsky and developed by Keen needs the full attention for those wanting to make a change. It resonates that if we are going to have herd investment mentality, then let us at least find a balance and more sustainable path for the herd to benefit.

This is as much a humanitarian plight as it is an economic problem that needs a solution and so I am hopeful that anyone that reads this piece and has anything they wish to add that they post a comment. Positive comments are great but critical analysis is also very welcome.

I appreciate the support and the feedback.