What is the "distance" of the economic theory from a "final answer" based on a common understanding of an answer for the ongoing and deep open questions in our economic system we all live in?
I mean, is there any answer around the corner or is the disput between hayek and Keynes ongoing forever - and we just move around sitting in the boat of the economic theory on the financial river without knowing how to steer the flood of money?
I mean: Hayek and Keynes does not really fit into the same economic theory - and much more don't fit either. It seems to be like the ongoing effort of a combination of the theory of relativity and the quantum theory ... where some candidates already are going through the discussion process.
But in economics? Is there a "real world bullet proof economic theory" which may seem to give some answer somewhere on the horizon? Or frankly speaking: ... is the only final answer available the "printing money theory" to solve the problems whithout and avoinding to hazzling with economic theory any deeper?
.. well, at the moment it seems to work with a huge flood of money ... and nearly deflation at the same time ... so we have "price stability" ... as we would have with a gold standard ... but why?
Maybe someone has a magic wand ... waving it at the moment ... But where is the economic theory fitting this "reality" into the picture?
I mean, magic wands are not part of the lectures given at schools ... or is the simple conclusion: "No, we simply do not have any better economic theory to steer through the flood today? Is it really just try and error?
Keynes suggested 'Controlled Capitalism', not monetary anarchy. The issue of money should be within the limit of national output. The control of capitalist anarchy by government through proper regulations could take the economy out of money-flood. The sincere and unbiased voters of civil society could protect the economy from money--destruction by electing right person to right-post.
So as I understand for now there is no fitting economic theory for todays problems?
My concern is: Why is the question for finding such a theory not in the center of discussion?
I mean, if you realize yourself being in a situation with "some" kind of open questions popping up day and night ... is the right thing really just to use "try and error" methods or in other words just print more money to virtually cover open questions without having a proper theory to explain and research the problems first?
Either you call it "capitalist anarchy" or "financial nazism" ... both sublines I read in this expression are saying: "We do not have any better idea than that and we are far from having a better fitting economic theory explaining this phenomenae".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Economics