Published originally in Idei in Dialog.

Recent economic turbulences have brought to the foreground keynesiste ideas, reaprinzand dispute between keynesisti and their critics. What is at stake? Let's get beyond the haze of economic terminology in an attempt to identify specific relevance to the issues in dispute.

The most common theme that you associate with keynesismul is that of economic dirijismului, to counterbalance the State intervention in the economic cycle. Up to Keynes, temporary loss of investments and consumption associated with cyclical crisis was seen as a natural phenomenon that is part of an economy from the physiology of the intrinsic. It is believed that economic agents are errors something inevitable, and crises occur when you accumulate a critical mass of such errors. The crisis is nothing but note the wrong decisions, a necessary stage in the return and relaunch economic stage in which the system is clean. Physiology of the economy must run its course naturally. To intervene to block or slow down the process lead to distortion and malfunction. This was the vision of pre-keynesista.
In the perspective of keynesiana but to wait for the economy to cleanse toxins and to rebound naturally is too costly and risky. The State must intervene. During the recession, the State economy by "stimulating" actions such as lowering interest rates, increasing government spending, or tax manevrand taxes. In other words, the State lies at the economy, manipulating monetary and credit flows, butonand and dirijand depending on how he looks like it moves things.

Keynesism and keynesism

Most of the criticism starts from the observation of the Keynesian aggregate economics as used by the State money must come from somewhere, but that money diverted to other missions and sectors before being deturnati. For example, when you borrow money, take State that normally would have been accesabili for private investors and send via "public spending" the favorite investment by those in power. Why is keynesista intervention and says he "will not only eliminate private investments and to replace them with those of the public. And that it "does not create new jobs, but merely redistributes them." More typically, however, the price of a budget deficit. And how if you can't or don't get large taxes can you borrow, the money printing is the most simple to finance the deficit, the surgery will not only produce inflation. By default, the economic uncertainty on the medium and long term. Application of Keynesian ideas, critics say, not only to postpone or amplify cyclical problems of the capitalist economy.

The first reaction to this line of attack against the standard Keynesian aggregate economics is to say: "I am Not technical disputes between economists, no deficits induced by interventionism nor as private investments are replaced with those of the public. If you exit the crisis, did not care how I did it. Just get out somehow! But critics insist that the Keynesian aggregate economics such as betray their reaction doesn't understand what's at stake. Because if the machine is urneste out of place, they say, will stir with some distortion what, sooner or later, everything will have to be paid (the price being another crisis). There is a hidden cost. Short term interventionismul may seem like work. In the long term, the price respite in the face of the economic cycle is to amplify tensions and disfunctionalitatilor allocation of resources in the system. Keynes, reminds us, don't deny this. He was aware of the short time horizon problem in operating its present. Answer or, controversially, laconic and antologic remained "Yes. So is. But in the long run we are all dead ".

To synthesizing. When it invokes the principles of keynesiste, is formed immediately two camps: one camp says that in economics it is inevitable that investors make errors, and the economy should be left to clean only; as if left to pass through the natural cycle, it will rebalance and will begin to (re) work effectively, once paid the price errors. The other camp argues that the State must intervene. As to solve problems created short-term negative impacts of economic turbulentei is more important than anything. You must intervene even with price distortions, whose cost should be paid in the future. To reach us from following the "long term" is; We muddle through, then, on the spot, possibly using a new set of measures interventioniste. And maybe the idea of induced distortion of interventionism nor is valid after all. Who can say what is and what isn't "distortion" in the long run? In other words, this camp is not seen adverse effects induced by the intervention of the State and thus be confident going forward, thinks every crisis we will somehow manipulate a solution and we are going to sneak ahead, indefinitely delaying deznodamantul.

Another reason for concern

The reader is obviously free to position where he sees fit towards the prospects outlined above. The debate between advocates of the two points of view, defined either as I did earlier, in similar terms, will provide sufficient arguments to meditate. A further but let's get beyond this dispute and to explore a problem as tied to the deep universe keynesist. Just as profound, but much less discussed.

Under the impact of the recent crisis takes place, no doubt, a resuscitation of the keynesiste rhetoric. The problem is that the restoration of keynesism, say, instead of being a breaking of the vision or mindset that have generated the last cycle of economic problems, in fact we delve deep and harder in these. More specifically, when under the shock of the recession we should direct his gaze towards the real economy paradigm keynesista keeps us still fix on monetary flows, issues of financial and credit markets in a larger extent than would be healthy.

In other words, there are fears that we will keep resurrecting Keynesian aggregate economics abatuta continued attention to the actions of economic life, the substance of the concrete conditions of accumulation of capital, managerial efficiency, investment, labour productivity, technological and entrepreneurial creativity. Instead we concentrate efforts towards "real economy" and her problems, we still remain stuck at the level of the game (and) ' symbolic economy ", stay focused obsessively on the currency and credit as the supreme and ultimate economic realities. Instead of coming back with my feet on the ground and to begin to rethink economic agenda mainly in terms of goods, services, production, productivity, etc., your perceptions and debates "reformist" will remain fixed in continuing around credit, banks, currency and financial markets and on some issues that sooner or later will be reduced to one thing: who controls the currency and credit (State or private sector) and to what degree it does each? Who controls the cash flow and credit defining symbolic economy? Or, more nuanced, who and to what extent oligopolistic economy participate in the symbolic? To explain.

"Symbolic Economy" and the "real economy"

Let's take as a benchmark analysis of Peter Drucker, memorable because of its clarity. His thesis is that "economic science today is largely Palace built by Keynes". Even though few economists today are increasingly recognised as (and accept the label of) keynesisti, "the vast majority, writes Drucker, are keynesisti in the way they think about the economy; in what I see and consider important in economic terms, in their fundamental presuppositions and preoccupations. They tend to define themselves in large measure by reference to keynesism. Perspective on economic activity, economic policy, economic theory proposed by Keynes in the 1930s _ or at least encoded by it-became the basis of economists ".

There is a consensus as to the origin of this impressive stand of his influences beyond Keynes situation, the fact that more than to present a new theory, he imposed a new way of seeing things. Drucker, a contemporary of "keynesiste Revolution", confesses: "Keynes has redefined the economic reality. Suddenly I saw a new reality. Instead of goods, services and labor-world realities and «objects»-economy realities, keynesiste are by nature symbols: currency and credit. Up to him, her mercantilisti considerasera and control of social control as key money-but for them it was more of a political than one of control. Keynes was one of the first who has posited that the control of currency and credit is equivalent to having a total economic control ". It's not a novelty that the relationship between, on the one hand, the "real" economy of goods, services, labour and, on the other, "currency symbols" economy and credit was continuously on the agenda of what economists have tried to replace the old economy based on "things" to one based on "symbols". But the one who produced the "scientific revolution" was Keynes. Unlike the classical economy, in which the importance of credit and currency were underestimated, being considered a "val" which covers the reality for Keynes, the production, the goods are "the wave of reality". Here's how it describes the radical change of Drucker's perspective, "Keynes, these things (goods, production, labour) are determined by events: monetary currency, credit, interest level, budgetary surpluses or defects etc. Goods, services, production, productivity, demand, employment and ultimately prices, are all dependent variable with respect to macroeconomic events that take place at the level of the dynamics of monetary symbols. No matter which were philosophical roots of approach or perspective, overthrow throught he was radical and crowned by success: suddenly I was forced to see a new reality-and that reality is still present and will not disappear. "

Influence and implications

How deep is his influence seen through some Keynes illustrations. Pragmatically speaking, says Drucker, an author like Milton Friedman accepts without any reserve keynesista and vision is as keynesist as Keynes. Far from "keynesist," as she likes to be declared. "His theory is pure, with macroeconomic State as a unit that controls the economy through monetary expansion. In Friedman's economy currency and credit is the most important, even unique, economic reality. The fact that Friedman considered monetary offer as fundamental and as interest rate derivative is nothing more than a minor construe the Scriptures keynesiste ". In other words, until the arhiinamicul was considered to be Keynesian aggregate economics of Keynes's vision got.

Another illustration: the notion that the State is entitled to intervene in the economy by manipulating currency and credit has grown to be an idea widely accepted and considered by itself understood. The audience wondered if you dare chestionezi this right or role of the State. The idea that economists are a combination of doctors and engineers, at the command of the economy butonand and manevrand lever, calibrand, regland and accelerating and braking softly conserves ' economy ' (IE their fellow employees in daily activities through which make their living) has become so prevalent, that those who have reservations towards it are the ones that need to be explained her promoters, no.

But to leave to one side the theme interventionismului and legitimacy to continue to focus on the issue of "keynesiste vision", as its implications at a concrete level are equally profound. But while the consequences interventionismului are commonplace, the perspective from which implications Keynes invites us to look at the world being more subtle, is diverting attention. But, like any world view, this creates a hierarchy of relevance by himself how things are perceived: some are automatically defined as important, others do not. While this has undoubtedly profound effects in practice.

For instance, it seems hard to believe but the whole system nothing n keynesian said about productivity. Keynes was aware of her importance, but he sees it as a belief only. In the system or, simply there's room for interrogations on yield. In case of formation and accumulation of capital, things are different, and even worse. Inability to accumulate capital, form or blockages in crises and capital formation are not even provided for in the system. Therefore, they cannot be explained or remedied. But we all know that the problem is crucial for capital performance and prosperity of an economy. Increasing productivity and economic growth are directly dependent on capital formation. Why does an economy and can form a continuous capital required is doomed to decline and perpetual crisis.

Financial engineers: State and private

We now have a more complete keynesist universe and on what our face when we hear that there is a resurgenta. It is not only about the practice of interventionismului, but also about a certain way to see economic reality, a way in which emphasis is not put on the real side of the economy-goods, services, productivity-but on the symbolic-money and credit growth. We are now in a position to go back and take a closer look a theme or a fear that I formulated it earlier. Namely, that under the influence of revitalizatei keynesiste perspectives debate "reformist" will remain fixed on some issues that sooner or later will be reduced to one thing: who controls the cash flow and credit defining symbolic economy? Who controls the currency and credit (State or private sector) and to what degree it does each?

If the above observations are correct, then it seems like we don't have any reason to believe that in spite of the speeches condemning past practices what obsession with monetary financial manipulation will not continue neabatut. Conceptualmente, real economy will remain in the shadow economy. This means that the system itself will continue to encourage the great coin engineers and finance to continue with games credit flows and monetary and financial instruments. The only question will be: who will have the advantage of first-movers of the State sector's representatives and those of the private? Seems increasingly more obvious that they have something right those who say that when condemning the practices of the past, the current public discourse does not attack the deep vision behind them. The fact he is lodged in a plea in favour of model of financial engineers (the State) and against others (private ones).

There is therefore a danger that aggressive rhetoric, despite what she claims she must learn from the mistakes of the past, to look again the essential: as this huge institutional apparatus, trapped under the wave of this abstract game cash flows and credit, people invent, work, produce, build, save, invest, think. And so the race between private sector financial ingineriile and financial ingineriile of the State will continue unabated, the price being paid by the rest of the world.

Eventually, all over this story about the restoration of the financial system is not seen yet but a dull fight. On the one hand, etatismului agencies are trying to take advantage of the situation and to restore control over flows. On the other hand, economic liberalization speculators in recent decades, financial private sector engineers, trying to break out of Defense. In short, we assist to a new phase in the battle between two types of financial engineers: State and private. It is said that, at Bretton Woods in 1944, when the keynesismul was adopted as global economic philosophy, stated aim was "scaring the zarafilor from the Holy Temple of international finance". In the 1980s, "zarafii" and took the rematch taking advantage of liberalization, gradually redobandind increasingly lost control. So today, under our eyes, on the background of the economic crisis, a confrontation to recapture "the Holy Temple of international finance".

Instead of conclusion

All of the above should not we groom: as long as there will be motivation and stimulus material and symbolic, people will wear in accordance therewith. Developments in the last hundred years of history have led to economic instruments, institutions and situations that encourages competition. And it's easy to speculate that as long as the way of thinking the economy will be dominated by an exaggerated vision emphasizes on "symbolic economy" at the expense of real concentration, it will be hard to operate outside the frames of this competition. Will seem natural as the real economy to be secondary and that strategically speaking it is better to focus on the symbolic. The proliferating and are more visible instruments and institutions related to handling credit and cash flows between the State and private sectors, the bigger is the attraction to you close to these instruments, to grab a seat at the table either the ultimate speculators or at the command of the economy as desks. And so things seem to return eventually to the problem of the Constitution and the structure of the monetary system and financial and economic philosophy used to inspire and justify this Constitution.

Can be stopped this spiral of competition between financial engineers and those private, a competition for who pays (how concrete, physically) the rest of the population? The modern economy, as it has been configured through decisions and accidents over the last hundred years and some seem quite unfavorable to a radical changes. Moreover, it seems quite likely that the current resurgenta of the Keynesian aggregate economics, far from diminishing the problem will amplify. At least in the short and medium term. Of course, in the long run, as you say, we are all dead … But, that being said, and arrived in this point, perhaps it is better to leave the reader free to draw conclusions.