Picking on Steve Keen for pointing out we are doomed and calling for alternate views when the whole wealth management business is selling "stocks for the long term". I mean really, what is Henderson but an apologist for the status quo.
Steve Keen (UWS) vs. Gerard Henderson (SMH)
October 21, 2008 – 1:32 pm, by Trevor Cook
Gerard Henderson attacked Keen in the SMH this morning and Keen has promptly responded on his blog this morning (and carried in Crikey).
As Crikey reported:
On the other hand, Henderson does not convey the reality that Keen is far from being a latecomer to the idea that debt will lead to doom. In fact, much of Keen’s long career as an economist has been focused on this idea that escalating debt would eventually lead to an awful bust. For instance, Keen says in his rebuttal:
I made a submission to the Wallis Committee in July 1996, in which I warned that securitisation of loans could lead to a crisis exactly like the Subprime crisis that has now unfolded—and of course my comments were ignored.
I wrote to the RBA in June 1998 offering to hold a seminar on the “Financial Instability Hypothesis”, which is the foundation of my argument that we are likely to experience a Great Depression. The offer was declined.
Henderson was remiss in not pointing out the longevity, consistency and genuineness of Keen’s views.
In addition, Henderson’s glancing dig at the University of Western Sydney as a ’suburban’ university was a revealing insight into his own elitism:
It’s not often that a middle-aged academic from a suburban university receives such coverage in the popular press.
Indeed, perhaps Henderson could offer some guidance to journalists on which universities are suitable places to find academics for future commentary.
No comments:
Post a Comment