Thursday, July 16, 2009


Here's my buddy Martin Wolfe, Financial Times, on F.T. com.

“economic growth during 2009-10 is now projected to be about half a percentage point higher than forecast by the IMF in April, reaching 2.5 per cent in 2010”.

Such a turning point in forecasts is an indicator of pending recovery.

Hope ta hell I did that linkie thingie properly inskie-winskie. (I doubt it)

Let's just continue, before I hurt myself. Wolfe's column, I thought, sounded like he was saying "the worst is over" and so forth. At lease it sounded that way to me at the time I read it. But then he says,

"Yet we must put this news, welcome though it is, in context. The worst of the financial crisis may be behind us..." Whoopie-Poopie. Know what I mean? So Martin is feeling perhaps unbound joy? Well, I don't know much about "straight" reporting (he's a columnist for international newspaper Financial Times, from England), but here's my reaction:

There is something pathetic here. The egoist aquires the idea that he truly knows something. But what does he know, really? After all, the experts and pundits had no very clear idea of the situation and nor did the university folks, when this the last crisis was on the way. They didn't predict it, did they? No. They stood behind Bush when he said "the economy is fundamentally sound." Why should they know better now? Why should they be any wiser today?
Gee, I don't know, but I do know that Mr. Wolfe subscribes to naive notions about money supply. He still thinks that there is a definite amount. His own contacts should know that this is not correct. Trying to keep his conaoe inside the same river, he seems to veer all over the place in his opinions. I have been following him, and emailing with him. I have been getting a bit of insight, I reckon, in how these persons think. And this is educative, I reckon.

Wolfe is the "economist" type columnist for the FT. What he could never believe is that this whole academic economics empire he is stuck on/stuck to is suspect in itself. The basic truths about economics may not lay with the economists. (Oh! Scandal of scandals! Did I really say that?) I used to believe that no one would believe me if I said this. Now I am seeing that some other persons too say it like this. I can see how slowly the real picture could be framed and we could start to get the idea. We had better, and Martin would agree with me there, I feel.

In the end he seems to believe that he himself must be one of the experts too. But who is kidding who?

No comments: