The Instutute for New Economic Thinking has the article The Standard Economic Paradigm is Based on Bad Modeling.

Mainstream macroeconomics finds itself in a deeply unsatisfactory state, unable to make correct predictions and incapable of providing meaningful longer-term analyses and advice. It clearly needs a major rethink.

I like this article because it uses words like reflexivity and multi-equilibrium. It does not seem to acknowledge that John Maynard Keynes work had multi-equilibrium in it, perhaps its greatest contribution.

My other quibble is that this article regurgitates one fundamental misunderstanding of the private financial system, Private banks do not create money. What they do create is promises of money. This all works well as long as not too many people want the real thing at the same time. This is what happened in the crash of 2008/2009. Too many people suddenly woke up to the fact that the private financial sector could not make good on all that it had promised. If the private financial system could have actually created money, there would not have been this reason for the collapse.

To prevent a complete financial crash without any recovery the Federal Reserve Bank of the USA and other countries’ central banks had to create money and pump it into the private financial sectors around the world..

The Institute for New Economic Thinking has the post and video The Long-Overdue Revolution in Economic Thinking.

University of Texas economist James K. Galbraith engages in a wide-ranging discussion of the many ways in which conventional economics has failed us, ranging from how to manage the post-pandemic economy to the problems of inequality and climate change.

I haven’t been hearing much from James K. Galbraith lately. I am glad to find this interview. He puts so much perspective to what is happening to economies around the world.

Naked Capitalism has published the article Meet the “New Koch Brothers” – the Hedge Fund Activists Wrecking America’s Green New Deal.

I have been screaming about the fire that is ravaging our economy, but I have my doubts that the message is getting through to many people. Naked Capitalism has an article that lays out one big part of the problem. I’ll tease you with this excerpt from the end of the article.

Now that we understand the activist predator problem, what is the solution? Meaningful plans to fight climate change require money – though they cost less in terms of resources and human misery than what’s coming if we don’t act. Nevertheless, as taxpayers we want our money spent wisely. If a company is going to get special status and funding in a Green New Deal, then we’d rather not see our hard-earned cash ending up funding a party for Donald Trump or exotic birds for Nelson Peltz.

Lazonick recommends that if the government wants to partner with a company to develop and produce climate change-fighting technology, the following rules should apply:

Yes, this funny business on Wall Street is what is funding my retirement. My only excuse is that if this is the way the big money people want to set the rules, I can learn to play by those rules. I’d prefer to play by a better set of rules, but I can’t fight the oligarchs with my piddly fortune. I can fight them through politics, while I play the economics game their way.

The article explains that there are entities in the world that know the value of what the Hedge Fund Activists want to sell. They are willing to pay good money to buy what the USA Hedge Fund Activists don’t value. We can’t blame China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea for having a different perspective on what to value. If they are right, and we are wrong, maybe we should learn something.

Even Ayn Rand’s protagonists were the type of capitalist that took pride in building something. Today’s rentier capitalists only want to make money. Making money by playing investing games is far easier than building innovative companies.