2) where I strongly dissent, though not being an economist is about the cure he suggests to let markets cure the problem with their available means.

i) I think this would be an enormous mistake because this is precisely because market were let to do anything they wanted that they put the whole world in the situation we are in today.

having been wrong once(letting markets do) we can not go on that way and rely on them to cure the mess they created.

because markets have put much more money at risk than what they had, and thet can put our whole society at risk just for the sake of continuing to play their game not noticing a big part of the world is cushing as a result.

there are higher objectives than just letting market do whatever they want, for instance trying not too lose too many jobs, and businesses that make live every country.

ii) economy and capitalism is sometimes difficult to understand but I think we can better understand it by drawing analogies.

ii.1) fully state ruled economies have made the proof they do not work, cf comunism, USSR etc.

the reason behind that is that a soviet peasant is not encouraged to make the most of the land he is cultivating, if he is working for the sake of the state. as opposed to a peasant working for his family, he’ll be encouraged to do more if it can allow his children to directly be better off.

ii.2) the success of capitalism can be explained by its ressemblance to the way nature works

that’s the reason why it integrates naturally incentives for individual to succeed because they will benefit from that.

but like nature, capitalism has to be tamed.

we would not live naked in caves anymore, we have tamed nature by using clothes, flats and houses, and heating in winter to offset the coldness of that season.

with capitalism this is the same thing, we have to set up mecanisms to offset its intrinsic jungle nature : we have to acknowledge that people must have some rest between working days, people even very productive ceo are liable to catch an illness and then to be able to stop working during the time the recover etc.

Caitalism has to be accompagnied with rules, that have the purpose to allow the system to last and to take into consideration the fact that people are human beings.

The real question is how to adjust the rules level that has to come with caitalism and to what extent ?

not enough rules results in people having too much difficulty to live in the society or the system can crush on its own (because it does not comprise safe guarding mecanism that prevent the system to kill itself, this is the purpose of the rules).

too much rules revents the system from being efficient in creating wealth, too much ressources are devoted to its own control

=> a balance has to be found in the level of rules to apply and in their definition

=> this rules have to change with time because, the condition in which the economy operate evolve “naturally” so to say and the rules, that are defined do not evolve naturaly with it and have to be adjusted to the evolution of the economy.

Now what can we say :

• the level of rule we had so far has been insufficient :

we have the proof of it now. finance people were allowed to engage in risky investments tremendous amount of money, without having considered the worst scenario which took place in the end : prices of homes going down, interests for loans going up making people unable to pay their loans and living to banks houses that had lost values, all that multiplied by 100 000 homes and more…

More and or better regulation is to be designed. yes we will have to avoid an excess of rule that could make less efficient. a good balance has to be found at an improved level of regulations imposing regulation s one of the function of countries and what they do best.

that’why we should not let market cure what they have damaged because it does not work

2) where I strongly dissent, though not being an economist is about the cure he suggests to let markets cure the problem with their available means.

i) I think this would be an enormous mistake because this is precisely because market were let to do anything they wanted that they put the whole world in the situation we are in today.

having been wrong once(letting markets do) we can not go on that way and rely on them to cure the mess they created.

because markets have put much more money at risk than what they had, and thet can put our whole society at risk just for the sake of continuing to play their game not noticing a big part of the world is cushing as a result.

there are higher objectives than just letting market do whatever they want, for instance trying not too lose too many jobs, and businesses that make live every country.

ii) economy and capitalism is sometimes difficult to understand but I think we can better understand it by drawing analogies.

ii.1) fully state ruled economies have made the proof they do not work, cf comunism, USSR etc.

the reason behind that is that a soviet peasant is not encouraged to make the most of the land he is cultivating, if he is working for the sake of the state. as opposed to a peasant working for his family, he’ll be encouraged to do more if it can allow his children to directly be better off.

ii.2) the success of capitalism can be explained by its ressemblance to the way nature works

that’s the reason why it integrates naturally incentives for individual to succeed because they will benefit from that.

but like nature, capitalism has to be tamed.

we would not live naked in caves anymore, we have tamed nature by using clothes, flats and houses, and heating in winter to offset the coldness of that season.

with capitalism this is the same thing, we have to set up mecanisms to offset its intrinsic jungle nature : we have to acknowledge that people must have some rest between working days, people even very productive ceo are liable to catch an illness and then to be able to stop working during the time the recover etc.

Caitalism has to be accompagnied with rules, that have the purpose to allow the system to last and to take into consideration the fact that people are human beings.

The real question is how to adjust the rules level that has to come with caitalism and to what extent ?

not enough rules results in people having too much difficulty to live in the society or the system can crush on its own (because it does not comprise safe guarding mecanism that prevent the system to kill itself, this is the purpose of the rules).

too much rules revents the system from being efficient in creating wealth, too much ressources are devoted to its own control

=> a balance has to be found in the level of rules to apply and in their definition

=> this rules have to change with time because, the condition in which the economy operate evolve “naturally” so to say and the rules, that are defined do not evolve naturaly with it and have to be adjusted to the evolution of the economy.

Now what can we say :

• the level of rule we had so far has been insufficient :

we have the proof of it now. finance people were allowed to engage in risky investments tremendous amount of money, without having considered the worst scenario which took place in the end : prices of homes going down, interests for loans going up making people unable to pay their loans and living to banks houses that had lost values, all that multiplied by 100 000 homes and more…

More and or better regulation is to be designed. yes we will have to avoid an excess of rule that could make less efficient. a good balance has to be found at an improved level of regulations imposing regulation s one of the function of countries and what they do best.

that’why we should not let market cure what they have damaged because it does not work

2) where I strongly dissent, though not being an economist is about the cure he suggests to let markets cure the problem with their available means.

i) I think this would be an enormous mistake because this is precisely because market were let to do anything they wanted that they put the whole world in the situation we are in today.

having been wrong once(letting markets do) we can not go on that way and rely on them to cure the mess they created.

because markets have put much more money at risk than what they had, and thet can put our whole society at risk just for the sake of continuing to play their game not noticing a big part of the world is cushing as a result.

there are higher objectives than just letting market do whatever they want, for instance trying not too lose too many jobs, and businesses that make live every country.

ii) economy and capitalism is sometimes difficult to understand but I think we can better understand it by drawing analogies.

ii.1) fully state ruled economies have made the proof they do not work, cf comunism, USSR etc.

the reason behind that is that a soviet peasant is not encouraged to make the most of the land he is cultivating, if he is working for the sake of the state. as opposed to a peasant working for his family, he’ll be encouraged to do more if it can allow his children to directly be better off.

ii.2) the success of capitalism can be explained by its ressemblance to the way nature works

that’s the reason why it integrates naturally incentives for individual to succeed because they will benefit from that.

but like nature, capitalism has to be tamed.

we would not live naked in caves anymore, we have tamed nature by using clothes, flats and houses, and heating in winter to offset the coldness of that season.

with capitalism this is the same thing, we have to set up mecanisms to offset its intrinsic jungle nature : we have to acknowledge that people must have some rest between working days, people even very productive ceo are liable to catch an illness and then to be able to stop working during the time the recover etc.

Caitalism has to be accompagnied with rules, that have the purpose to allow the system to last and to take into consideration the fact that people are human beings.

The real question is how to adjust the rules level that has to come with caitalism and to what extent ?

not enough rules results in people having too much difficulty to live in the society or the system can crush on its own (because it does not comprise safe guarding mecanism that prevent the system to kill itself, this is the purpose of the rules).

too much rules revents the system from being efficient in creating wealth, too much ressources are devoted to its own control

=> a balance has to be found in the level of rules to apply and in their definition

=> this rules have to change with time because, the condition in which the economy operate evolve “naturally” so to say and the rules, that are defined do not evolve naturaly with it and have to be adjusted to the evolution of the economy.

Now what can we say :

• the level of rule we had so far has been insufficient :

we have the proof of it now. finance people were allowed to engage in risky investments tremendous amount of money, without having considered the worst scenario which took place in the end : prices of homes going down, interests for loans going up making people unable to pay their loans and living to banks houses that had lost values, all that multiplied by 100 000 homes and more…

More and or better regulation is to be designed. yes we will have to avoid an excess of rule that could make less efficient. a good balance has to be found at an improved level of regulations imposing regulation s one of the function of countries and what they do best.

that’why we should not let market cure what they have damaged because it does not work

2) where I strongly dissent, though not being an economist is about the cure he suggests to let markets cure the problem with their available means.

i) I think this would be an enormous mistake because this is precisely because market were let to do anything they wanted that they put the whole world in the situation we are in today.

having been wrong once(letting markets do) we can not go on that way and rely on them to cure the mess they created.

because markets have put much more money at risk than what they had, and thet can put our whole society at risk just for the sake of continuing to play their game not noticing a big part of the world is cushing as a result.

there are higher objectives than just letting market do whatever they want, for instance trying not too lose too many jobs, and businesses that make live every country.

ii) economy and capitalism is sometimes difficult to understand but I think we can better understand it by drawing analogies.

ii.1) fully state ruled economies have made the proof they do not work, cf comunism, USSR etc.

the reason behind that is that a soviet peasant is not encouraged to make the most of the land he is cultivating, if he is working for the sake of the state. as opposed to a peasant working for his family, he’ll be encouraged to do more if it can allow his children to directly be better off.

ii.2) the success of capitalism can be explained by its ressemblance to the way nature works

that’s the reason why it integrates naturally incentives for individual to succeed because they will benefit from that.

but like nature, capitalism has to be tamed.

we would not live naked in caves anymore, we have tamed nature by using clothes, flats and houses, and heating in winter to offset the coldness of that season.

with capitalism this is the same thing, we have to set up mecanisms to offset its intrinsic jungle nature : we have to acknowledge that people must have some rest between working days, people even very productive ceo are liable to catch an illness and then to be able to stop working during the time the recover etc.

Caitalism has to be accompagnied with rules, that have the purpose to allow the system to last and to take into consideration the fact that people are human beings.

The real question is how to adjust the rules level that has to come with caitalism and to what extent ?

not enough rules results in people having too much difficulty to live in the society or the system can crush on its own (because it does not comprise safe guarding mecanism that prevent the system to kill itself, this is the purpose of the rules).

too much rules revents the system from being efficient in creating wealth, too much ressources are devoted to its own control

=> a balance has to be found in the level of rules to apply and in their definition

=> this rules have to change with time because, the condition in which the economy operate evolve “naturally” so to say and the rules, that are defined do not evolve naturaly with it and have to be adjusted to the evolution of the economy.

Now what can we say :

• the level of rule we had so far has been insufficient :

we have the proof of it now. finance people were allowed to engage in risky investments tremendous amount of money, without having considered the worst scenario which took place in the end : prices of homes going down, interests for loans going up making people unable to pay their loans and living to banks houses that had lost values, all that multiplied by 100 000 homes and more…

More and or better regulation is to be designed. yes we will have to avoid an excess of rule that could make less efficient. a good balance has to be found at an improved level of regulations imposing regulation s one of the function of countries and what they do best.

that’why we should not let market cure what they have damaged because it does not work

Have you checked out his book that he mentioned at the end?

Have you checked out his book that he mentioned at the end?

Have you checked out his book that he mentioned at the end?

Have you checked out his book that he mentioned at the end?