Well, not 100%. There are some Austrian anarcho-economists out there. But as a working hypothesis, I assume that any ordinary economist is more than a little comfortable with states and governments until proven otherwise, even if that economist on occasion makes a good prediction, analyzes a problem accurately, or stands for a smaller government. Their training instills their disbelief in markets and belief in government as a corrective to what they imagine are market failures, externalities, and public goods problems. If there is any chance of inventing a market defect and calling for a supposed government solution, they will do it. They are court magicians who toy with people’s minds. They cannot ever be trusted. Their lack of training in and understanding of politics, law, finance, history, and ethics allows them confidently to pontificate despite their blindness and ignorance. This remark is occasioned by Nouriel Roubini’s strong attack on gold. It follows hard on the heels of the World Bank’s Robert Zoellick mention of gold’s having some possible role as money in the international economy.
Roubini doesn’t understand money. He doesn’t understand gold. He is as clueless on money and gold as are Bernanke, Krugman, and 99.99% of all economists. They cannot get an understanding of the past or present, which is why they cannot get their facts straight, because they always conveniently ignore the role of government and central banks in producing business cycles, both in the 19th and 20th centuries—and now in the 21st century.
