In the first instance there is an economic concern. I explained recently that what economists invariably assume when undertaking their work is that the world always returns to what it calls ‘equilibrium’. You might as easily refer to that as ‘normal’. The assumption is that everything deviates from a mean, to which it returns.
As in, Fuck No.
Equilibrium is balance. The entire point of Keynesian economics, for example, is the proof that there are multiple equilibria and that it is not – necessarily – true that the economy will stabilise at the previous, or indeed any specific, equilibrium.
It is true that there’s an assumption that an economy will return to balance. But absolutely not that it will return to the same balance as before, to normal. If this were so then the entire subject of macroeconomics wouldn’t be worth even thinking about now, would it? Because whatever the hell happens nothing need be done, eh?
It is entirely because there is the possibility of a move to an undesirable equilibrium that there’s even discussion of our having a macroeconomic policy set.
How is it that the P³ always, but always, manages to grasp the wrong end of the stick?