Home > George Soros' INET > Is INET nothing but a Trojan horse of the financial oligarchy?

Is INET nothing but a Trojan horse of the financial oligarchy?

from Lars Syll

inet-logo-blue

So far, the history and the actions of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, founded by George Soros and other members of the financial establishment, are compatible with the hypothesis that it might be a Trojan horse of the financial oligarchy, meant to control the movement for reform of economics. However, despite some limited evidence to the contrary, it is also still compatible with the counter-hypothesis that it is a bona fide effort to push such reform to the benefit of society at large. A restrictive policy of supporting independent initiatives with the same stated goals, and a recent tendency toward the promotion of the less radical reformist ideas make it opportune to monitor the activities of INET with an open but skeptical mind.

Norbert Häring

Yours truly can’t but concur. And obviously there are others also having doubts about INET:

The first INET meeting at Cambridge University in 2010 bore some small promise—for instance, when protestors disrupted the IMF platitudes of Dominique Strauss-Kahn in Kings great hall, or when Lord Adair Turner bravely suggested we needed a much smaller financial sector.weather 007But the sequel turned out to be a profoundly more unnerving and chilly affair, and not just due to the caliginous climate. The nightmare scenario began with a parade of figures whom one could not in good conscience admit to anyone’s definition of “New Economic Thinking”: Ken Rogoff, Larry Summers, Barry Eichengreen, Niall Ferguson and Gordon Brown … The range of economic positions proved much less varied than at the first meeting, and couldn’t help notice that the agenda seemed more pitched toward capturing the attention of journalists and bloggers [oh my, I’m included in this one], and those more interested in getting to see more star power up close than sampling complex thinking outside the box. It bespoke an unhealthy obsession with Guaranteed Legitimacy and Righteous Sound Thinking.

Philip Mirowski

  1. BC
    March 30, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    Yes, clearly.

  2. March 31, 2014 at 1:19 am

    You cannot have new economic thinking without a new definition of economics:

    http://www.asepp.com

  3. March 31, 2014 at 9:59 am

    For an early critical text suspecting a hidden agenda, see:
    http://nlpc.org/stories/2010/07/09/george-soros-new-plan-globalism-and-crony-capitalism

    • Marko
      March 31, 2014 at 6:33 pm

      The fact that NLPC is critical of INET makes me less inclined to believe the “Trojan Horse” hypothesis , not more.

      Do I now have to ponder the related question ? :

      “Is RWER nothing but a Trojan horse of the right-wing financial oligarchy?”

      • March 31, 2014 at 8:02 pm

        @ Marko: The link to the NLPC text was not meant to make readers believe anything, but rather to give them the opportunity to look at the issue from different angles. Often you can assess an object’s character and quality better if you look at it from different angles. Iif you prefer one perspective over all others, this information will only be a distraction, I have to admit. Sometimes, however, left and right are not the only and not the most meaningful distinctions. Certainly, the financial oligarchy does not restrict ist love and attention to the right side of the political spectrum.

      • rivelle
        April 1, 2014 at 3:19 am

        Don’t be ridiculous. This strikes me as a very silly instance of absurd whataboutery.

        If you can adduce the evidence or provide an argument as to why INET is *not* a Trojan horse, then please do so.

        As for whether or not you can engage in a similar bout of high cogitation with regards to the *very* many diverse and experimentalist strands published in RWER, well good luck with that….

        I can’t wait for your next book.

  4. Paul
    May 7, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    I was happy to attend INET’s 2015 Annual Conference in Paris and attend some very interesting geopolitical panel discussions (Greece, Ukraine, China). New economic thinking converges to reading ‘The Economist’ in a 3 dimensional way. Only the business section was missing, but we all know markets and organizations are tied in a reflexive relation.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s