Tautology is the way of expression whereas you say such as «The man is crazy. Why? Because he’s crazy.» It is not by necessity explicitly wrong, however it is far too easy to expunge what is of reference(s) to reality because references beyond itself is nonexistent, hence it is of little use as a valid argument. Nonetheless people seem to find tautologic thought to be quite enticing. Perhaps because of the selective way of understanding the world it opens up for. That is in some way the more extended version of tautology; whereas you select references from reality with the tautologic thought as torque.
And this is, in my opinion, how the Left of today choose to look at and explain the economic constellation and situation. My class had, as an example, an class in the subject society when our teacher for that class wanted to show us a video of our dear prime minister Jens Stoltenberg here in Norway whereas he «explains» with tautology how and why the only moral option for economic crises’ is to pump the economy with state-money for as long as it takes to get it up and back running (however the money is not existent before they see the need to press it themselves, hence an inflation). He started out with the industries who no longer could afford to pay its employees, from thereon people would have less money to consume for and hence there’s less circulation of money in the economy which in return – allegedly by his words – would lead to more people getting fired in companies who relied on people to by their goods. Then he goes on and emphasizes the poor children who would be let behind if the state did not interact and pressed more money. Voila and you have yourself a moralistic and tautologic excuse for not taking the consequences of you actions.
This is just wrong in so many ways. Of course, as said, tautology is not accepted as a valid argument whatever circumstances might be (one might say that as an antonym to empiricism, tautology serves for the better than deduction). But also is it a contradiction to every capitalistic and free market dogma and even more so; its nature. Any historian with barely any education or knowledge of the history of economy might tell you that failure is not capitalism’s counterpart but its premise. In the instant you utter words such as «… too big to fail» you have just shown your glimmering ignorance toward economic nature.
One might very well compare a healthy human being with a healthy economy in several regards: Imagine as a parent you raise your child with the thought of that what your child does has nothing to do with the outcome of what happens. This child will – as is obvious for any person – suffer from delusions of grand proportions. We humans need to fail, that is, we have to be allowed to fail – of course in some controlled manner, but nonetheless, failing is vital to us human beings. Even more true is it in the modern world whereas millions and even billions interact. So because we humans are not constructed to handle problems at such vast scales and rarely seem to be self-correcting it seems that allowing failure of entire systems (that being not the institutions in themselves but rather the larger banks and those who represent the «system») . Hence, we cannot rely on steady «economic evolution» because system change rarely or never happens well willingly or unilaterally.
This is not professor knowledge, this is not information you need a degree in economics to either grasp, understand or see the [economic] consequences of – this is mere logic and common knowledge of how we humans behave. Alas, this is what vast masses of politicians somehow have managed to stay blissfully oblivious to. Is it deliberate one may or probably should ask.
Considering the constellation of the economic Europe and the politics in Norway relating to Europe it should not be of surprise that Jens Stoltenberg and AP has interests in maintaining the the current situation by means of bailouts and demands of austerity. The Left’s interest in not wanting change in politics or leaders in the South Bloc comes of several reasons. Which is in part relations with EU for which it would be a loss if Greece or other countries were to implode and thereafter conceding to own currencies and sovereignty. And of course, in Norway’s case we are interested in – as long as possible – a low rent and also low wages for foreign workers.