If there was ever a repudiation of "free market-trickle down" economics, the last week defines it.

I heard an economics professor interviewed today and he said he was in a "deep depression". He explained that all that he believed and all that he has taught for almost 30 years seems to have been permanently refuted and invalidated in a very short time. He said that he's given the situation a lot of thought and has determined that he can't continue to advocate free market economics and attempt to provide the academic proofs that he so strongly embraces as an academician. He said he had considered whether what has happened in recent days is just temporary or whether it could be explained by some short term condition or event. He concluded that it could not be so explained and that recent events repudiated all that he knows and believes in regarding economics.

When you really think about it, what we've done in just a short time is nationalize or socialize our financial system. One could argue that the nationalization is temporary and the banks, insurance companies, securities dealers and guarantors eventually could be re-privatized. Personally, I think that the public and elected officials have been spooked badly enough by the incompetence, irresponsibility and even larceny of virtually all parties involved--public, private, elected, professional...everyone--that I think re-privatization is a long way off.

It seems it's a lot like we've been dropped very quickly into the Scandinavian model where government and other nationalized industries, including banking, represent about half of the employment in those countries. While we've been conditioned to think this is all bad, I consider a show I saw on TV describing the unusual satisfaction Scandinavians have with their lot in life. They aren't concerned in the least that their countries aren't world economic powers, or that they don't have big armies, or that they have little influence on world affairs. I recall seeing a bunch of citizens--I can't remember whether it was Sweden or Norway--interviewed. They were uniformly happy and when asked whether they had any desire to live in a place like the United States, they were unanimous in rejecting the idea. If I had to describe how their answers impressed me, it was that they were "politely disdainful" of the thought of living in the U.S. Obviously, those countries are more homogeneous than the U.S. and a change to such a revised set of collective societal standards is unlikely, I think.

But I'm still thinking that maybe in the longer term the financial implosion of 2008 could be a good thing. It has already made us less wealthy and is almost certain to further the decline in our personal wealth. It will almost certainly result in a change in our national standard of living. The events clearly defined greed, irresponsibility, immorality and the absence of any concern for fellow citizens. That's just the result of the financial implosion. We also face serious threats as the result of damage to our environment and our reliance on foreign oil. Maybe it's good that events have forced us to think about those things. The crisis has clearly weakened the U.S. Financially, we're on tender hooks. We're running out the string on the use of our military. We're too reliant on other countries, not all friendly, for basic resources. We've pretty much lost the ability to influence world opinion, either politically or financially. We're becoming less competitive in the world economy. Our children's education lags other developed countries badly. The ideology of our political leaders seems to be either openly rejected or only passively accepted. We're well on our way to becoming a larger Scandinavian country.

But would that be all bad?