Social capitalism and economics
Why are Flassbeck and the alternative economists grumbling about the current economic policies that lead to the crisis? Why do you assume Scholz and Schäuble, Draghi and Weidmann, Hans Sinn and Krugman Ignorance, yes, malice? Because these mainstream figures, who dominate the ongoing debate, do not care about the role of the state as a key actor, who could stop the crisis from breaking out or even mitigate the depth of the recession by investing. These people look contemptuously at the so-called Keynesians, who attach decisive importance to state action. They stubbornly stick to their market-based, neo-liberal concepts, even if they repeatedly lead to the crisis.
But they dominate the mainstream because they have internalized a higher law: All laws, all forms of government and all economic theories are subject to the condition that they must serve the league. Not only does the rule of the rulers need to be secured, class rule itself must not be called into question. The existence of the lower middle and upper classes must not be endangered.
An economic policy that freed the broad masses from economic constraints would arouse self-confidence and promote rebellion. Forcing coercion and violence and pushing the utmost out of working-class performance would no longer be accepted. A basic income is already on everyone's lips.
Market liberalism pretends not to think ahead and to demand the market as the highest regulatory principle. In fact, there is no market-regulated, free exchange of goods. The most important good, the human labor, is always traded only at the price necessary to maintain labor. Since labor is always in surplus, or as long as it exists in surplus, a higher price can not be achieved in the free play of market forces. Capitalism tends to free the seller of his labor from all other attachments, but not from the compulsion to sell his labor. Otherwise, no capital can be generated. This alone gives rise to the unconditional compulsion to over- and subordination.
The neoliberal social order currently ensures the class system. If market-radical forms disrupt social peace and make cohesion seem unstable, other regimes are conceivable. An economic system based on the MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) would be tolerated if it were to be under the premise of not endangering the league. As long as this is not explicitly stated by the protagonists, this theory is viewed with suspicion and put down by the media and austerity remains the preferred instrument of domination.
It does not do any good and is actually only concealing a democratic deficit in the EU, because the rule of the market liberal technocrats is precisely the core of the EU.
From the economic sciences the answer to the questions of our time can not come, so far the political economy is not yet. And it's a pretty remote idea that the current economic order could be overcome by a fiscal revolution. There can not be social capitalism; social inclusion is a chimera.