<i>There are several observations to be made
from the number and variety of narratives
that the authors in this review have proffered.
The most obvious is that there is still significant
disagreement as to what the underlying
causes of the crisis were, and even less agreement
as to what to do about it. But what may
be more disconcerting for most economists
is the fact that we can’t even agree on all the
facts[...]Many of us like to think
of financial economics as a science, but complex
events like the financial crisis suggest
that this conceit may be more wishful thinking
than reality. Keynes had even greater
ambitions for economics when he wrote, “If
economists could manage to get themselves
thought of as humble, competent people on a
level with dentists, that would be splendid.”22
Instead, we’re now more likely to be thought
of as astrologers, making pronouncements
and predictions without any basis in fact or
empirical evidence.</i><p>I find it kind of sad that the author is more concerned with lamenting about what people think of him and his profession than he is preoccupied with synthesizing the most plausible set of causes and remedies for the financial crisis from the 21 different sources he has studied.