I'm not exactly sure where to go and or what to say about her concluding questions about government guaranteed credit and the market distortions of the neoliberal state.
Yes, it is distorting, but so is a rentier regime where "the market" (i.e., the people with the money) lends the money- i.e, to the extent that money perpetually moves upward. There are probably 50-100 million Americans (now heavily republican) who believe that the market will treat them fine if only the gubmint got out of the way. Needless to say they are bad at math, given where we find ourselves.
Many people have identified the REA (rural electrification) as the most successful social program in the history of the USA (I suppose most think that the lines running to their 4000 head quad building were just magic). But it has also been argued that the job was complete sometime in the 1950s and the program should have been sunsetted- there was a clear history of revenue streams to service debt and all it has become is a modest subsidy to rural residents, maybe 1-2% on their electric bills. But back in the not too long ago day when I suggested that if people want to do away with the housing GSE's maybe they should give up some of theirs- farm credit bond subsidies, REA etc. no takers.
Student debt is probably the single greatest abomination in that sector currently but a whole different conversation.
Much as I hate to give any kudos to the krauts the telling bit in the piece is about the extremely careful and conservative valuations and adminstration within the 2nd Reich credit system. There has to be a very high level of public propriety, near universal, in order to make any of this stuff work.
Of course that is entirely lacking in either of our major party presidential nominees, about 500 of our congressmen and senators, 44 to 48 of our governors (just guessing) etc.
People who passionately beleive in The MArket are among the most deluded.
As to the first question- sure. Economics is farm economics, it is where we all came from.
