Minnesota Law Review

The Financial Crisis of 2008-2009: Capitalism Didn’t Fail, but the Metaphors Got a “C”

The first panel’s topic within the symposium on the financial meltdown of 2008–2009 is the deliciously broad question: “Did capitalism fail?” I have taken it as an invitation to ponder not the merits and demerits of modern global financial systems, but instead to continue my assessment of how those of us who are not financial professionals might make sense of them, particularly when they are in catastrophic mode. My thesis is that the question itself reveals the extent to which the financial crisis has not been so much about whether an economic system succeeds or fails (as Judge Richard Posner has tried to assess in two apocalyptically titled books published since February 2009), but the meaning we (including Judge Posner) as human beings draw from natural and human-made catastrophes. When the world discombobulates our sense of order, our expectations of cause and effect, we seem either to (a) question our most fundamental assumptions about science, progress, and social order, or (b) look for someone to blame.

I will proceed as follows. First, I will parse the question “did capitalism fail?” to make it clear why I think it is ambivalent, syntactically, about the telos of the financial crisis. Grammatically, is the sentence transitive or intransitive? Second, I will tie the ambivalent syntax of the question to its equally ambivalent meaning—telic or atelic—in connection with the financial crisis itself. In the frame of the atelic metaphor, capitalism failed in the sense of getting sick or dying, and the real problem was the perception that the professionals did not know how to cure the patient. In the frame of the telic met­aphor, a well-engineered modern society hums along smoothly, operated and regulated by well-trained professionals. In that case, either the machine or its operators failed our expectations. I conclude by suggesting that if we understand the source of the metaphoric frames themselves, we may not solve the financial crisis, but we may be able to calm the troubled waters of our fundamental assumptions and our concomitant desire to find human or divine villains to blame.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Volume 97 Lead Piece Profiled in New York Times

    The Volume 97 Lead Piece, a study of how the Supreme Court treats business interests by distinguished legal scholars Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner, was profiled in the May 5, 2013 edition of the New York Times. The story, titled Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court, [...]

  • Volume 98 Spring Submissions Closed

    The Minnesota Law Review has closed the spring submissions period for Volume 98. Submissions for Volume 98 will reopen on Thursday, August 1. Please see the submissions page for more details.

  • Volume 98 Submissions Will Open Feb. 15

    The Minnesota Law Review will begin accepting submissions for Volume 98 on Friday, February 15, 2013. Please see this page for more details.

  • Minnesota Law Review Announces Volume 98 Editorial Board

    The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce its Volume 98 editorial board, headed by Editor in Chief Jake Vandelist.

  • Minnesota Law Review Announces 2013 Symposium Topic

    The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce that its 2013 symposium will address the legal and political issues facing organized labor in the United States. The symposium will be held at the University of Minnesota Law School on October 25, 2013.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days