This seems like a particularly bad problem in Iceland’s current media climate where blind nationalism seems to be at the forefront of representation of issues. I would prefer to see more genuine pitbulls in the press or television news programmes asking direct, tough questions even if it hurts person, nation or identity. It helps in the long run. Someone like the Chris Matthews or Jeremy Paxman who are not fazed by repetitive rhetoric.

[...] On a follow up from a previous post, Svanur argued that the University of Iceland appeared to have some severe shortcomings in filling [...]

Mike, you are probably right.

During the boom years both universities promoted the Icelandic economic miracle with extreme gusto – backing up that line with detailed support to free-market neo-liberal economics. This was particularly so in the business schools. If you questioned them then you certainly got “slapped down” (I know about that personally!).

On the one hand there was a total lack of coverage of “business basics” – I met MBA graduates who couldn’t do some simple mathematical calculations. Those graduates had covered everything in a soft-squidgy sort of way considering “policy”, “strategy”, “major trends”, etc. It was as if they all thought they were going to be CEOs as soon as they graduated. The courses didn’t emphasise “hard” or “nitty gritty” subjects such as “quantitative analysis”, “technological systems”, or detailed financial analysis (my own area). For example, the detailed maths that lie behind areas such as credit default-swaps were not, and still aren’t, covered.

On the other hand the degrees presented a monoculture of market-led economics. I met business graduate after graduate who had not studied Keynes – a couple of them had never even heard of him! It was as if the world had only started in 1987 when Greenspan became chair of the Fed – nothing before then was worth studying as far as Icelandic business schools were concerned.

This was reflected by endless op ed pieces in MBL written by Icelandic academics spouting “the fashionable line”.

You can see this from the international intellectual colleagues who tread Icelandic soil: the Portes-and-Mishkin Show has been replaced by the Hudson-and-Perkins Show. Icelandic academics changed their mind and have merely swapped one group of international “justifiers” for another.

So now low and behold, those same institutions and academics have become the leaders of the opposite paradigm, telling us all about the role of the state, the limits on markets, the failings in financial systems, the need for proper regulatory systems etc etc.

You can’t help but think they are not insitutions devoted to eternal verities or high principles, but a rather opportunistic bunch of poorly prepared individuals lacking any real integrity. They have certainly served Iceland badly over the last decade – by swinging too far the other way they threaten to serve the country badly again in the future.

These articles are related:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/14/where-all-that-money-is-going/
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2422499#ixzz0dl1kLbUp

“- What you call folk knowledge, laymans knowledge etc. is what has been dominant in Icelandic business and politics.” – Is your point, that this kind of former-folk-knowledge/beer-bottling-bankdirectors-knowledge wouldn’t have been accepted by the public, if the public had only more/better knowledge of economics/politics?

I doubt that democracy works like this. It is not an expertocracy, where processes are started that are supposedly best from the experts point of view.
Knowledge of the laymen (can I say the public?) about economics and politics might be necessary to prevent beer-bottlers from becoming bank directors, but it is not sufficient. And the question is: what institution is it that educates the laymen about economics and politics? Doesn’t this institution have a political agenda too?

- What you call folk knowledge, laymans knowledge etc. is what has been dominant in Icelandic business and politics. The banks for example, used to claim that some people were just better at banking than others because of cultural myths(hard-working, strong, persistent vikings). The laymen have been kings in Iceland, how else could beer-bottlers from Russia be handed the keys to one of the nations’ most important banks?

- I am NOT saying that any keys to any kingdom must be handed out to academics at the cost of laymen or people outside the university. I am simply saying that the information available, the research that has been done, the articles that have been written etc. are being drowned out by political agendas. Which in turn are protected by “journalistic objectivity”. The laymen and the academics must come together, not dismiss each other. So far, the former have been more dismissing of the latter, unless they can provide “favourable results”.

- “Why should they trust the experts?” You should rather be more careful about what experts you chose to listen to. For example, Hannes Holmsteinn Gissurarson has found it appropriate to debate scientific researchers on issues such as global warming, based on his personal experience of winters as a child and an adult. Tryggvi Thor Herbertsson got paid a lot of money from the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce to write a glowing report on the state of the economy. Studying at a university gives you a pretty thorough guide to what sources can be deemed credible. But obviously it is up to you to ultimately decide what you believe.

- I think that what has been stopping this information from coming out, is fear. Iceland is a small nation and it really hard to swim against the stream. Academics have been too readily dismissed with the old notion of having “theoretical experience but no practical experience”. And it seems like the academic community which is doing a good job has walled itself off within their scarcely read academic journals and poorly attended seminars. I repeat that I am not agitating for academia to take anything over, just simply immersing itself into society in more ways than before. We need good information, not propaganda and we also need to learn know how to make a distinction between the two.

> Whatever there is, there is something stopping the excellent information
> on the inside from bursting out towards the society. The people holding the
> keys to a better, more enlightened, more open and honest society need to step
> forward.

Isn’t this trust in the knowledge of the experts and the scientists what caused “all this damage” for the people outside the university or outside the parliament? Why should they trust the experts?
I Think that it’s only from your perspective that you see the keys to a better, more enlightened, more open and honest society in the hands of those experts.