 We are thinking that the economy is an exact science, technical, allocative science. And the trick, best trick ever played there, no, it is exactly under, behind these numbers, it is a religion that has ethics of its own, shapes our lives, tells us what to do, and it becomes a dictate that we don't even notice to see. The stronger it is, the less we see it. It's a funny thing there's been a long debate whether economics can be, you know, a positive, positive science. I would sort of like to contribute or the way I think about it is that economics has become a normative science, but backwards. It disallows us to tell the economy what to do, but it tells us what to do, what to believe. So the normative direction or the flow of normativity, so to speak, isn't so much from our side to it, but from its side to us. So in other words, you know, laissez-faire, laissez-passez, let us be, let us, we do not, you know, the first rule of Fight Club is, you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of economics is, you do not talk about ethics. And we intake, sometimes even without any critical judgment, we intake the values that economics has sort of developed in this life of its own, that is, you know, the beliefs and duties and even imperatives, be more efficient, be more productive, you have to grow faster, you can only help the economy by indulging in even more economy, et cetera, et cetera. So in this way, I would argue that economics is normative, yes, but backwards, towards us. And if you're looking backwards to the crisis, should we change the system or should we change our moral? Yeah, I think we should. So the problem with the system is that it doesn't really fit with our morals. And the mantra of the, let's say, hardcore economics was that don't worry, you know, we can self-regulate. This was the mantra of the Occupy, sorry, of the Wall Street boys and girls, so to speak. You know, do not meddle, we know what we're doing, we are fully aware of it, we can self-regulate ourselves, we understand it and you politicians and lay public, you sociologists, you philosophers, you anthropologists, you psychologists, you do not understand what you're talking about. Then something changed and the same people said, please meddle, please do something, you governments, because we have no clue what to do and do something, close your eyes, you know, don't even hold us accountable to our own very rules that we ourselves made and believed. So in this way, it is called credit crunch, you know, credit in Latin means credo, in Latin means faith, so it is a faith crunch. In other words, what we believe the markets could do, we can no longer believe. The markets are not perfect, they're not divine, they're not omnipotent and all that. Markets are human, so human, like democracy, you know, democracy is not perfect, it's very good, it's the best system we have, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and keep improving it. It's a little bit like cars, you know, cars are a wonderful invention, but today in many countries they have become the main source of deaths. Now, does that mean that we should go back to horses? No. They are cars, are a human product by human beings to other human beings. Economy is also made by human beings for other human beings and to quote Nietzsche, it is like cars, like cell phones, human, so human. It is wonderful, but it is not divine, we need to keep improving it and the economy or the system that we live in is changing every day. Capitalism today is completely different than it was during the Klondike times or during, you know, 100 years ago when children had to work. But you said bankers are not guilty of the crisis, but banking is. Can you explain that? Well, this is the way we perceive it, you know, if everything would be the Madoff case that somebody cheated willingly and he should be punished, that's the easy case. In many cases what happened is that bankers sort of did nothing wrong, they did everything right according to the textbooks, according to the, you know, religion and faith that they believed and we taught them, or the academy taught them, you should worry about these things and you don't really have to worry about this. The reality ended up completely, completely differently. So, of course, in an abstract way bankers are guilty for applying a wrong method, but I think the biggest guilt of bankers and economists is that they believed a wrong thing.