... Ideologies do not solve the economic crisis. This assertion is categorical. Nor does Economics solve the crisis. This assertion is bewildering. The crisis will pass by itself. This assertion is antihuman... here are a few snippets of sentences from the debates started by the novelty of the economic crisis.

The first assertion points to the unsustainability of behavioral extremes, the second one indicates a malfunction of the capacity to understand and explain, while the third one gives the measure of the degrading cynicism. Somewhat exemplary, what we see here is a stair of human counter-performance, from the cheap solution offered to the easy-going thinking in its political guises, going through the abandonment of the genus proximum embedded within reason and ending with failure in the tentacles of the annihilating fatality.

It's obvious that the steps do not lead to redemption. The direction is of descent into inferno, with no way of reaching - be it through enlightenment - a place of savior-inversion. The way they are described by the facts of the moment these stairs do not signify the transition between worlds or between its - worse or better - states, but represent the final road, between world and non-world.

The expectation that this stair would be a possibility among others is no longer soothing for the great spirits either. And this not because they would have extended their skepticism to the maximum, but because they find themselves ever harder in the configuration of the present world. We cannot otherwise explain the deficit of theoretical solutions, accompanied by the irrational measures against the problems of the crisis, advanced by the economic management. Symptomatic is the fact that some of them show up in a mixture by recipes specific to obscurantist practices spilling over into social engineering.

The impasse of Reason in dealing with its own errors rekindles the alternative of faith; of the most eroding faith, that things will work out by themselves. This is the cause for the delay of breakthroughs in the field of economic thinking!

But, we have to say this, it is about the forceful blocking of Reason and not due to causes intrinsic to it. The failure of the without-alternative economic model - nonetheless, a product of reason - has injected scientific thinking with an extremely powerful tranquilizer. There is no doubt it also suited Economics to abandon itself to the comfort promised by the perfect and unique model, a model itself comfortable (in a perverse way) with the obsession of unification, first of the theory and later of the action, as an answer to the challenge represented by the organic integrality of Nature.

The evolutional path of the present economic model is one marked by appearances. Started under the auspices of the unification of the cardinal values generated by the ideal of freedom, it then amazingly fast reached uniqueness through homogenization. No chance for either freedom or equality of chances. Freedom is judged in conditions of counter-selection on the principle of "we say one thing and do another". It is about freedom as allowed by interest, which expels supreme values to the ideal and purifies reality according to the shape and form of the force which confiscates power. In its turn, the equality of chances becomes a romantic lesson, a story about faces and places which only exist for oneiric heroes.

The group equality of power is the mechanism through which inequality is implacably centrifuged as poverty of the large numbers. The average income is no longer surrounded by its own population; it at most hides the comfort of the one percent among us and offers the fata morgana image of Edenic life for three quarters of us. Economic quantifying is, thus, twice inadequate: once because it considers our lives by the kilogram and secondly because we do not recognize within the indicators the picture of our pantries.

The present economic model is an exclusivist innovation, a luxury good accessible only to a minority molded out of cynicism, pack instincts and siren songs. The behavioral double standard, of immoral deeds and moral discourse, misled the world on the path to success. The institutional weave of the net thrown over consciousnesses is tight. The goal is for nothing to escape, as the model must be unique.

The effect of scale of the model shows its performances in - alongside the political machinery of control - the condition of the means of access to wealth.

In a brutal way the model manifests as a support for too few and too small wages, especially in the area of effective production. And this not only as an answer to the performances of technique and technology, but especially as an expression of the preference for the favoring of capital. This very preference seems to be the ingredient which has generated the critical mass for the collapse started in 2007.

The theory of the corporatist capitalist model, the inspiration of populism as an ideology of facade (because it made efficient the means for transmitting the message expected by the auditorium, in order to obscure the truth about the purpose) has displaced the alternatives. Success seems electorally consolidated in countries where the political culture had structured for decades on the unique model. The failure at the polling booth registered in the country of origin, the USA, is for now unclear. The reactions of ideological idiosyncrasy - identical to the avatars of class struggle - to the alternatives of corporatist capitalism delay the escape from the alternative. Within these guidelines the social components of the model are being sacrificed, components which, otherwise, are derisory for it.

In the corporatist capitalist economic model the population is the electorate to whom illusions or false targets are administered; the illusion of the generalized Agora, of the freedom of being, alongside the false target of the distribution of wealth as an obstacle on the path of the freedom of having. The social lift is more and more cramped and functions ever more rarely. The floor on which it gets stuck is that of wealth-based power.

The economic model has thus configured society, but does society conform to the new political economy?