The American Central Bank's Militant-Economists Turning To Nepal

We note a lot of “unknowns” in the analysis of expert economists when it comes to the macro-economy, and these unknowns are often concerned with the unpredictability of military events in global warfare and in geopolitically tense regions. This lack of knowledge of the relationship between military events and macro-economy is a result of the fact that military events are not factored-in in the analysis conducted by Central Banks and the strict responsibility of the predictions and analysis of military events are reserved solely for military departments.

There is no factoring-in of military events in the American Central Bank's economic model (known as the FRB/US) because it is unclear to the frustrated economist which side the perpetrator of a military event is: when a military event occurs, is it definitely an enemy's doing or the doing of the “secret service” of oneself's own government? Clarity in whether it is the “self” or the “other” undertaking a military event is important to macroeconomic models because economists use “self-other” distinctions to label some military events as negative “external shocks” coming from the other and some military events as positive “internal operations” coming from the self. This divide between friendly self and enemy other, even in these times of advanced “neoclassical economics,” shows that there is little room for understanding that self-driven military events can also be detrimental to the macro-economy. The American Central Bank's macroeconomic model must read self-driven/self-perpetrated military events as negative “shocks” as well. 

The American Central Bank needs more “militant-economists” who are able to obtain military knowledge beyond the capabilities of other economists and factor this knowledge into economic modeling and policy making. Militant-economists in the making can turn to non-militarized Nepal to look at the impact of specific global military events on a national-level macro-economy without dividing these military events along the lines of “self-initiated” and “other-perpetrated” and looking at military events neutrally.