Quote from piezoe:
Well I never developed much interest in the supernatural which is such a popular theme for PG-13 movies these days, and therefore I haven't much useful experience with Christianity. My impression is that it has a way of leading to trouble and doesn't deliver on its promises. If I were you, I would not count on it to make things all better once you've screwed up.
On the other hand I have studied Soros' economic theories. If correct, damaging bubbles are not inevitable, and the worst ones are preventable.
Soros says that monetary policy alone is not enough, and that other measures in conjunction with monetary policy have to be used. As an example, when there was too much credit and leverage available in the years leading up to the 2008 crises, Soros would have tightened credit and reduced leverage by increasing capital and margin requirements. Ideas that were dismissed by Alan Greenspan when they were suggested as a means of cooling down the recent housing/mortgage bubble. But now it is too late for that, the damage having been done.
Like Stiglitz, Krugman, and Keynes, Soros would not tighten up on credit and leverage now. In fact he credits the Fed with preventing another depression. On the other hand he would insist that extra liquidity pumped into the economy to save it from ruin must be taken back out later, just as Keynes said it should be.
Soros' contributions to economic theory go further then Keynes' however. Soros does a much better job explaining why bubbles, via positive feedback, form in the first place; widespread acceptance of his theory promises a better chance for early recognition and far more effective means of preventing damaging extremes.
Soros' contribution is major, and no mean feat. But there is much arrogance and hubris to be overcome among academics before such radical, but at the same time eminently sensible, ideas can gain general acceptance. It is never easy to let go of old ideas once one's pride has been invested in them. It may take years.