The financial unravelling of the past three years has cast doubt on some certainties of orthodox economics. Central-bank independence is one. Before 2008, the idea that central banks should be shielded from politics, given an anti-inflation mandate, then left to run monetary policy as they saw fit was little doubted - by economists, anyway. In 2010 this looks neither desirable nor even possible. Governments and central banks would rather avoid a proper discussion of this sensitive subject. But in the light of all that has happened, whether central banks should be above politics is a question that needs a fundamental rethink.

In this respect, the issue is an exception, because most of what you read about the "crisis of economics" is nonsense. Of course, financial regulation needs tightening - but no paradigms need to shift for that. Pro-market orthodoxy will be pressed more cautiously and apologetically for a while, but even its most hyperventilating critics want to tweak not bury it.

Central-bank independence, however, really was an article of faith. The Federal Reserve, heading off demands for stricter audit, and the European Central Bank, under pressure to help the wretched of the eurozone, insist it still is. But they protest too much. Both have proved willing to conduct massive fiscal operations at the behest of treasury ministers. This is not what central-bank independence used to mean. As once understood, the idea is defunct.