[lit-ideas] Re: Worried?
- From: Julie Krueger <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:20:06 -0600
I wonder if an element of this (not the whole story, but a contributing
impact) is:
Capitalism seems to work for a while under certain circumstances. And
though there was certainly a good deal of import & export, trade, tariff
issues, etc. in the past, only recently have we gone from having a national
economy to having an economy which is, thanks to globalization and a true
global economy, more a part of that global economy than simply a national
economy. Our economy is far less self-contained than what it has been in
previous crises. Capitalism may not work nearly as well as part of a global
economy that also includes other various and far different economic models.
The complexity of the global economic issues seem to me to make the uphill
battle for a stable American capitalism far steeper.
Julie Krueger
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Simon Ward <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My take - from way over the wrong side of the fence - is that, post cold
> war, a humungous assumption was given play. Namely that earning a profit by
> whatever means is the natural order of things. That if you're earning a
> profit, the market is behind you and all is good. In technical speak,
> neo-liberal economic thoughts was 'proven', and all alternatives were out of
> play.
>
> This approach applied just as much to speculators as it did to real world
> economic agents - the guys that produce stuff or create value. And so
> regulations were removed, speculation was once more a good thing and all
> would be rosy for ever and ever.
>
> Unfortunately, this thinking was proven wrong. Speculation is not
> necessarily a good thing. Regulated dealing in the value of a company's
> prospects (share-dealing) works, but the creation of unregulated financial
> products that earn money from bad decision making (short selling, default
> swaps etc), only serves to hasten market exit. If all production was
> achieved through the application of capital (100 per cent robotics) this
> wouldn't be 'as' bad, but when there is a workforce earning wages to take
> back to so many families, the consequences are dire. And yet somewhere, more
> than likely high up in a sky scraper, some people have made a profit from
> all the misery.
>
> From where I sit (a long way from the fence) speculators do no more than
> accumulate unproductive capital. While some finds it's way to being
> productive capital (as equity), much does not. When there's too much
> unproductive capital, stuff starts to happen and it's not nice.
>
> In short, David has it right.
>
> Simon
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
Other related posts:
