Tweet
Re: inside job - see it NOW while you can
There's something odd about your logic here:
If Hudson can point to "markets free of the burden of rentier extractions" - that is free markets in the Classical economic sense - as some sort of touchstone then it can't be that "faith in "free markets" and free market capitalism is merely that: an empty faith." To appreciate some aspects of market relations as being valuable and productive does not mean that one is endorsing all market relations in whatever debased or corrupt form they come in.
Further I don't think that by appealing to the concept of economic rent Hudson is taking a market-fundamentalist stance by definition, something that I think you are unwittingly suggesting with your logic. I think the same would hold for what I'm arguing for. I don't think that Hudson thinks that this - "markets free of the burden of rentier extractions" - can be attained in any pure form either, nor that the usefulness of the analysis is dependant on this. I think he would be sanguine about the inevitability that this will be contested, political ground and that, if we are able to reform the system, success will be uneven and messy.
What I think this suggests is that you are imposing this analysis on the world wholesale:
The irony of this that in my experience in trying to understand our "moment" I have found Hudson's revival of the Classical concept of economic rent to be one of the most useful and illuminating tools of all. (I honestly have never learned much from Naomi Kline btw.)
I would agree that generally the problem is that free-markets are assumed to work in the same way in finance as they generally do in the "real" economy. So I think people are more than a little confused as to what has gone so terribly wrong. As EJ's, Bill Black's, Steve Keen's, Hudson's etc.... analysis show, this is a rather perilous mistake. But I don't think it follows from this that the advantages of markets in the real economy are somehow discredited. Saying this would be like saying that applying the rules of hockey to soccer hasn't worked so we should get rid of hockey. No, we should get rid of hockey-soccer. (If that make's any sense; couldn't come up with a less goofy analogy.) Further, I don't think that these thinkers are acting as apologists for something. I think, personally, that they've identified the proximate root of our current problems.
Does it follow from this that I believe all our problems can be solved by applying classical economic concepts. By no means. Markets are fatally bad at dealing with externalities like the environment or resource depletion. I think this needs to be addressed by collective political will. This will be exceedingly difficult but I don't think it requires or frankly benefits from a revolution.
What I'm missing in your analysis is this: what is capitalism's original sin? Your argument to my mind relies very heavily on some sort of moral repulsion to some aspect of it but I can't pin down what that is.
There's something odd about your logic here:
I think what you've given here is just more evidence that there are no "free markets." Markets are instruments of elite rule. They turn them on and off, modify them with tariffs, let them clear or not, goose them with cheap money and low interest rates, and do a dozen other things as best suits their advantage. (Hudson himself points out that what is meant by the phrase "free markets" has radically changed. It used to mean, "markets free of the burden of rentier extractions." It now seems to mean banksters free to do any goddamn thing they want and at public expense.)
If this is the case, then the faith in "free markets" and free market capitalism is merely that: an empty faith that is quite disconnected from reality. Free market capitalism is an ideology akin to neo-liberalism and "the Washington model." It has been used for some time to subjugate and strip less powerful economies of their resources--e.g., Chile, Poland, Russia--at times of radical transition in the interests of international banksters and other powerful elites. (See Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine) It is now being used to strip the American people of their wealth and their rights.
If this is the case, then the faith in "free markets" and free market capitalism is merely that: an empty faith that is quite disconnected from reality. Free market capitalism is an ideology akin to neo-liberalism and "the Washington model." It has been used for some time to subjugate and strip less powerful economies of their resources--e.g., Chile, Poland, Russia--at times of radical transition in the interests of international banksters and other powerful elites. (See Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine) It is now being used to strip the American people of their wealth and their rights.
Further I don't think that by appealing to the concept of economic rent Hudson is taking a market-fundamentalist stance by definition, something that I think you are unwittingly suggesting with your logic. I think the same would hold for what I'm arguing for. I don't think that Hudson thinks that this - "markets free of the burden of rentier extractions" - can be attained in any pure form either, nor that the usefulness of the analysis is dependant on this. I think he would be sanguine about the inevitability that this will be contested, political ground and that, if we are able to reform the system, success will be uneven and messy.
What I think this suggests is that you are imposing this analysis on the world wholesale:
The question has frequently been posed on this site, "Why aren't Americans out in the streets like people in Greece, France, etc.?" There are many factors involved in the answer to this question. I think one key factor is the power in the US of free market ideology, which seems to justify all that the banksters and politicians have done. Some very intelligent and thoughtful people seem to have swallowed this ideology hook, line, and sinker.
I would agree that generally the problem is that free-markets are assumed to work in the same way in finance as they generally do in the "real" economy. So I think people are more than a little confused as to what has gone so terribly wrong. As EJ's, Bill Black's, Steve Keen's, Hudson's etc.... analysis show, this is a rather perilous mistake. But I don't think it follows from this that the advantages of markets in the real economy are somehow discredited. Saying this would be like saying that applying the rules of hockey to soccer hasn't worked so we should get rid of hockey. No, we should get rid of hockey-soccer. (If that make's any sense; couldn't come up with a less goofy analogy.) Further, I don't think that these thinkers are acting as apologists for something. I think, personally, that they've identified the proximate root of our current problems.
Does it follow from this that I believe all our problems can be solved by applying classical economic concepts. By no means. Markets are fatally bad at dealing with externalities like the environment or resource depletion. I think this needs to be addressed by collective political will. This will be exceedingly difficult but I don't think it requires or frankly benefits from a revolution.
What I'm missing in your analysis is this: what is capitalism's original sin? Your argument to my mind relies very heavily on some sort of moral repulsion to some aspect of it but I can't pin down what that is.
Comment