Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The Anglican Model, "Laissez-Faire" Capitalism & J.K. Galbraith

by Drew J Jones Fri Dec 30th, 2005 at 01:08:17 PM EST

I've never been a fan of the term "Anglo-Saxon Model," since it's more than a little ridiculous, given the size of Britain's welfare state.  It's not as though welfare is nonexistent in America, either.  After all, America was (and, in some ways, still is) home to the New Deal; is home to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (Medicaid, for those of you who are not familiar with the program, is the government's health care package for the poor); and has, since the 1930s, been home to a liberal mixture of Keynesian and Monetarist economic-policy interventionism -- even, traditionally, among Republicans.

(For a few examples, the Environmental Protection Agency was founded by the Nixon Administration, and Nixon, himself, was the first US president to seriously push for universal health care.  Credit the little slimeball for that which he is due.)

Maybe it's the quoting of John Kenneth Galbraith -- a (just my opinion) pseudo-Keynesian wannabe-prophet whose predictions have always had a nasty tendency to be, well, more than a tad off -- in Colman's recent front-page diary.  (Let me clarify that I, in no way, mean this diary as an attack on Colman, whose work I truly enjoy reading.)  Galbraith, you see, was the world's first "celebrity economist," and, just as Hollywood actors tend to rely too much on looks and not enough on talent, so too has been Galbraith's legacy, albeit relying on his writing for the masses rather than his looks.

But that's just one issue.  It's time we eliminated the myth -- and what a myth it is -- of laissez-faire capitalism and the near-myth of Galbraithian "corporate capitalism".  More below.


There is no free market.

Froto has failed.  Keynesian Liberalism has the ring, and it's forever-buried, somewhere in Sussex or Cambridge.  When economists and politicians -- especially economists -- discuss the "free market" or laissez-faire, they're speaking in very general terms.  They're referring to having taxation levels that do not attempt to choke the "capitalist-class" (whatever that is) in the name of the "workers" (whoever they are), regulation that is concerned only with issues of safety and the environment (and not some ridiculous and unnecessary idea such as "preventing big businesses from getting bigger"), and so on.

No one in their right mind will tell you that we should live in a completely free market, because that would require an elimination of the government -- the Rothbardian Fairytale, as I have called it.  Talk about eliminating the government with anyone who isn't a Rothbardian, or one of the Rothbardians' even-more-disturbed cousins, the Marxists, and everyone's mind immediately turns to Hobbes's vision.

But let me return to John Kenneth Galbraith's "corporate capitalism".  The use of this term may be somewhat valid in America, right now, given the Bush administration's skewing of the incentive structure away from labor and towards capital, along with the obvious example of the tax cuts.  (Don't bet on this lasting forever.  I've already pointed out that there is far more going on here than the Washington talking points lead us to believe.)

(An aside: Galbraith is, today, completely out of touch with the field of economics.  He once told The Guardian that the Bush administration's Council of Economic Advisors was loaded with people who "have never heard of John Maynard Keynes."  Nevermind the small detail of then-chairman N. Gregory Mankiw being one of the leading Keynesians -- even if Bush never listened to him.  Apparently, just as his colleagues didn't take him very seriously back in the early-to-mid-20th Century, so too does he not take colleagues seriously today, even if they're -- again, just my opinion -- superior macroeconomists.)

But the machinery of the British economy does not fit Galbraith's fictional system.  Wages in Britain are growing at very strong rates, on the order of 4-4.5%.  (Americans would kill to see that right now.)  Unemployment actually is low, unlike in America, and our best evidence for this is referenced in the previous sentence.

Scarcity + Demand = Higher Pay to the Input

What Galbraith failed, miserably, to recognize was the importance of small businesses to the American economy.  The story is similar in Britain, if I'm not mistaken.  70% of new jobs in America are "created" -- hate that term -- by small businesses.  And, even despite Bush's raping of the public through the tax code, the scales remain tipped to small businesses.  The importance of enormous corporations has been diminishing for decades in America (again, if I'm not mistaken; this comes from Paul Krugman).  Sure, they may see some boost to their role as globalization begins to speed-up.  But this is because they have the resources to outsource, and it is only temporary.  The rise of businesses in Japan, Continental Asia, Europe, and other areas will serve to bring down their profits.  Someone will build a better mousetrap.

The American economy is not growing because of large businesses.

My point is this: Capitalism doesn't naturally distribute resources to the wealthy, or the poor, or the middle-class, or whatever.  The market is not some living being that loves and hates people of different means.  The Marxian view of the worker being stuck in a state of near-starvation if he acts alone is false, and demonstrates how truly shallow the view has always been.  After all, the middle-class jobs we want our children to have are not typically unionized, unless there is a United Computer Programmers union that I'm unaware of.  Not a lot of unions for MBAs to join.  (Lawyers and doctors have what really amount to guilds, which, I suppose, we could call "unions" in some way.)

The British view of economics is different from the American view, and both are different from the Continental-European view.  And, while I don't subscribe to the view of any of these being "models" (as I've said in the past, I see very little science in politics and sociology), I think it's a mistake to cast the Anglican view aside as simply "corporate capitalism".

Display:
Interesting comparison between two countries that too many folks (who don't know any better) tend to blend into one single entity.

Yet another nail into the "so-called AS model" coffin.

Where did you get the data supporting your statement that "American economy is not growing because of large businesses"?

There is no free market.

Look at the support to MS and other monopolists from the "business community" and Wall street, or the market rigging of Enron and the likes, not to mention plain old war profiteering (paging Halliburton...).

The financial markets sure know what generates the highest returns, and it's definitely not free markets...

by Bernard on Fri Dec 30th, 2005 at 01:57:46 PM EST
Well to clarify, I'm talking about calling the fictional system being pushed as justification for all the "reforms" corporate capitalism. I'm aware that it doesn't apply to the UK economy at all and is of course a gross oversimplification of the US economy.  

However, I don't share your generally rosy view of economics and economists. Or rather I distinguish between economic propagandists and economic scientists. We don't tend to hear much from the latter.

I also don't agree with your rosy view of the market: I very strongly suspect that the less regulated the market the more it tends to reward the rich by making them richer as a consequence of how the system works.

 As for unions and the middle class: traditionally the middle class has been protected by both law and their own power to bargain individually. As those protections are whittled away something will have to be done.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Dec 30th, 2005 at 02:43:49 PM EST
Or rather I distinguish between economic propagandists and economic scientists. We don't tend to hear much from the latter.

That's certainly true.  Some of that is due to the problem of serious economists being busy with important things like research.  They don't have time to go and waste time on news programs.  (Krugman is one exception.  He makes a fair number of appearances -- or at least did during the Social Security battle.)  Most economists on the news are not academics.  Almost all of them are Wall Streeters, and they all tend to serve one interest -- their own -- whereas academics are a little more constrained by their colleagues and can't get away with so much.

I'm not sure my view of the market is "rosy".  I'm sure it is, in some ways.  My view of the market is that it's a decent system, but one that requires smart people -- central bankers, macroeconomists, etc. -- to ensure that bad things, like depressions, don't happen, and that unfortunate facts of life, like recessions, are less severe (as they have been since the end of WWII).

The only way to prevent people from using their power to bargain -- individually or collectively -- is to ban it.  What's sad is that a lot of the erosion of labor rights has happened at the state levels, where no one will pay any attention.  When things happen in Washington, there's a pretty good chance (especially in the age of blogging) that someone will pick it up, and the attention it receives can lead the press to begin covering it.  (This happened countless times last year, as everybody knows.)  Not so at the state level.  It's not sexy enough to warrant attention.

Unless the story is Terri Schiavo, of course.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Dec 30th, 2005 at 07:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just to say, as Colman does, that the discussion here (not for the first time) was a meta-discussion about terminology. I don't think anyone here believes that the US and UK economies are the same, or could meaningfully be twinned into a single "model".

The point is that these terms are widely used and keep coming up. An example, DowneastDem put up a diary while we were discussing the term "Anglo-Saxon", pointing us towards a think-tank study that uses the Scandinavian model, the Continental model, and the Anglo-Saxon model as terms of reference. (No criticism is meant here of either DowneastDem or the study). I'm simply saying that the terms are often used.

It's a question of representation, then of perception. Experts, scholars, think-tankers, pundits, invent these constructs to simplify their discourse, no doubt also the better to sell it to the media. The journalists pick the constructs up and pass them on. People's perception is modified by them. Conventional wisdom is formed. Since we live in democracy, that is ultimately a political process. It's against that CW-forming process that we have been protesting here.

I think all talk of models should be dropped. However, if we went all the way along the lines you suggest, we would only recognize countries as economic units. It's true that our countries, over their one-two-three centuries of existence as modern states, have developed idiosyncracies, some of them well-adapted to this or that country's circumstances, some even partly determining the nature and character of the country. But, though it may take time, we can go beyond that, at least partly. To think otherwise would be simply to accept nationalism as a fatality and to give up on the EU right now.

As for "corporate capitalism" as an expression, you seem to disapprove of it because of an association with Galbraith, and because Paul Krugman says big corporations have declined in importance in the US economy. It may be that this has come about as they have outsourced and offshored, becoming transnational. Major corporations (US or not) still seem to me to be very big players.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Dec 30th, 2005 at 04:27:03 PM EST
But countries don't even make for sensible economies - to talk of the "US economy" is just as nonsensical as talking about the EU economy. Really, there is only one economy with varying levels of interconnection between its parts - I would suggest parts of New York are more closely linked to parts of London than they are to Arkansaw.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Dec 30th, 2005 at 05:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would suggest parts of New York are more closely linked to parts of London than they are to Arkansaw.

Is there any doubt?

You're right about the idea of the "US economy" being nonsensical.  I usually use the national terms for simplicity of comparison, but I guess it's no less ridiculous than the idea of a "model".

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Dec 30th, 2005 at 07:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well that's not quite true, because the linkage between NYC and Arkansas includes federal tax rates, the regulatory environment, and free travel of labor and enterprize between the two. The linkage between NYC and London is the big city culture, which applies as well to Singapore and several dozen other large cities.
by asdf on Sat Dec 31st, 2005 at 12:09:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry to go off topic, but I thought you'd want this link, asdf.

Apologies -- as you were...

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 31st, 2005 at 12:35:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wow! Thanks! Maybe I'll have to get cable...
by asdf on Sat Dec 31st, 2005 at 10:41:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well that's not quite true, because the linkage between NYC and Arkansas includes federal tax rates, the regulatory environment, and free travel of labor and enterprize between the two. The linkage between NYC and London is the big city culture, which applies as well to Singapore and several dozen other large cities.

I disagree.  I think what Colman is picking up on is the financial ties.  New York and London have been, arguably, the world's two financial centers for nearly a century, and there is a great deal of interdependency between the two.  (Interdependency is what we're really talking about, when we discuss economic ties.  New Yorkers have money in London, and vice-versa.)  The connections you're drawing are political (governmental) ones rather than economic ones.  There's much more to the London-NYC connection than simply big-city culture.

Even setting aside the fact that NYC is a big city, and that the largest city in Arkansas is only a small fraction of NYC's size in terms of population, NYC and Arkansas have very little in common, other than falling under the "USA" label.  The Arkansas economy is ruled by agriculture, manufacturing, and maybe a few high-tech jobs (probably connected with the university towns).  New York is a well-developed global center of economic activity.  (Try owning a farm in New York in this housing market.)

I'm sure there are exceptions.  There are probably a few very large Arkansas-based companies with offices in New York.  But it still doesn't compare with London.  Remember that you also have major ports in the Northeast, too, which connect the area with Europe.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Dec 31st, 2005 at 11:17:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, it seems as if the views on politics and economy is very different between Europeans and their cousins in the US, so once again, for what its worth, here goes.:)

My point is this: Capitalism doesn't naturally distribute resources to the wealthy, or the poor, or the middle-class, or whatever.  The market is not some living being that loves and hates people of different means.  

Exactly and that is the problem.  The market alone is inadequate in a society.  What is needed is a strong state to limited the excesses of the market and provides social security, minimum wages and prohibition of slave/child labour just to mention a few things. I have a greater trust in the solutions provided by the people, the state, rather than the emotions and sympathies of one or a couple of rich individuals, regarding welfare distribution. Still, rich people have an advantage in a pure market economy because they can invest while the poor can not participate.  The fact is that 10 per cent of 10 million dollar gives a greater amount of wealth than 10 per cent of 10 thousand dollars, so in fact rich people have more power in the market than poor people.    

The Marxian view of the worker being stuck in a state of near-starvation if he acts alone is false, and demonstrates how truly shallow the view has always been.  

I would say that Marx's perspective on history, at least in my view, is relevant and applicable. By that I mean that throughout history the many have always produced values that are disproportionately distributed.   In the feudal age the system was built upon the principal that the few owned most of the property and valuables, they even owned the life and the well being of their subordinates. That is why it is not false and the poor did starve to death in the thousands all over Europe.  Look at the huge emigration statistics from Norway and Ireland to the US in the nineteenth century.  The Marxist historical perspective is not only about the industrial age but has a general perspective on how history evolves.  The Labour movements in Europe (the Unions included) were the driving force behind higher wages, safer working environments, pension rights and the welfare state as we know it. Still, I agree with your assessment of Marxism not being the accurate in prescribing the right "medicine" for curing the unjust wealth distribution, and that is why I am a social democrat, believing in reform through democratic means and a regulated market economy.      

After all, the middle-class jobs we want our children to have are not typically unionized, unless there is a United Computer Programmers union that I'm unaware of.  Not a lot of unions for MBAs to join.  (Lawyers and doctors have what really amount to guilds, which, I suppose, we could call "unions" in some way.)

Well, a huge part of the middle-class of to day are the children of the poor and economically deprived of yesterday and in my country, Norway, there are a lot of Unions for the academically educated middle-class, both for computer programmers and MBAs.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Fri Dec 30th, 2005 at 09:04:39 PM EST
...the right "medicine" for curing the unjust wealth distribution, and that is why I am a social democrat, believing in reform through democratic means and a regulated market economy.

...and the elimination of unjust wealth distribution only within a country? :-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Dec 31st, 2005 at 11:45:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, no the social democratic movement is an international movement with very close contacts with their kindred's all over the world, and thus is a strong proponent for debt relief and giving development aid to the developing countries. The social democrats acknowledge the historical perspective of Marx, but not the prescribed solutions to the social and economic problems.

Every nation has their own history and identity and thus has to find their own solutions to their social and economic problems.  Still, the belief in a strong state that secures basic rights is one of the key factors in the ideology.      

By the way to all of you ET posters and visitors have a happy New Year!

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat Dec 31st, 2005 at 12:43:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was more thinking about why a Norwegian majority prefers to stay out of the EU. (Tough I understand that it is just the Social Democrat party leadership that would most want to join.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jan 1st, 2006 at 06:31:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that is a good question, and I think there are at least a couple of historical and political realities that that have to be considered when addressing the issue of Norwegian EU membership.

First of all I think it is a question of perceived independence.  Many Norwegians have the perception that by joining the EU Norway will loose its independence.  In comparison to other European states Norway got its independence rather late, in 1905.  Before that we were a "junior nation" under Swedish dominance starting from 1814 and before that, under Danish rule for about 400 years.  That is why national independence has become such an important part of the nation's identity and thus can be directly linked to the sovereignty and administration of the natural resources, i.e. Oil, gas and fish.  

What is worth noting is that the nation's natural resources are directly linked to the socio-economic welfare of the nation, because most of Norway's industry is directly linked to the harvesting of these resources.  Any insecurity or discourse over the sovereignty and administration of these resources, make Norwegians sceptical, because it could have a direct bearing on the welfare of the Norwegian people.

Concerning the relation between EU sceptics and their political views the picture are a bit more complicated, but if we were to categorize their views according to their party affiliation you could say that the majority in the Conservative party (Høyre) are supporters of a Norwegian membership and emphasizes that it would be good for the Norwegian industry.  The Norwegian Labour party are split in two on the EU membership question.  The majority are supporting a membership on the grounds that it would be both good for Norwegian industry and that it would give Norway access to the political decisions within the Union instead of just passively accepting the EU directives.  The minority on the other hand emphasizes the economical aspects of the Union and more or less looks upon it as a club for the rich countries.  

Both the Agrarian party (Senterpartiet) and the Socialist Left (Sosialistisk Venstre Parti) are opposed to a Norwegian EU membership, but for different reasons.  The Agrarian Party emphasizes the loss of national sovereignty and the de-population of the Norwegian periphery as two important factors why we should not join the EU.  The Socialist Left Party on the other hand has the perspective that the EU is an institution that is mainly promoting economic issues and libertarian ideas.  The far right party, the progress party (FrP), are a bit harder to analyze because they haven't made up their mind yet although I suspect that the majority is against Norway joining the EU on nationalist grounds.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 05:31:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How important is whaling as an issue? There's no way Norway could join the EU and continue whaling.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 05:34:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, I am sure that this will be a major obstacle in future negotiation and it has to be resolved before we can dream of joining the EU. :)

To be honest I don't think it would be a major issue on joining the EU.  Norway is not hunting whales for commercial purposes only for scientific reasons and it was not a major issue in 1994 and I doubt it will be in the future.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 05:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the whaling season is undeniably commercial, though it's small-scale and only benefits local fishing communities. Are you perhaps thinking of Japan or Iceland?

Otherwise agreed, including with your analysis upthread.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 06:21:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the update, I was not fully aware of that.    

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 06:32:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The whaling issue is more of a symbolic issue like the sovereignty issue and are more important for people living in the northern parts of Norway, still, I reckon that most Norwegians are in favour of hunting whale as long as it's deemed ecologically viable.  (Although I have no statistics at hand to support my claim).

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 06:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I will ony quibble some less significant and one on-point part, so I state upfront: thank you for your long and informative reply.

In comparison to other European states Norway got its independence rather late, in 1905.

A number of new EU member states, most notably Slovakia and the Baltic countries, have even more recent independence.

Any insecurity or discourse over the sovereignty and administration of these resources, make Norwegians sceptical, because it could have a direct bearing on the welfare of the Norwegian people...
...Labour... The minority on the other hand emphasizes the economical aspects of the Union and more or less looks upon it as a club for the rich countries.

Well, I guess even Romania is rich relative to say Uganda, but not relative to Norway - Norway would be a netto payer in the EU, in effect the financier of lifting the welfare of us Central-Eastern Europeans. I hammer on about this because this is what circles in my mind lately, especially since Marxism was brought up - I am thinking of Social Democracy as an offspring of Marxism that limits redistribution to members of a nation, as opposed to redistribution on higher levels.

I quoted two different relevant parts of your post above because I perceive an apparent contradiction. Do you mean that losing money to the EU is not discussed in the eurosceptic wing of the Norwegian Labour party, but it is in the population?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 06:35:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The debate on all levels is much more about resource sovereignty (fish) and the right to subsidize small-scale agriculture than about increased direct transfers to the EU. Though Norway already pays about 3 times more than Denmark and no less than 50 times more than Finland just for access to the Common Market.

The world's northernmost desert wind.
by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 06:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or was it 500 times more than Finland (per capita of course)? Have to look that up tomorrow.

The world's northernmost desert wind.
by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 06:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am thinking of Social Democracy as an offspring of Marxism that limits redistribution to members of a nation, as opposed to redistribution on higher levels.

I might also point out that Norway is world leading on development aid with about 1 percent of GDP, and the other Scandinavian social democracies aren't far behind.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 07:05:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I can see your point with the two statements being contradictory, but in reality it is not.  In general the independence issue and the administration of national resources are of importance to most Norwegians also amongst the eurosceptics within the Norwegian Labour Party.  Still, their main point against Norwegian membership in the EU has been that the EU is a trade-organisation for rich European countries, although I suspect that this view has been somewhat modified since the referendum in 1994, with the incorporation of the Eastern-European countries.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 07:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, DoDo I meant Central Eastern European countries. :)

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 at 07:17:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am thinking of Social Democracy as an offspring of Marxism that limits redistribution to members of a nation, as opposed to redistribution on higher levels.

That seems like a strange point of view? Sounds like a story topic to me.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jan 3rd, 2006 at 04:07:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I may do that tomorrow, tough it may be delayed:

(1) I may want to do research,

(2) currently there is too much other discussion going on, and not the right time to be provocative to a wider audience. (I was already straddling the limit with our Norwegian friends here :-) but they shot me down finely.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jan 3rd, 2006 at 05:26:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you for providing a fact base description of this subject.  I really do not agree with some of your interpretations, but I think you lay out a framework that is factual and logical, and potentially could lead to non-partisan dialogue on the site.  IMHO
by wchurchill on Sat Dec 31st, 2005 at 12:05:27 AM EST
Not to defend Galbraith, but it seems to me the following:

He once told The Guardian that the Bush administration's Council of Economic Advisors was loaded with people who "have never heard of John Maynard Keynes."  Nevermind the small detail of then-chairman N. Gregory Mankiw being one of the leading Keynesians

...is not a contradiction at all. One Keynesian doesn't make the CEA not loaded with Keynes-ignorant idiots.

one of the Rothbardians' even-more-disturbed cousins, the Marxists...
The Marxian view of the worker being stuck in a state of near-starvation if he acts alone is false, and demonstrates how truly shallow the view has always been.

I'm not in the mood to pick a fight, but have to note that as almost all of the European Left, even Social Democrats originate in Marxism, such easy dismissal may be a bit too provocative on an European blog.

Besides, could you support that claim about the Marxian view of the sole worker in near-starvation with actual quotes?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Dec 31st, 2005 at 11:54:23 AM EST
...is not a contradiction at all. One Keynesian doesn't make the CEA not loaded with Keynes-ignorant idiots.

Two of Bush's three chairmen have been Keynesians -- Mankiw and Bernanke.  The other, Glenn Hubbard, is (I think) a Supply-Sider.

I'll try and track down the quote, but it's in Galbraith's The Affluent Society, if I'm not mistaken.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Dec 31st, 2005 at 12:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries