“The succeeding Neoliberal Order failed to deliver on promises of reinvigorated economic growth and a restored moral center of society. What it did do was raise income inequality and create plutocracy”
Of course you know my response: No _true_ left Neo liberal :) would have allowed marginal rate of taxation of personal consumption to fall, full employment not to be maintained, and externalities to go untaxed.
“We demand more mutually beneficial market transactions between consenting adults that do not create any untaxed/unsubsidized negative/positive externalities (with some exceptions for transactions in addictive substances) and for some of the income generated from those mutually beneficial transactions taxed and used for redistribution and purchase of public goods.” :)
The paragraph beginning "Keynes’s second error" is painfully obvious. The pain is that of having never seen -- and surely no oner ever told me -- the way in which bad odds for the individual in the market result in more power for the class of lucky ones whose bets hit the jackpot. This is enlightening.
Not to belabor the point, but I then realized that I've seen for the first time, after let's say 50 years, where Marx was right! Like, the free market entails the difference between returns on safe loans and those on high-risk investments; the skewed probabilities that result cause many speculators to go broke but enriches others; with a little bit of additional look, the lucky ones can can and will buy everything up and create monopolies; bye-bye, free market. Internal contradictions!
(Not kidding, but not turning in my post-New Deal Liberal card for a Marxist one)
“[colonial empires] left international legacies of racial and economic inequality.”
Is “left” a transitive or intransitive verb here?
I lean toward empires not being actively causative of the failure of the “global south’s” failure to converge to Dover circle levels of income. I place a lot of the blame on the historical accident of decolonialism occurring at a time when war-economy planning was at its height of intellectual prestige and Hayekian market’s at its Great Depression low. If Britian, pace Churchill, had started giving India independence as a reward for its contributions to the Great War and Fed had not allowed the Great Depression to happen, thinks would have been very different for convergence.
Perhaps, indeed probably on what happened in 1950. But the situation. But the situation as it was in 1950 owes a lot to empire, and perhaps more to the interaction of globalization, migration, and racism.
“The succeeding Neoliberal Order failed to deliver on promises of reinvigorated economic growth and a restored moral center of society. What it did do was raise income inequality and create plutocracy”
Of course you know my response: No _true_ left Neo liberal :) would have allowed marginal rate of taxation of personal consumption to fall, full employment not to be maintained, and externalities to go untaxed.
It all fits on one neat placard:
“We demand more mutually beneficial market transactions between consenting adults that do not create any untaxed/unsubsidized negative/positive externalities (with some exceptions for transactions in addictive substances) and for some of the income generated from those mutually beneficial transactions taxed and used for redistribution and purchase of public goods.” :)
The paragraph beginning "Keynes’s second error" is painfully obvious. The pain is that of having never seen -- and surely no oner ever told me -- the way in which bad odds for the individual in the market result in more power for the class of lucky ones whose bets hit the jackpot. This is enlightening.
Thx... Brad
Not to belabor the point, but I then realized that I've seen for the first time, after let's say 50 years, where Marx was right! Like, the free market entails the difference between returns on safe loans and those on high-risk investments; the skewed probabilities that result cause many speculators to go broke but enriches others; with a little bit of additional look, the lucky ones can can and will buy everything up and create monopolies; bye-bye, free market. Internal contradictions!
(Not kidding, but not turning in my post-New Deal Liberal card for a Marxist one)
Yes—the equity return premium is a strange and terrible thing for political economy...
“[colonial empires] left international legacies of racial and economic inequality.”
Is “left” a transitive or intransitive verb here?
I lean toward empires not being actively causative of the failure of the “global south’s” failure to converge to Dover circle levels of income. I place a lot of the blame on the historical accident of decolonialism occurring at a time when war-economy planning was at its height of intellectual prestige and Hayekian market’s at its Great Depression low. If Britian, pace Churchill, had started giving India independence as a reward for its contributions to the Great War and Fed had not allowed the Great Depression to happen, thinks would have been very different for convergence.
Perhaps, indeed probably on what happened in 1950. But the situation. But the situation as it was in 1950 owes a lot to empire, and perhaps more to the interaction of globalization, migration, and racism.
Latin America.
Good review. I'm not as optimistic as your concluding paragraphs, but that's yet to be seen of course.