Mark Thoma on Paul Krugman. Professor Thoma observes:
The arguments serve an ideological goal. Perhaps we shouldn't assume that the main motivation of many pundits and policymakers is economic rather than political?The neoliberal position is that politics is economics and economics is laissez-faire. TINA period. Alternatives are ruled out.
5 comments:
and economics is laissez-faire Tom Hickey
Then why is government backing for the banks not opposed by neo-liberals?
So Progressives could call out the neo-liberals on the fascist money system except Progressives believe in it too. Despite their expressed desire for "equity" and "sharing" they instead support usury and theft.
When has it been that the banks haven't backed the king or vice versa. It'll be that way tomorrow too.
Take it, shake it, make it what ya wanna be.
When has it been that the banks haven't backed the king MoveThroughIt
Perish the thought that government ever needs banks. It doesn't. Fiat is FULLY backed by government's taxation authority and power. Any other backing or backers would be parasitical.
or vice versa. MoveThroughIt
Why should government subsidize debt-creation? Is promoting debt slavery promoting the general welfare? Or is it promoting the short* term interests of a few instead?
Take it, shake it, make it what ya wanna be. MoveThroughIt
Government should certainly use its fiat to promote the general welfare but private sector enterprise should be left to the private sector without government privileges for any. Or why even have a private sector?
* An unjust society is in no one's long term interests. See France 1793.
Winners of winner-take-all games are nearly always laissez-faire about their OWN METHODS ONLY.
It takes a class-traitor to be a system-savior, by definition.
It's a matter of perspective. The adaptive value of every decision is.
Is the point of this post that Thoma's not interested in anything other than he's right, we're wrong?
Post a Comment