There are several possible responses to this [decline in countervailing labor power due to neoliberal policy since Thatcher-Reagan]:
- To ignore the role of power . Doing so, I suspect is an example of how beliefs, such as Friedman's, can persist after the conditions in which they were reasonable have disappeared.
- To think that power can be restrained by social norms, as Jesse [Norman] does.It's a good conservative position, to think that free markets are welfare-enhancing if they operate within a particular moral code.
- To think legislation is necessary to rein in firms. This is the statist social democratic view.
There is, though, a fourth view - the Marxian one. This says that the tension between profit maximization and welfare hasn't increased simply because of a failure of law and morals, but because of a genuine shift in the balance of class power. Firms now have power and one thing we know about power is that it'll be used. Unless this changes, hopes of reconciling profit maximization with well-being might well prove mistaken.Stumbling and Mumbling
Profits, Norms And Power
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle (UK)
In Scripture, profits are good but profit taking isn't!
ReplyDeleteThat paradox is neatly solved with the use of common stock as money since profits can be distributed with stock splits without touching the companies assets as would be the case with dividends (and interest which is also prohibited in Scripture except from foreigners.)
And since Marx was mentioned, is it not obvious that if the workers were largely paid with common stock that the distinction between Capital and Labor would quickly disappear?
And how did Capital become so powerful to begin with? Short ans: Central banking, the means by which the banks and the so-called "creditworthy" are allowed to legally steal the workers' purchasing power.