More conservative reaction to Piketty — "A modern Marx." Lame. But we all knew that The Economist is lame. What else to expect from them. Again, it appears that the reviewer did not the read the book closely enough to understand it or is intentional misrepresenting it.
The Economist magazine must have been scratching its editorial head recently as it tried to summon up a good response to the Piketty book. Looking at its leader article in the May 3rd edition, I suspect the effort wasn’t worth it. The leader headline says it all: “A modern Marx”. The book, we are told, “… is a great piece of scholarship, but a poor guide to policy”. Well, yes, I agree. But not for the reasons that the Economist musters later in the article. The fact is that Piketty left us all to figure out what to do, and only tossed in one or two suggestions. Unfortunately those suggestions, in particular the idea of a global tax on capital, are enough to send Piketty to the corner. He must be a Marxist if he contemplates taxes on capital. And we all know about Marxists, don’t we?
Now I realize that the Economist considers itself both serious and sensible, but even its little sense of humor – it heads its paragraph on Piketty’s policy proposals “Nit-Piketty” – is laden with patronizing snark.
What is it about orthodox economists that they have to resort to huffy patronizing slap-downs whenever they are confronted with evidence that their wonderful market magic world is somewhat less than the perfection they imagine, or dream, it to be? And why the incessant superior tone?....
It’s too easy to indulge in this snarky take down of the Economist. The simple fact is that it is trying to defend a debunked and far from common sense theory. Patronizing its opponents, repeating worn out failed solutions, and then getting huffy is all that it has left.The Radford Free Press
The Economist Gets Sniffy
Peter Radford
2 comments:
He must be a Marxist if he contemplates taxes on capital. And we all know about Marxists, don’t we?
No, I believe Marx wanted labor to take over "the means of production." Some itty bitty tax wouldn't have cut it with uncle Karl. Wanting to "tax capital" is just a sign that the liberals, having been so docile and compliant for so long, might just be getting a little uppity. It's as if Jeeves stopped covering up for his upper class nitwit boss for just a few seconds and let a bit of the truth slip out. There were shocked looks all around and then everything went back to normal as if it never happened.
Marx understood and PIketty has again showed that capitalism tilts the playing field against labor by putting money and machines above people.
"Capitalism" means that capital — real and financial — is the dominant factor and labor, comprising the vast plurality of people in a modern society are second rate. This is shown in recent SCOTUS decisions that put corporations as fictitious persons above natural persons in law.
Capitalism can be modified for a time through legislation and regulation but doing this is an uphill battled against the entrenched plutocratic power structure, and when it is successful, the plutocrats immediate set about reversing it, no matter what it takes or how long it takes.
The problems of capitalism cannot be solved within a capitalistic system that puts money and machine first. It's just pissing against the wind.
Post a Comment