All this poses the question. Why, then, haven't we seen state help to create what Robert Shiller has called financial democracy?
It's certainly not because of a commitment to laissez-faire: the massive implicit subsidy to banks tells us that the state is very happy to intervene in the financial system.
Instead, the answer was pointed out by Marx: the state serves the interests of capitalists, not the people. And financial capital would rather financial markets consisted of rent-seeking than of enhancing aggregate welfare. Crony capitalism has encouraged financialization (pdf), not financial democracy.
In this sense, a well-functioning market economy requires that the state be freed from the grip of capitalists. In some respects it is capitalism that is the enemy of a market economy, and Marxism that is its friend.Stumbling and Mumbling
Markets need MarxismChris Dillow | Investors Chronicle
http://justnotsaid.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/is-obama-gay.html?m=1
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts on this Tom? It seems crazy right wing GOP stuff but if you read the whole article and think about it, perhaps?
@ Random.
ReplyDelete1. Who cares.
2. James Corsi?
Random,
ReplyDeletewhat a bullshit article.
The blinkers get bigger and the descent into believing your own PR gets deeper. The whole of this area is curve fitting data to a belief.
ReplyDeleteThe reason the “massive implicit subsidy to banks” stays in place (despite recent changes to bank regulations) is more the huge lobbying effort by banks, rather than, as suggested by Marx, any particular desire by politicians to subsidise banks. I.e. banks control the brains of politicians.
ReplyDeleteIn the UK, the finance industry spends £90million a year on lobbying. As to the US, as Senator Dick Durbin put it, “Banks are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill . . . . . and frankly they own the place”.
Or as Bernie Sanders put it, “Congress doesn’t regulate Wall St. Wall St regulates Congress”.