Monday, 8 October 2012

Revolt of the Rich

Nat O'Connor: A concern with the "predatory super-rich" as the new secessionists in the USA is very clearly articulated in this article ('Revolt of the Rich') in the The American Conservative.

It begins: It was 1993, during congressional debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement. I was having lunch with a staffer for one of the rare Republican congressmen who opposed the policy of so-called free trade. To this day, I remember something my colleague said: “The rich elites of this country have far more in common with their counterparts in London, Paris, and Tokyo than with their fellow American citizens.”


Brian Woods said...

To quote your Masthead:

"The very questions we seek to ask, the assumptions we chose to make and the options we decide to recommend are based on a set of values."

Value claims are very dodgey things indeed. They are, by nature, contentious. How about some Knowledge Claims (which might be refutable?).

"A new political economy is one that opens up the insights of various disciplines ..."

Such as? If'n any of these 'disclipines' comes up with data that refutes some economic beliefs. Then what?

The score so far (using a nicely sloped pitch)is: Olde Econ Paradigm 1: New Econ Paradigm 0.

Are ye guys even asking any searching questions at all? Or are ye having a little 'talk-in' amongst yerselves?

Here's a question:

Please state and explain the factors which affect aggregate economic growth.

Nat O`Connor said...

@ Brian Woods

I responded to a similar question from you on what constitutes growth here:

Brian Woods said...

Thanks Nat.

Kollatz-Ahen reads nice, but is mostly the usual unctious waffle. Though the last para (p7-8) does point to the real crux - but leaves aside the global context: which you really cannot do.

The factors affecting aggregate economic 'growth' are (energy, raw materials and credit). Labour also, but what with robots and all!

No one in their right mind will invest positive capital in projects which return less than investing in virtual financial instruments. So any 'growth' has to be pretty impressive to play catch-up with the accumulating debt burden occasioned by the input of credit. And there are lots of low-waged human robots in Chindia, so that leaves us in a very delicate position. How are we going to pay for all those non-production employments that we need as our balance of paymnents get worse and worse as we suck in more and more energy imports? Economic folk seem to have lost their voice on that one. Perhaps they know the answer (we're not!). OK, there is money inflation.

So with 'growth' firmly off the agenda; now what?

Would the truth hurt? No growth. No jobs. Lower incomes. Lost pensions. That's some cheerful message. Its simply past time and not good enough to sit on your TASClines and have earnest conversations with yourselves. Either tell the citizens the truth or close the shop.

Would Begg, O'Connor and crew not call an all-out General Strike (a lá Larkin) and settle this matter once and for all in favour of the citizen and not the political parties, their bankster buddies and the Troika? They have until December to choose.

And no, you did not answer my question. But no matter, your in good company on that one.