After considering apologizing for being a little "testy" in some of
my postings on coupon socialism and people's comments about coupon
socialism, I've decided not to. Instead I'll offer an opinion about why
diminishing returns set into discussions: People do not respond to other
peoples' direct questions and/or challenges.
To Bob Pollin:
1) Do you still believe the Roemer model equalizes non-wage income?
2) Do you consider the bank-based financial model Roemer borrows from
"successful" capitalist systems like Japan and German to be a solution to the
principal agent problem that serves the interest or promotes the progressive
goal of economic democracy?
3) Do you or do you not "endorse" the Roemer model? If it is worthy of
serious consideration but you do not end by endorsing the model, then
could you please explain what specifically leads you to reject his model
as a) an intermediate goal, and/or b) our vision of "socialism."
To Gil Skillman:
1) Suppose it takes 300 years to "win" a transformation to the Albert/
Hahnel model of a participatory economy. Why do you think it might take
only 30 years to "win" a transition to the Roemer coupon economy? At least
regarding the capitalist world, and the US in particular, wouldn't a
transition to Roemer's coupon economy require completely expropriating
the present capitalist class? Wouldn't they be likely to oppose such a
change with a measure of vehemence? Would not it require a large and
powerful and dedicated movement to overcome this opposition? Where would
the recruits to the ranks of this political movement come from? Would
workers who gain no increase in self-management from the transition to
Roemer's coupon economy be likely to enlist? Would women or minorities
with no reason to expect any change in the oppression and discrimination
they face enlist to lay down their lives? Who besides the future bank
managers, mutual fund managers, and enterprise managers would have any
reason to fight for coupon socialism? In which case, why wouldn't a trans-
ition to Roemer's economy take 3000 years or more.
2) How do you deny that Roemer's model is politically naive? The fact that
it makes minimal and marginal institutional changes from present day capitalism
does NOT mean it would not be met with vehement and powerful political opposi-
tion. But the fact that it increases income equality only marginally, offers
no more opportunities for worker or consumer self-management, and is more
economically elitist than many current versions of capitalism DOES mean that
few have an interest in signing on to fight for it. So how is the model even
a "compelling" model of vehicle for a "practical" short to medium run pro-
gressive strategy?
