Jim:
Quite apart from all these political questions, I'm wondering how you think
Krugman's arrogance plays? Do you think it comes off as authoritative or
off-putting to non-lefties? It is interesting to me that the Times should feel
compelled to muscle up with two dismissive columnists--Krugman and Friedman--on
the issues of trade and globalization?
Joel Blau
Jim Devine wrote:
> I wrote:
> > >I think that it's unfair to dub PK a practitioner of "free market dogma,"
> > >since he's a technocratic type.
>
> Mine writes:
> >Unfairness? I am not quite sure. Almost all the technocrats I am aware
> >of are "closet" free marketeers, either preaching "state regulated
> >capitalism" to make sure market works or openly admitting the inherent
> >justness of the market ("market is good but elites politicize it"
> >rhetoric). Both types are capitalists. They are just differently
> >capitalist. i don't think a technocrat would have a problem with free
> >market in so far as elites intervene to secure capitalism.
>
> It's unfair simply in the sense that it's better to know more about people
> before applying labels to them.
>
> It's hard to tell, but I think we agree: most technocrats believe that "the
> market" needs the helping hand of government to move toward being the "true
> free market." Most of them don't say that the market is "just." Rather,
> they'd probably say that notions of justice are vague and therefore weak. I
> wouldn't say they were "capitalists" as much as pro-capitalist.
> (Capitalists own significant amounts of capital, I would say enough to be
> independently wealthy.)
>
> I'm no fan of technocrats and see no reason to prefer the state-managed
> capitalism of Japan or South Korea as superior to the more free-market
> version of the US. Technocrats in power in a post-capitalist country can
> also set themselves up as a new ruling class, as in the old USSR.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
