> Keynesian theories of liberal capitalist reform starts … not from > their economic logic [which is sound]...
Keynes doesn't consider how the euthanasia of the rentier class can be expected in a robot economy in which at the limit there would be no human jobs and all income would be unearned. At that limit everyone would be a rentier. The political problems of our economy will be changed by circumstance, and we must not be too skeptical about the importance of unrealistic theories in setting a new direction when those unexpected circumstances force us to remake politics/economics.. http://billmoyers.com/2014/08/22/joseph-stiglitz-in-defense-of-capitalism/ Stiglitz can't get far past explaining how we could have demand growth and full employment if we could only change our tax policies a bit. His hope seems to be that by increasing demand we could consume all that full employment might produce. He goes along with the new goal of economics, No longer do we seek having more wealth, now we seek creating more wealth for jobs and money, although that finally requires wasting more wealth to avoid satiation of demand. Satiation is not even dreamed of as the proper measure of economic success. Stiglitz assumes that money is the best way to guide actions. However, taxing consumption leads to conservation by poverty. Planning to build a system designed to cut the need for high consumption using subsidies and regulation is a better policy. Regulation and subsidies are quicker ways, and they can be properly directed to get things done that immediate personal responses to fake high-prices can not be expected to ever do. Must we allow money to make all decisions for us? If people can't afford to drive their cars why should we expect them to be able to afford more efficient cars? Barry http://home.earthlink.net/~durable/ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
