wp64 wrote:Actually, I don't know. How are we defining 'global market capitalism'. As it has been theorized it has nothing to fall back other than profit maximization. Obviously markets aren't self-regulating but that doesn't mean that the ideological debate isn't dominated by free-market ideologues that continue to maintain that blatant lie. Are you confusing the practice of Keynesianism with the ideology of the free market?
global market capitalism is a broad term to give some sense to the way that goods and services are exchanged across the world. it's 'global' because we are living in a world with increasingly free trade and lack of distinction between national borders in economic engagements. it's 'market' because goods and service prices are, generally, set by market forces such as supply and demand. it's 'capitalism' because goods and services are created and owned by capitalists who own private property and the means of production.
you are confusing the system of global market capitalism with economic theories that advocate a best way to regulate this system. Keynesian economics simply has certain assumptions about how changes in supply or demand affect the aggregate output of the economy. their assumptions and theories are different from those who advocate classical or Austrian economics. another group, you point out, are "free-market ideologues," or those who believe in laissez-faire capitalism. they believe that global market capitalism works most effectively when governments do not regulate the market. you should not conflate those who believe in laissez-faire capitalism with anyone who thinks that global market capitalism is a decent system (or one that is so fully entrenched that it shouldn't be scrapped).
i would agree with you that it is fairly obvious that markets are not self-regulating, but laissez-faire ideology has taken deep deep roots in America.
wp64 wrote:I can't tell if you're accusing me of doing this but I guess I tepidly agree with you. I know nothing of actual economics and have very casual familiarity the cannon of political economy. I'm not an analytical mind. Obviously the political atmosphere would benefit immensely from actual analysis of our social and economic realities and nothing is worse than ethically vacuous dogmatism. I'm not an expert but I think Marx's Capital is increasingly relevant to our contemporary situation. That's just a hunch though.jasperness wrote:rehashing divisive ideological battles and "sticking to your principles" is actually bullshit.
i was referring to American conservatives in this case. as both major American political parties are right-of-center in a global context, i find it easier to think of Republicans as the "ideological" party and Democrats as the "pragmatic" party.
i blew off a lot of the Das Kapital reading in my 19th Century Intellectual History class, but i agree with you that it does have lessons for people today, especially given peoples' attitudes post financial crash. despite referring to a completely different historical context than today, the way Marx talks about the devaluation of labor and his outlining of historical materialism provides fundamental insight into the way the value of work is constructed by social relations. you make me want to grab my Marx reader off the shelf. Marx is much less an economist and much more a fantastic and interesting historian.
note that I have only taken one economics class in my life and that was in the 12th grade. i did read Wealth of Nations when I was 16 though and it was one of the hardest things to get through I've ever read. still was much easier than when i tried to read The Bible that summer.
and full disclosure, my new job is at an economics research firm that focuses on natural resource and climate change policy, so i'm kind of being a douche.