232.
Capitalist Myopic Discourse Distorts “Free and Just” Market
Beware
Capitalist Tools
by Robert Reich
ระวัง
เครื่องมือทุนนิยม
โรเบิร์ต ไรช์
ดรุณี
ตันติวิรมานนท์ แปล
Forbes
Magazine likes to call itself a “capitalist tool,” and routinely offers
tool-like justifications for whatever it is that profit-seeking corporations want
to do. Recently it has deployed its small army of corporate defenders and
apologists in the multi-billion dollar fight to keep the effective tax rates of
global corporations low.
แม็กกาซีนโฟ็บส์
ชอบเรียกตัวเองว่าเป็น “เครื่องมือทุนนิยม”. และนำเสนอข้ออ้างสร้างความชอบธรรมที่มีลักษณะเหมือนเครื่องมือให้กับอะไรก็ตามที่บรรษัทแสวงกำไรต้องการทำ. เมื่อเร็วๆ นี้ มันได้ใช้กองทัพน้อยๆ ที่เป็นนักพิทักษ์และนักขอโทษของบรรษัท
ในการต่อสู้ที่มีมูลค่าหลายพันล้าน เพื่อรักษาอัตราภาษีของบรรษัทโลกให้อยู่ในระดับต่ำ.
... Or not. (“ลัทธิทุนนิยม
จะช่วยชีวิตพวกเรา” ... หรือไม่)
One
of its contributors, Tim Worstall, recently took me to task for suggesting that
a way for citizens to gain some countervailing power over large global
corporations is for governments to threaten denial of market access unless
corporations act responsibly.
หนึ่งในนักพิทักษ์, ทิม
วอร์สตอลล์, เมื่อเร็วๆ นี้ทำให้ผมสะอึก จากคำแนะนำที่ว่า หนทางสำหรับพลเมืองที่จะสามารถถ่วงดุลอำนาจกับบรรษัทมหึมาโลก
คือ ต้องให้รัฐบาลทั้งหลายขู่ว่าจะไม่ให้เข้าถึงตลาดของตน
หากบรรษัทไม่ประพฤติอย่างรับผิดชอบ.
He
argues that the benefits to consumers of global corporations are so large that
denial of market access would hurt citizens more than it would help them. The
“value to U.S. consumers of Apple is they can buy Apple products,” Worstall
writes. “Why would you want to punish U.S. consumers, by banning them from buying
Apple products, just because Apple obeys the current tax laws?”
เขาแย้งว่า
ประโยชน์ต่อผู้บริโภค อันมาจากบรรษัทโลก มีมหึมามาก จนการปฏิเสธการเข้าถึงตลาด
จะทำร้ายพลเมืองของตน มากกว่าช่วยพวกเขา. “คุณค่าของ
Apple ต่อผู้บริโภคในสหรัฐฯ คือ พวกเขาสามารถซื้อผลิตภัณฑ์ Apple”, วอร์สตอลล์ เขียน. “แล้วทำไมคุณถึงต้องการลงโทษ
ผู้บริโภคสหรัฐฯ, ด้วยการห้ามพวกเขาจากการซื้อผลิตภัณฑ์ Apple, เพียงเพราะ Apple เชื่อฟังกฎหมายภาษีปัจจุบัน?”
Wortstall
thereby begs the central question. If global corporations obeyed all national
laws — the spirit of the laws as well as the letter of them – and didn’t use
their inordinate power to dictate the laws in the first place by otherwise
threatening to take their jobs and investments elsewhere, there’d be no issue.
ดังนั้น วอร์สตอลล์
ตั้งคำถามกลางใจ.
หากบรรษัทโลกได้เชื่อฟังกฎหมายแห่งชาติทั้งหมด—ทั้งในเชิงจิตวิญญาณและในอักษร—และไม่ได้ใช้อำนาจผิดปกติ
เพื่อบงการกฎหมายแล้ว ซึ่งถ้าทำเช่นนั้น
ก็จะเป็นการคุกคามงานและการลงทุนของพวกเขาเองในที่ต่างๆ, มันก็ไม่มีประเด็น.
It’s
the fact of their power to manipulate laws by playing nations off against one
another – determining how much they pay in taxes, as well as how much they get
in corporate welfare subsidies, how much regulation they’re subject to, and so
on – that raises the question of how citizens can countermand this power.
มันเป็นความจริงที่พวกเขามีอำนาจที่จะหักแขนกฎหมาย
ด้วยการเล่นเกมที่ให้แต่ละชาติสู้กันเอง—เพื่อตัดสินว่า พวกเขาจะต้องจ่ายภาษีเท่าไร,
ตลอดจนว่า พวกเขาจะได้รับการอุดหนุนสวัสดิการบรรษัทเท่าไร,
พวกเขาจะต้องอยู่ใต้กฎเกณฑ์ควบคุมมากสักเท่าไร, ฯลฯ—ซึ่งทำให้เกิดคำถามว่า
พลเมืองจะสามารถเพิกถอนอำนาจนี้ได้อย่างไร.
Consumer
benefits may sometimes exceed such costs. But, as we’ve painfully learned over
the years (the Wall Street meltdown, the BP oil spill in the Gulf, consumer
injuries and deaths from unsafe products, worker injuries and deaths from
unsafe working conditions, climate change brought on by carbon dioxide emissions,
and, yes, manipulation of the tax laws – need I go on?), the social costs may
also exceed consumer benefits.
ผลประโยชน์ต่อผู้บริโภค
อาจเกินต้นทุนดังกล่าวเกินไป. แต่,
ดังที่พวกเราได้เรียนรู้ด้วยความเจ็บปวดในช่วงเวลาที่ผ่านมา
(การหลอมละลายของวอลล์สตรีท, น้ำมัน บีพี รั่วกระเซ็นในอ่าวเม็กซิโก,
ผู้บริโภคบาดเจ็บหรือล้มตายจากผลิตภัณฑ์ที่ไม่ปลอดภัย,
คนงานบาดเจ็บหรือล้มตายจากการทำงานในสถานที่ไม่ปลอดภัย, ภูมิอากาศเปลี่ยนแปลงที่มาจากการปล่อยคาร์บอนไดออกไซด์,
และ, ใช่แล้ว, การหักแขนกฎหมายภาษี—ผมจำเป็นต้องพูดต่ออีกไหม?), ต้นทุนทางสังคม
อาจสูงเกิน ผลประโยชน์ต่อผู้บริโภค.
Why
would an economics writer for a seemingly sophisticated national publication
such as Forbes deny the existence of corporate power to circumvent or create
favorable laws, or dismiss the social costs that corporations bent solely on
maximizing profits routinely disregard? I’ll get back to this in a moment.
ทำไมนักเขียนเศรษฐศาสตร์คนหนึ่ง
ที่เขียนให้สิ่งพิมพ์ระดับชาติที่ดูเหมือนช่ำชอง เช่น โฟ็บส์ จึงปฏิเสธการมีอยู่ของอำนาจบรรษัทในการหลีกเลี่ยง
หรือ สร้างความได้เปรียบ ในกฎหมาย, หรือ ปัดสวะต้นทุนทางสังคมที่บรรษัทดึงดันหักข้อ
เพียงเพื่อให้ได้กำไรสูงสุดเป็นปกติ?
ผมจะกลับมาพูดเรื่องนี้สักประเดี๋ยว.
Worstall
then goes on to criticize me for suggesting that governments also condition market
access on receiving some of the social benefits that corporations now wield to
play countries off against one another, such as good jobs or investments in
research and development. In his eyes, I’m committing the mortal sin of denying
the economics of comparative advantage.
แล้ว วอร์สตอลล์ ก็วิจารณ์ผมที่ได้แนะนำว่า
รัฐบาลต่างๆ ควรกำหนดเงื่อนไขการเข้าถึงตลาดของตน
ในประเด็นผลประโยชน์ทางสังคมที่จะได้รับจากบรรษัท ที่ตอนนี้ บรรษัทถือ (เหมือนแส้)
ที่ปั่นให้ประเทศต่างๆ สู้กันเอง, เช่น งานดี หรือ
การลงทุนในการวิจัยและพัฒนา.
ในสายตาของเขา, ผมได้ทำบาปชนิดคอขาดบาดตาย
ที่ปฏิเสธเศรษฐศาสตร์ของกฎแห่งความได้เปรียบเชิงเปรียบเทียบ.
On
what planet have Forbes’ capitalist tools been living? Many of the world’s most
successful economies – among them, China and Singapore – owe their successes in
part to their conditioning market access on certain kinds of jobs and
investments, including research and development. That’s the way they have come
to use global corporations, rather than be used by them. It’s the same approach
Alexander Hamilton advocated more than two centuries ago in proposing how the
United States develop its manufacturing industries.
ส่วนเรื่อง พิภพอะไรที่
เครื่องมือทุนนิยมของโฟบส์ มีชีวิตอยู่ได้?
หลายระบบเศรษฐกิจในโลกที่ประสบความสำเร็จที่สุด—จีน และ สิงคโปร์ ในบรรดาพวกเขา—เป็นหนี้ความสำเร็จบางส่วนต่อการเข้าถึงตลาดงานและการลงทุนบางอย่าง,
รวมทั้งการวิจัยและพัฒนา.
นั่นเป็นหนทางที่พวกเขาได้ใช้บรรษัทโลก, แทนที่จะถูกพวกเขาใช้. มันเป็นแนวทางเดียวกันกับที่ อเล็กซานเดอร์
แฮมิลตัน ต่อสู้เมื่อสองศตวรรษก่อนหน้า เพื่อนำเสนอว่า สหรัฐฯ
ควรพัฒนาอุตสาหกรรมแปรรูปของตนอย่างไร.
Comparative
advantage is nice in theory, but in a world where powerful global corporations
are using every strategy imaginable to maximize their profits and powerful
governments are strategically employing market access to develop their
economies, it’s just theory.
ความได้เปรียบเชิงเปรียบเทียบ
เป็นทฤษฎีที่น่ารัก, แต่ในโลกที่บรรษัทโลกที่ทรงอำนาจกำลังใช้ทุกๆ
ยุทธศาสตร์ที่จินตนาการได้ เพื่อทำกำไรให้ได้สูงสุด และ รัฐบาลที่ทรงอำนาจต่างๆ
กำลังใช้การเข้าถึงตลาดของตน เป็นยุทธศาสตร์ ในการพัฒนาระบบเศรษฐกิจของตน, มันเป็นเพียงทฤษฎี.
Economics
writers like those affiliated with Forbes Magazine surely are sophisticated
enough to know this as well. So why are they so eager to trot out such economic
nonsense?
นักเขียนเศรษฐศาสตร์
เช่นพวกที่สังกัดกับแม็กกาซีนโฟ็บส์ แน่นอน
ย่อมช่ำชองพอที่จะรู้เรื่องนี้เป็นอย่างดี.
ดังนั้น ทำไมพวกเขาจึงกระหายที่จะลองเล่นเศรษฐเศรษฐศาสตร์ไร้สาระเหล่านี้?
Perhaps
because so much profit is at stake that those who pay their salaries – and who
have also put many academic economists on retainers – prefer that they mislead
the public with simplistic economic theory that appears to justify these
profits rather than to tell the truth.
บางที
อาจเพราะกำไรมหาศาลเป็นเดิมพันอยู่ ขนาดที่พวกที่เป็นคนจ่ายเงินเดือนแก่พวกเขา—และผู้ได้ทำให้นักวิชาการเศรษฐศาสตร์มากมาย
เป็นผู้รับใช้—พอใจที่จะทำให้สาธารณชนเข้าใจผิด ด้วยทฤษฎีตื้นๆ
ที่มีลักษณะให้ความเป็นธรรมต่อกำไร มากกว่าที่จะบอกความจริง.
My
modest suggestion that governments become the agents of their citizens in
bargaining with global capital should hardly raise an eyebrow. But the
capitalist tools at Forbes, and elsewhere, must be worried that average
citizens may be starting to see what’s really going on, and might therefore
take such a suggestion seriously.
คำแนะนำที่เรียบง่ายของผม
ที่ให้รัฐบาลต่างๆ เป็นเอเย่นต์ของปวงพลเมืองของตน ในการต่อรองกับทุนโลก
ควรไม่ทำให้คนเลิกคิ้ว. แต่
เครื่องมือนายทุน ที่โฟ็บส์, และ ในที่อื่นๆ, จะต้องห่วงกังวลว่า
พลเมืองธรรมดาทั่วไป อาจเริ่มเห็นว่า อะไรกำลังเกิดขึ้นจริงๆ, ดังนั้น
อาจเอาจริงเอาจังกับคำแนะนำนี้.
This work is
licensed under a Creative Commons License
Robert Reich, one of the nation’s
leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public
Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California
at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as
secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him
one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has
written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, Aftershock: The Next
Economy and America’s Future; The Work of Nations; Locked in the Cabinet;
Supercapitalism; and his newest, Beyond Outrage. His syndicated columns,
television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people
each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and
Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found
at www.robertreich.org.
โรเบิร์ต ไรช์,
หนึ่งในผู้เชี่ยวชาญแนวหน้าแห่งชาติ เรื่องงานและเศรษฐกิจ, เป็นศาสตราจารย์
คณะนโยบายสาธารณะ ที่มหาวิทยาลัยแคลิฟอร์เนีย เบอร์กลีย์. เขาได้ทำงานรับใช้สามรัฐบาลแห่งชาติ, ล่าสุด
เป็นเลขานุการ แรงงาน ภายใต้รัฐบาล บิลล์ คลินตัน. นิตยสารไทม์
ได้ยกย่องให้เขาเป็นหนึ่งในสิบเลขาฯ ครม
ที่มีประสิทธิผลที่สุดในศตวรรษที่ผ่านมา.
เขาได้เขียนหนังสือ สิบสามเล่ม, รวมทั้งหนังสือขายดีล่าสุด, Aftershock: The Next Economy and
America’s Future; The Work of Nations; Locked in the Cabinet; Supercapitalism;
and his newest, Beyond Outrage.
เขาเขียนคอลัมน์ประจำ, ออกรายการทีวี, และ แสดงความเห็นในวิทยุสาธารณะ
ที่ประชาชนนับล้านฟังในแต่ละสัปดาห์. เขายังเป็นบรรณาธิการก่อตั้ง
ของ American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group
Common Cause.
บล็อกที่คนอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางของเขา www.robertreich.org.
Published on
Tuesday, May 28, 2013 by RobertReich.com
capt
jim mcintyre • a day ago
Forbes
is for the piggies that are always thinking of their MONEY.
If
it was written by Satan himself it would not be much different, just food for
thought that the greedy consume! Forbes sucks!
greghilbert
> capt jim mcintyre • 13 hours ago
Reich
has recently shifted in speaking out against the corruption of national
governments and politicians by the wealthy corporate elite. I hope he continues
to part company with the Obama corporatist side of the duopoly, recognizing
that con-artistry disguised as lesser evil does not counter greater evil, but
in fact intentionally increases the power and wealth of the wealthy corporate
elite.
That
said, my yellow caution flag remains raised when it comes to Reich. He has long
shilled for "too little too late" Dems, and could simply be issuing
some articles that serve to keep heat off Obama and himself at the same time.
And I'll keep raising the yellow flag to Reich until the day he clearly and
unequivocally denounces Obama as a con-artist, and calls for the overthrow of
the duopoly.
Doug_Terpstra
> greghilbert • 10 hours ago
Right.
Reich has been in Obama's neoliberal veal pen far too long for him to grasp
that when he questions Forbes for salary-related conflicts-of-interest he is
engaging in classic projection --- the pot pointing a finger at the kettle. And
when he says Forbes is sophisticated enough to know that corporations wield
outsize power to circumvent law and social accountability, then surely he too
is smart enough to know that said corporations have also already captured the
very government to which he offers his now moot "suggestions".
Academicians need to get out more.
Regrettably,
it may be a bit late for Reich. By not directly challenging Obama as primary
malefactor early on when it was painfully obvious that he worked exclusively
for Wall Street and militarists, he's rendered himself almost irrelevant. Soon,
when his masters no longer need his distracting partisanship, he can repent to
an empty hall.
Quenna
• a day ago
The
governing and corporate elites around the globe seek the following:
Sad
to say, but, Robert Reich is part of this ghoulish ruling elite, who seek human
sacrifice as part of its agenda. Reich is nothing more than controlled opposition
who writes articles for his career and hence, to ensure it (careerism). When
Reich was in Clinton's cabinet, he helped sell out America. People like Reich
talk a big game when they are out of office. Reich should shut up because he
was part of the problem in the 1990s and still is in 2013.
Wars
are part of this scheme to depopulate the earth, too. Anyone who "fights
for freedom" in Iraq or, Afghanistan, is nothing but a pawn and human
sacrifice for the governing elite who brainwash the people and set up phony
terror attacks so the peasants get scared and "join the army" only to
die in needless battle for the global bankers agenda.
The
depopulation of the globe/earth has been a goal of the
U.S.
Elites and led by Henry Kissinger since the 1970's. The Trilateral Commission
of Zbigniew Brzezinski also agrees with the Depopulation agenda as well as no
democracy. The elites hate democracy and do all they can to ensure it never
takes hold.
Your
life means nothing to these people. The life of soldiers means nothing to the
ghoulish elites, either. The elites don't care one iota to the life/death or
health/wealth of soldiers. The elites don't care whether anyone lives or dies.
You mean nothing to the ruling elite, either. You are all nothing but human
sacrifices to the likes of Barack Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc.
The
governing elites will never care about anything but remaining
loyal
their own cult, as they mock the common man/woman every damn day.
see
more
qatzelok
> Quenna • a day ago
Yes,
but for the observant, the author offers this mea culpa:
"...so
much profit is at stake that those who pay their salaries – and who have also
put many academic economists on retainers – prefer that they mislead the public
with simplistic economic theory that appears to justify these profits rather
than to tell the truth."
Tom
Carberry > Quenna • a day ago
I
agree except the part about the de-populate the earth. The rich like
overpopulation. Every extra person devalues the worth of the others in the
capitalist market place, ensuring low wages and a compliant work force.
The
rest of us should want less people. The whole idea of "be fruitful and
multiply" came about in patriarchal societies after a massive depopulation
event.
Almost
every society across the globe has a flood myth. Unlike a lot of people, I don't
believe that they each had a localized event, but I think something happened to
the entire planet, all at once.
The
tales across the globe of only one family surviving, or a small group of
survivors, I think have a historical basis.
Humans
did almost die out, but the comeback has gone to far.
port_lookout
> Tom Carberry • 21 hours ago
I
usually agree with what you have to say, Tom, but I think Reich is right about
this de-population thing.
The
rich liked overpopulation in the old days when muscle was king, before
sophisticated digital mechanization.
Today
they consider most of the population superfluous - not needed as labor, and a
drag on the oligarchy's economic planning. Most are to them, as Kissinger
reportedly said, 'useless feeders'.
Why
is the media and government going all out in support of homosexuality? Because
to the degree that their pro-homosexual propaganda is successful, the
population will be reduced.
Have
you ever seen, in recent times, the MSM and government support anything that
the oligarchy opposed?
The
Rockefeller Foundation has, for decades, promoted a reduction in world
population.
Have
a listen to one of the oligarchy's top generals, David Rockefeller, hold forth
on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Chrysippus
> port_lookout • 16 hours ago
You
guys are off base. De-population is important because the world is running out
of resources. That's it, plain and simple. I agree that Kissinger is a swinish
scumbag.
MonkesTale
> port_lookout • 17 hours ago
Oh,
my. "Why is the media and
government going all out in support of homosexuality? Because to the degree
that their pro-homosexual propaganda is successful, the population will be
reduced." Of course it wouldn't have any thing to do with making the world
a little less ugly, a little more bareable to those born gay. The government
and the media are far too evil to consider anything like that. It's all about
trying to cut the world's population by some very tiny percent (remember, many
want to adopt or have artificial insemination). Egads, the conspiracy theories
just never end. I sometimes wonder if humans or chimps are the higher life
form.
qatzelok
> MonkesTale • 16 hours ago
"The
government and the media are far too evil to consider anything like that."
While
it's impossible to say "they're too evil" to consider something, it's
also impossible to say "they're not evil enough to not" consider
something. Of course a commercial media and a commercial elite will consider
all options for sustaining their high resource consumption. That's all this
current Elite ever considers.
Goofar
> MonkesTale • 11 hours ago
There
is no evidence a person is "born gay."
"There
is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual
develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much
research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social,
and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that
permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular
factor or factors." (http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/...
Besides,
we know that anger is biological, yet we condemn the behavior road rage. So
even if one is born gay, it doesn't mean that you can't condemn homosexual
behavior as immoral.
A
better argument is to attack the notion that homosexuality is immoral. If you
want to condemn homosexuals because the Bible condemns them, then, to be
consistent you must also condemn adulterers, fornicators (people who have sex
before marriage) and even disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 states
that disobedient children are to be stoned).
port_lookout
> MonkesTale • 15 hours ago
If
you think the same government that daily kills and maims innocents in the
middle east, and also consistently maltreats its poor at home, is in the
slightest concerned about "making the world a little less ugly, a little
more bareable [sic] to those born gay" just because it's the right thing
to do, then you are very gullible indeed. The government has an ulterior
motive.
If
the % of practicing homosexuals in society without positive propaganda is 3%
and with positive propaganda that is increased to 8 or 10%, the reduction of
world population would be a lot more than a "very tiny percent".
I
have no objection to homosexuals doing whatever they would like to do, in
private.
I
object to them being harassed in any way for their sexual preference.
I
object to media and government promotion of homosexuality.
It
is generally accepted that humans are a higher life form than chimps. If you
decide to believe otherwise that's ok, but it's not advisable to shout it from
the village square.
Tom
Carberry > port_lookout • 20 hours ago
You
have a point. I know a lot of people have talked about Bill Gates and his
vaccination program and depopulation, too.
ErnestineBass
> Tom Carberry • 16 hours ago
And
everywhere Gates goes, Monsanto is right behind him.
Tom
Carberry > ErnestineBass • 12 hours ago
Yes,
and Obama too.
DarwinsBeagle
> port_lookout • 14 hours ago
I
agree. With technology and robots, they need only enough slaves to keep the
production running. There's talk amongst elitist circles about an ideal
population of around 500 million. As captain Picard sez, "make it
so".
Goofar
> Tom Carberry • 11 hours ago
No,
Tom, the flood myth is just that: a myth. Besides what rational person would
believe in a sadistic god who would wipe out almost all of mankind on a whim?
And why did he save all those disease-causing microorganisms?
The
reason the Torah states that we all have a duty to reproduce is that when the
Torah was written death rates were high (famine, disease, constant war, high
infant mortality rate, etc.). Any population biologist will tell you that if
death rates are high, then birth rates must also be high to maintain the
population.
The
reason the Roman Catholic church condemns abortion, birth control and
homosexuality is that these all prevent reproduction. If you are not
reproducing then you violate the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.
The
reason the Roman Catholic church is wrong is that what was true 3000 years ago,
is no longer true. Today death rates are not high and birth rates are too high.
Tom
Carberry > Goofar • 2 hours ago
Tons
of evidence exists to support the flood myth around the world. The eastern
seaboard of the US rose by over 30 feet in the last 5000 years. Evidence exists
that this rise happened in a matter of a few hours in the form of a tidal wave.
At about the same time, the other hemisphere, from north Africa to China became
a desert, also basically overnight in geologic terms.
MonkesTale
• a day ago
CD
editors: How about giving us the latest Stiglitz article in The Guardian?
Stiglitz argues for worldwide minimum tax regulation and also says,
"The
US by itself could go a long way to moving reform along: any firm selling goods
there could be obliged to pay a tax on its global profits, at say a rate of
30%, based on a consolidated balance sheet, but with a deduction for corporate
profits taxes paid in other jurisdictions (up to some limit). In other words,
the US would set itself up as enforcing a global minimum tax regime. Some might
opt out of selling in the US, but I doubt that many would."
lucky9
> MonkesTale • a day ago
Regardless
of his past, I think Reich's post is a pretty powerful idea - 'limiting access
to markets', and why shouldn't 'we the people' have that power? I like how
Stiglitz's idea also fits into that, forcing a tax structure or else, 'limit
access to markets'. I appreciate both of them gettting this idea out, because
we may be along way off from implementing it, but talking about reminds the
many who have forgotten we have this power.
JohannIvan
• a day ago
I
just choked on my coffee. Robert Reich - with an article titled "Beware
Capitalist Tools"?
What
next? Dick Cheney authoring a piece titled "Beware War Profiteers"?
How
about Clinton writing "The Dangers of Free Trade Job Off-shoring"?
Henry
Kissinger: "My Struggle for Peace".
Robert
has moved out of the political realm into comedy.
Lostmylastpassword
> JohannIvan • 21 hours ago
Yes.
The "Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of
Public Policy at the University of California" most definitely wrote that
title tongue in cheek. Like all the liberals who fell into high paying spots
for their service to the Party he is really enjoying himself. I think the
liberals might despise poor people more than the conservatives. Maybe.
Lostmylastpassword
> JohannIvan • 21 hours ago
Sure.
People have to realize how important the Clinton crowd was to our current
predicament and how essential Reich was in giving cover to Clinton's left flank
during the main triangulation years of '93-'97. He has been doing the same for
various DLC hacks ever since.
Scott_ffolliott
• a day ago
Apple,
Microsoft, Google, Oracle, AT&T, Verizon et al have set back development in
technology many decades. This model is wrong.
"Whether
you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the
theory which decides what can be observed." - Albert Einstein
Gubdeb
• a day ago
Then
we have the government types like Reich who feed directly off the citizens
taxes. Government and corporations, at least by what we have here in the U.S.,
are both leeches. Funny, it's Reich's peers who take that money and use it in
their war machine to plow-up fertile lands (i.e. nations) overseas in order to
let the capitalists in to sow their seeds. Am I not right?
oregoncharles
• 21 hours ago
Reich's
discussion of "comparative advantage" is oddly unsophisticated,
probably because he's an economist.
"Comparative
advantage" is an article of economic faith, and the key underpinning of
academic justifications for "free trade." It was proposed by a
British economist named Ricardo shortly after Adam Smith. There is nothing
wrong with the logic of the theory; it's just that it no longer applies to the
real world - something Reich hints at here, but doesn't go into.
That's
because the logic depends on the premise that both capital and labor stay home.
In the 18th Century, that was at least partly true. But today, in a masterpiece
of duplicity, the same catch phrase is used to justify the international free
flow of CAPITAL - in fact, that's a central goal of globalization. The theory
of comparative advantage actually calls for strict capital controls, which are
what the ecological economist Herman Daly calls for, after explaining the above
logical flaw.
Despite
all this, most economists still accept the theory and apply it to justify
"free"ing capital. Either they're fundamentally dishonest, or they
haven't read (or understood) the founding documents of their field.
P.S.:
you're right - most people couldn't care less what Ricardo wrote or how it
applies now. But if you live in a college town, as I do, or operate in an
academic setting, you will find that people actually defer to the authority of
economists. This, along with their obscenely incompetent performance during the
bubble and crash, is a good way to undercut that authority.
see
more
Contrarian
> oregoncharles • 20 hours ago
I
can't speak about all economists but the ones I worked with (more like worked
under) when I was employed at one of those large banking corporations were't so
much dishonest as deluded by their own b.s. They would "crunch
numbers" to produce predictions that matched what senior management had in
mind, then would cite their own predictions without naming the source to make
more supposedly "scientific" predictions, believing all of it all the
while, all the way.
Each
year's "economic forecasts" made the last year's look ridiculous but
they all never noticed being busy moving on to the current supposed results.
oregoncharles
> Contrarian • 17 hours ago
In
other words, they do, and think, what they're paid to do and think. That's
called "corrupt."
Contrarian
> oregoncharles • 17 hours ago
They
don't ― and won't ― see
themselves as corrupt. If only they could. Maybe some somewhere realize that's
what they are, but in my limited one-place-only experience, they believed
wholeheartedly in both the accuracy and virtue of what they were doing.
Chrysippus
> Contrarian • 16 hours ago
We've
known for a long time that "Austrian economics" is a fraud. It was
promulgated at a time when it was thought that markets were rational. They are
not rational, and that's why the term "dismal science" is an
oxymoron. It's no more a science than reading tea leaves. Hayek and von Mises
are passé.
Goofar
> Chrysippus • 10 hours ago
Saying
markets are irrational is a category mistake (saying money is speech is a
category mistake). Only humans are rational or irrational.
Chrysippus
> Goofar • 2 hours ago −
You
know what I mean, goofer, It means that you cannot predict what markets will
do, because of human intervention. They do not operate with mathematical
certainty. And that's the "category mistake." Read up on your Ryle,
why don't you.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น