> I was wondering whether Palley's post-Keynesian ideas are what Max, Brad,
>Nathan here think the left should be organizing to implement and whether
>they think find it realistic that such policy could indeed be implemented.
>From the back cover, I noted that William Greider, James Galbraith
>(postKeynesian economist), Michael Hout (an author of the Bell Curve
>Critique done by the Berkeley Sociology Dept) and others are quite high
>about Palley's ideas. I didn't notice Doug's name.
Oh, but what would I be doing in such distinguished company?
At last year's URPE summer camp, Palley told me he "loves" capitalism. He offers his global Keynesianism, then, not as the best we could do now under hostile political circumstance, but a good thing in itself. But the whole project seems to me impossible for several reasons - politically impossible, since the ruling class will never concede even on the mildest reforms without the possible threat of expropriation or collapse; ecologically impossible, since life couldn't be sustained with the world's population approaching even half U.S. consumption levels; and economically impossible, since capitalism can't live with the higher wage share and reduced competitive discipline on both firms and workers that come with Keynesianism.
Or, to quote Alan Greenspan from his April 2 speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors (available at <http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/boarddocs/speeches/19980402.htm>):
"Of course, little of this is new. Market economies have succeeded over the centuries by thoroughly weeding out the inefficient and poorly equipped, and by granting rewards to those who could anticipate consumer demand and meet it with minimum use of labor and capital resources. But the newer technologies are goading this process. For good or ill, an unforgiving capitalist process is driving wealth creation. It has become increasingly difficult for policymakers who wish to practice, as they put it, a more "caring" capitalism to realize the full potential of their economies. Their choices have become limited. To the extent they block themselves or portions of their population from what they perceive as harsh competitive pressures, they must accept a lower average standard of living for their populace. As a consequence, increasingly, nations appear to be opting to open themselves to competition, however harsh, and become producers that can compete in world markets. Not irrelevant to the choice is that major advances in telecommunications have made it troublesome for politicians and policymakers to go too far in preempting market forces when the material affluence of market-based economies has become so evident to ubiquitous television watchers, their constituents, around the world."
Doug