>
> I watched most of this, and enjoyed the jovial and relaxed presentations.
> But I didn't agree with Stiglitz's apparent argument that if we only had
> "real" capitalism things would be ok. Though of course we have to try to
> regulate the Wall Street highway robbers, the corrupt "distortions" of the
> system are endemic since those with hugely disproportionate economic power
> will always be able to distort the political regulatory process in their
> favor. That's why we need socialism.
>
> --Joanne
A good point. Dean Baker does the same thing even with regard to other left-liberals. That is he makes some really good arguments about how we really have a conservative nanny state biased in favor of the rich and to a lesser extent the top tier of professionals. But then he argues that it is "loser liberalism" to criticize markets at all , that liberals should argue that strong regulation and single payer health and so forth are the "real" free market policies. I think defending policies that really are NOT market policies on grounds that they are somehow free market is a mistake on two grounds. It is not true, and not true in a way that is obvious. Single Payer would indeed make capitalism work better, but not because single payer is in any way a market solution. And it is ignoring one of the few real bits of wisdom in the whole framing debate, which is that it is a mistake to advance a position on grounds that advance a larger story that undermines it. Joining the drumbeat of "markets uber alles" even to advance genuinely left policies is the real loser liberalism.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598 Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com