- cross-posted to:
- technology@hexbear.net
You must log in or # to comment.
Lol every few years the world bank or IMF will publish something that admits that austerity is bad or that government intervention works and then they go right on with same exploitative policies. It’s like liberals acknowledging climate change or Covid, it’s just for the sake of acknowledgment not to do anything about it.
I suspect it’s a cover/hedge for when countries in the imperial core decide to do a little “rules for thee not for me” and do some industrial policy while forcing the periphery into the same ol’ austerity politics. See, the World Bank says this is a good idea so we’re doing it and, uh, yeah, we’ll get around to re-evaluating the terms of the loans to the “developing” world soon.
Sure the house is on fire, but putting out that fire would be unfair to the people who started that fire
: “I fucking love economics!”
: “Economics says porky isn’t a god and shouldn’t be given all the trust in the world.”
: “nooooo! Muh freedumbz!”deleted by creator
Yeah, it turns out Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx all knew what they were talking about. Who would have thought?
Capitalist bullshit incoming:
There is a strong capitalist argument for direct state investment imo. As the sole party with the ability to issue currency, the government has the lowest cost of capital of any other party. Thus they are able to bear the risk of capital investments that would otherwise not be profitable in the private sector. Additionally because the debt they issue is denominated in 30 year terms, they are not as pressured as the private sector to return cash to their investors right away.
They also have a monopoly on force which allows them to exercise powers such as eminent domain. This makes them uniquely well suited to make investments other parties simply cannot.
It’s not just that state investment should happen because it’s the right thing to do, it’s that even within the capitalist framework it’s still the most efficient way to invest capital. China illustrates this most clearly (direct use of state investment in an otherwise liberalized economy, albeit with stronger regulations).
The US needs a revolution for sure, but absent that direct state investment would go a long way towards improving the ailments of deindustrialization. Mfers need to kill the Reagan in their brain.
This was a surprisingly good read. thank you for sharing ;-)
Yes, i fully agree. if the country provides a robust and functioning basic industrial system, the whole society can build on it and win that way. that’s why i advocate for universal basic services: housing, transport, energy production, healthcare, schools should all be provided by the system. then we have time to focus on actually meaningful tasks, instead of stressing out over the basics.
These economic prescriptions have always been self-serving, rather than looking to achieve some universal greater good.
Think of how early capitalist Britain was protectionist until their industries were developed enough to outcompete their rivals, at which point they began preaching free trade.
Now the West is no longer winning that game, so they change their tune.
