On Tue, 20 Sep 1994 12:56:52 -0700 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Roemer has the coupon stock market in the first place. Its because
>in his model, capital assets have been evenly distributed, so that
>all non-wage income is evenly distributed. The model eliminates
>the big capitalists Jim--how did you manage to miss that minor
>detail in Roemer.
I *did not* miss that detail. Rather, I assumed that everybody
knew it.Someone other than I should provide a summary of the
model.
(BTW, I thought that you were going to bring up the
fact that, at least in theory, JR's coupon socialism works better
than the bureaucratic socialism of the old USSR. Granted, though
it's hardly the only scheme that does so.)
> One can make serious arguments about various aspects of the
>Roemer model, as one can make against all market socialist
>proposals.
BTW, I happen to like a different kind of "market socialism"
approach better, that of Pat Devine (no relation). The point is
if one wants market socialism, one has to be conscious of the
problem that market institutions encourage the kind of opportun-
ism that produces the principal/agent problem. As far as I am aware,
Pat Devine's scheme
doesn't do so much, either, and should do so. *All* such
schemes should face Albert & Hahnel's critique rather than
shutting off such questions.
> But two things. First, Roemer recognizes these, and
>attempts to consider them seriously (unlike Jim Devine). And
why the personal enmity here? sorry if I stepped on your toes.
>second, lets get real: markets are going to be around for some
>time whether we like them or not; shouldn't we be debating how best
>to socialize them--to get them to serve egalitarian ends as best
>as possible
Sure markets can't be abolished overnight. But any scheme
for organizing society should be conscious that such institutions
tend to take on a life of their own, develop interest groups
to defend them, etc. (The Roemerian bankers will be the
first to lobby for the return of capitalism and they will have
a lot of power.) There has
to be an effort to reconcile the means (markets, bureaucracies,
etc.) to the ends (democratic collectivism).
I think Diane Elson's ideas of socializing markets makes more
sense. She's very conscious of the fact that production and
distribution are social processes. I'm not sure that Roemer
is socializing markets as much as proposing such a minimal
program that it misses most of the socialist critique of capi-
talism. (Yeah, I know Elson's scheme has its limits, but Bob
Pollin knows very well that I think highly of her scheme as
a first start.)
>as possible--rather than restating the obvious point made by Adam
>Smith himself (even before the "Wealth of Nations", in "A Theory
>of Moral Sentiments"), that, unmediated by institutions that
>promote the common weal, they become swamps of greed and
>competitiveness?
if this is so obvious, why doesn't the vast majority of economists
take it to heart? am I correct to think that J. Roemer's scheme
doesn't take it to heart? he seems to think of markets as natural
organisms that don't need artificial (human-created) underpinnings.
>Along this line, hasn't it become clear that non-
>market forms of social organization--bureaucracies and even
>democracies--will also create lots of room for greedy, competitive
>people to push their way to the top?
For me, *that* is an obvious point.
I never advocated bureaucracy. The point is to
democratize it, not to set up a new USSR-style bureaucracy or
a new caste of Roemerian bankers. BTW, what's to keep the
bankers from acting like the IMF "in the name of the coupon-
holders" just the way the CalPers (which officially acts in
the name of California Public employees) encourages down-
sizing?
I think that socialists would do better to figure out ways to
ensure democratic accontability than to maximize the role of
markets. The market is not a form of democracy, even if everyone
has an equal number of "dollar votes."
> What are the forms of economic organization that can best
>promote a workable, democratic egalitarianism? Isn't that the real
>question?
My initial question was about social conscience. If such
can be encouraged, it helps creates democratic egalitarianism.
It helps deal with the p/a problem (though no such solution
should get *all* the weight) and the voters' paradox.
The trouble is that market-mongering discourages such conscious-
ness (as does bureaucratic command-mongering, BTW).
Final note of humility: as far as I can tell, the Zapatistas aren't
fighting for socialism (either of the Roemerian sort or any other).
But they're *not* fighting for markets, but for democratization.
The latter is the essence of socialism.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
