Quoting Carrol Cox <[email protected]>:
[email protected] wrote:
Jim D. wrote:
>
Don't you think these are strong arguments? Permanant nationalization
with haircuts is economically just and provides greater stability.
Even some mainstream folks are starting to concede these arguments
(e.g. Buiter).
Don't you think we should be making these arguments as much as we can,
in order to try to influence the public discussion, instead of
conceding the public discussion to the mainstream folks?
You would still have a capitalist organization of work, so what
difference would it make. And the slogan is absurd. NO legislation, not
even any constitutional amendment, is permanent. The very word applied
to any action of the state is a serious lie.
Carrol
Carrol,
Thanks for your comment. Yes, you would still have a capitalist
organization of work. The nationalization of banks is also not
socialism, but it could be an important step on the road to socialism.
The use of government banks to pursue important public policy
objectives, rather than profit maximization, would be a model for the
rest of the economy. More and more people might start to realize that
an entire economy run according to democratically decided policy
objectives would be preferable for the vast majority of Americans to
our current economy run according to profit maximization, which
produces great inequality and is also highly unstable and prone to
crises which cause great suffering and hardship, like the present
crisis. Surely we can create an economic system better than this!
Fred
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
