***This post was originally put in our forum by user MarkTwain and reposted here.***
this is a really interesting Ebook by dean baker (Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.)
In his new book, economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of ‘nanny state’ policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It’s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes ‘ decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care.
Hi, nice catch, I didn’t read the whole book, but I understand the basic premise. In any system the wealthy/powerful control more than their fair share. Do conservative economists use more government intervention than necessary for the favour of themselves? I suppose it is possible, and it probably happens, but that’s not an underlying objective of right-wing (keynesian if I may call it) economics. Market forces are important and are generally left to dictate the economy, whereas government intervention is available to help/correct if needed.
Many things can’t be stopped / helped:
i.e. The rules of the nanny state are structured to increase the supply of less-skilled labor, while restricting the supply of some types of highly skilled professionals.
Right now where I live there is nothing that can stop the demand of less skilled workers. thE entire economy is searching for more supply of all kinds of workers, and I’m willing to bet, the majority being less skilled. THe education factor right now is not playing through because all jobs are required. When things cool you’ll see these jobs disappear and a ratio favouring educated individuals, but that’s not a result of careful conservative planning, but market forces, (less demand for housing for example). If things decline even further you’ll find that the ‘elie’ loose jobs too, but, at the end of the day, the elite of the elite always remain because they have the power, the money, the wealth, etc. In the UK i’m sure it’s slightly different since you have an existing ‘elitist’ system since the days of the monarchy that still exists today. Thoughts?
i suppose its demythologising the right wing/conservative “efficient” “free”etc tag.
re elites or establishment in the uk im not sure how they compare with other places, we have a set of old families including the royals which still have alot of wealth, land and influence i suppose but i think its still the corporate, business, political and media elite that have the most say. (with the old power being a feature within the political and business world)
the fact is its hard to say, power has become so concentrated nobody on the ground knows whats going on. (you have to pick through alot of complex messages and information, and often that requires an education, while economists may be able to understand trends and interpret the media reports to build a bigger picture of the economy they may have less ability to do so in political terms, or media/PR terms…..I favour a break up of power centres, smaller units building into a whole, it allow a greater amount of transparency and accountability (i.e. access to power)