Really good talk, and I am so sad I missed it live (time of day is just bad for me, but that's how it is). On the US inflation is a bit higher then the one seen in EU/AUS/UK, dont forget that US use a different way of calculating inflation and that it, as a general rule, therefore tend to be a tiny bit higher.
Would have like to heard about Critical Macro Finance. What are his thoughts on Danielas proposal to start nationalizing pension funds? I think we should nationalize most idle funds.
36:00 The line between a social democrat and a socialist depends on what you mean by "socialist." Democratic socialists and social democrats are effectively the same thing, but the difference is that SDs want to keep capitalism while DSs want to use the same reforms as SD to eventually transition to socialism (in both cases, capitalists never let it get too far, and always, in every instance, start the drive back towards standard capitalism via "austerity" etc). There are a lot of branches of socialism (Richard Wolff gives 3 "types," but they're not socialism. They're *pathways* to socialism, which don't have good track records for success. Better outcomes in general than standard capitalism, especially considering where the countries using them started, but never transitioning away from top-down to bottom-up control), but the "mainstream" type is best described in one word: democracy. Democracy in the workplace, democracy in the community, democracy between communities and workplaces, etc. Democracy ("from below," not above) is the core principle of socialism. With that in mind, the difference between a social democrat and a socialist is that... 1) a social democrat is fine with maintaining a largely top-down economic system that merely benefits them more than standard capitalism; how much that system exploits the people of other countries is not something they really think about (though individuals might, it won't change that they support the exploitation for the national/personal benefit); 2) a social democrat is fine with maintaining a largely top-down political system that "allows" them to use it as a middle-man for negotiations between the public interest and the private capitalist interest; while that does benefit the people more than standard capitalism, the majority of people still have to negotiate with an extreme minority for everything (it's capitalism. It's a top-down economic system based on feudalism), the capitalist class will still have a lot of sway in politics (even with regulations, their propaganda will always be the most prominent), and the state will still do its best to blunt the public demand in favor of the private capitalists, no matter how big or small a difference it makes; 3) a social democrat is still an imperialist when push comes to shove; as mentioned above, in order to maintain their comfort, countless others must suffer great poverty, war, etc, and while the social democrat may be morally opposed to it, they will always support the capitalist system that perpetuates it. As for socialists... 4) a socialist rejects the top-down economic system in favor of a democratically controlled one; the control is not via a central state authority, but the many communities (which consists of workers and non-workers, like the elderly, the infirm, the children, etc) discussing the issues to the greatest extent possible in order to come to an eventual decision on how to manage things (yes, it takes a long time, but it's decided by the people, not someone representing an elite class posing as a public servant), using trial-and-error to find the best mix of policies, etc, but always democratically; 5) a socialist rejects the top-down political system; see #4 6) a socialist seeks global solidarity ("workers of the world unite") in all things, economic and political; the goal is that all who can should work according to their abilities *and desires*, that all should get what they *need* to live a reasonably good life, and that there be no exploitation of one by another. The goal, in short, is to transition from the dog-eat-dog reality of capitalism, through the building of democratic (economic and political) norms of socialism, to the "stateless, classless, moneyless," post-scarcity global society of communism. It's a simple thing to distinguish between a social democrat and a socialist. Socialists don't want capitalism or other top-down systems that perpetuate oppression, whereas social democrats see it/them as useful tools for the public benefit of their particular country/federation.
@bina nocht You're a social democrat. Generosity, empathy and all of the other virtues exist under capitalism, but they're stifled because people are worried about their own survival, incentivized to be selfish and seek greater wealth, etc. All of those things you listed that you want can happen under capitalism (social democracy), but there's a catch; your son is correct. You can have those things in social democracy (capitalism), but "for how long" is the issue. If you look at the social democracies of Europe that do those things, even if imperfectly, you'll notice a very longstanding trend. Since it's the one I "kind of" know better than the rest, let's look at Sweden as an example. There's a common talking point among capitalists that "Sweden rejected socialism." The talking point among capitalists is that it was the welfare state being too expensive or taxes too high that caused the people to "reject" socialism; the truth doesn't matter when you're trying to propagandize for something profitable and against something less profitable. What happened in Sweden was a strong socialist movement that was pushing for a future through legislation that would have strongly resembled the one you describe, but the movement stalled and reversed course. The social democrat party became autocratic and stopped listening to the demands of the public that made up its base, which lost them control of the government after ruling for 44 years. Ever since then Sweden has been deregulating slowly, moving backwards towards standard capitalism. Why does that matter as an example, though? If you do things the "right" way, you should be able to protect against that kind of regression, right? Thinking that way shows that you don't understand capitalism. Capitalism isn't just an economic system, but also a political one that disguises itself as a purely economic system. You can't reduce it to small-scale trading or even stock markets with no consequences. When the pursuit of wealth for your personal acquisition (or even nationally when in competition with other nations) is a significant (or "not insignificant") driving factor in an economy, seeking profit at any cost becomes a given. Individual business owners can be very generous and responsible, even in capitalism, but the profit motive will push them out of the competition as those seeking more profit build larger business empires/corporations and outcompete them through sheer volume. They can also do like Amazon, underpricing their goods to drive the others out of business, and then raising their prices after securing the market. You can make laws against that sort of thing, but that still assumes that capitalism is something that it isn't: a purely economic system. Capitalists rightfully (according to capitalist values) see everything as a commodity. You've probably heard "everyone has their price" at some point. A person's integrity and loyalty can be bought and sold, just like any hat or chocolate bar or stock. Now turn your eyes to the political system, which is made up of people who exist within the capitalist system, even as regulated and restrained as you imagine it should be. Their integrity and loyalty is also a commodity for those with the money to buy it, or if you look at things historically, they are themselves the owners of businesses (or valuable stocks) that they have an interest in protecting and enriching. Either way, there is a fundamental turth about any profit-based economic system that social democrats can never truly address without abandoning capitalism: no matter how well regulated, the pursuit of profits will always result in the corruption of government, and the coopting of government towards the ends of pursuing profits. You can regulate everything and put all of the necessities like housing and food into the hands of the public, even completely removing them from State control, but capitalists will always find a way to convince people that the regulations themselves are harmful and should be removed, that the necessities would be more efficiently controlled by private entities that specialize in it, etc. It may take many generations, but over time capitalists will gain control as a consequence of seeking greater profit. Further, imagine the society that would exist beyond the dream of generosity. People become complacent when they are guaranteed the basics. Every social democracy backs that up. There are people who still fight for better, but overall the people are content to let their government do as it will, provided that it "feels" like it is working in their interest. They don't pay as close attention to the machinations of the elite, or the ways and consequences of their government siding with the elite. In most political systems, there are three powers: the people, the State, and the elite (capitalists, aristocrats, etc). In social democracy, the State is the mediator between the people and the elite, but consider that there are fewer elites, and they all have astronomically more influence with the State than any number of non-elites. Your son is correct. You can't have capitalism and socialism at the same time. Capitalists will always seek to increase profits, which corresponds to an increase in political power, which allows them to undermine any socialistic goals as a powerful minority against a mostly powerless majority. It doesn't matter how well you regulate capitalism, because that power dynamic won't stop existing. Any time there are people with significantly more resources, those with significantly less have to band together to equalize the power, and that can mean that one elite can exert more influence than dozens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of non-elites, depending on the disparity. Add to that the influence that the elite have over the media, allowing them to convince many of those non-elites to support the agenda of the elite (look at the U.S. as an example. Conservatives are easily convinced to side with the most profiteering party against their own interests. Liberals are also convinced to side with the other party which serves the same interests, but in a different way...and the media is owned by those interests). Socialism isn't a set of policies or demands for "better." It's economic and political democracy based in leftist (that is, anti-hierarchy, which requires empathy, generosity, etc) values. You can't have that under capitalism, because capitalism by its very nature is hierarchical. You can have a stock market without consequences only if it's effectively just a simulation for enjoyment, rather than a tool for transferring wealth from one person to another. You can trade hats beyond what is needed so long as nobody gains more influence over the economy or democracy (which is made up of people) from doing so. In other words, you have to remove profit as a motive entirely, or else that motive will cause backsliding into the conditions you thought you overcame. A "vanguard" is a term that people today should avoid. In the times of Marx and Lenin, the industrial workers, not a political elite, were considered the "vanguard" simply because they were the most socially connected to each other, making them more conscious of their class. The way it's commonly used is as an elite that takes on the mantle of "leader" while the masses do the grunt work. To achieve socialism (economic/political democracy based in leftist values), you need a supermajority of the people to want it enough to create it for themselves, because you can't create such a democracy through elite/vanguard rule; it can only be done by the people themselves, building it for themselves, and maintaining and improving it by themselves together as a society.
@bina nocht I had to cut it short, believe it or not, because of post length. I'll say that what you say you want sounds great. It's "better" than what currently exists in the majority of the world. We should always strive for better outcomes, but we should do it with our eyes open to the implications of both what/how we change and what we don't change, such as antagonisms between them. Understanding capitalism (and other top-down systems) is important to understanding why it is antagonistic to such a future, and it gives you the tools to build a better future. Building socialism (and eventual communism) means building and normalizing democracy at the community level, and empowering that democracy so that important decisions are made by the whole community rather than "leaders" (like economic or party elites) after discussing the issues, formulating possible solutions, making compromises, agreeing on solutions, upholding the decisions as a community, and revisiting the issue to maintain or improve on the decision as necessary. Letting profit or significant wealth disparity into the equation, even if all needs and most wants are taken care of, undermines and degrades democracy by giving a few individuals more influence than the rest, no matter how well you regulate it. So think of socialism as the people of a community building a cohesive community that is governed by the people of that community through common democracy, working together with other similar communities to create a vast network that is mutualistic, cooperative, and self-governing. If you look at it that way, then building socialism is something only the people of your community can do for themselves, and not something that can be done for you by some obscure "vanguard." It can be started under capitalism to change society from the bottom-up into a socialist society by normalizing socialism, but unless capitalism is overthrown by spreading and institutionalizing that bottom-up approach (meaning that it becomes the standard, not just some outlier experiment), then it won't last because capitalism will always find a way to undermine it...or else use false pretenses to destroy it...or else just destroy it for national (i.e. capitalist) security.
Towards the end, worker democracy get a mention. A point on that, that I often fell gets forgotten, is that a lowering of the power distance can be an alternative way for workers to obtain more say in their daily work. This imo should not replace worker input/voting power in board decisions but will have the effect that the individual worker will have a higher say in their own daily work.
A lot of the things discussed here are talking points that Varoufakis employs. I know he is no longer an academic and it might be hard to get a hold of him, but maybe he would be an interesting guest. He seems like he can't really stop drinking his own coolaid sometimes though, but I do not know if that is only when he has his politician hat on.
Post-Keynesian theory is a school of thought which is more concerned with using a theory of the macroeconomy to produce policy proposals that get us to full employment. Market socialism is a school of thought which is usually less concerned with formal modelling, but still utilizes theory and ethics to argue for a market system of collective ownership. They’re not at odds with one another, but you could be a post-Keynesian with more moderate views on organizing the economy (like a social democrat).
It’s disappointing hearing his sidestep of the last question. The problem with non-Marxist economics is that none of them can answer that question. Economic power always leads to political power. Businesses will always use their power to lower tax and deregulate the economy. It doesn’t matter how much the state sets regulations because the power imbalance in the economy will always lead to capital being able to force the state to represent their interests.
Very rarely do they confront the historical intersection of political & economic power. They're quick to importune governments to 'act,' but they're largely & regrettably blind to the cozy affiliation between the regulators & the regulated. The latter don't eschew involvement with the former in some crusade for laissez-faire, but welcome the opportunity to reach into the State's coffers. If anything, there's no folklore more useful to the corporations at the helm than the desirable fiction that the State is casted as the trust-busting crusader for the powerless, bullied consumer. But the real failing is actually piercing the veil of 'economic power,' discerning the political-coercion at its foundation.
@bina nocht Well, what do you mean 'economic power'? The genuine, self-supplying power of reciprocity & democracy, of fair, open competition? Or, the bogus counterfeit of conferred power, which only reaps 'advantages' by brute force & manipulation?
As a political economy masters grad. I truly appreciate Marxian and post-Keynesian economists. Even institutionalist economists tend to provide a far more coherent understanding of capitalism than the neoclassical economics that dominates our economics departments. I find it absurd that a school of economics can dominate an entire field while publishing the most incoherent mathematical gibberish. Maths and modeling isn't inherently bad, however if your assumptions and structure is total nonsense, then what is the point?
Quite an enjoyable discussion, thanks fellas.
Really good talk, and I am so sad I missed it live (time of day is just bad for me, but that's how it is).
On the US inflation is a bit higher then the one seen in EU/AUS/UK, dont forget that US use a different way of calculating inflation and that it, as a general rule, therefore tend to be a tiny bit higher.
Would have like to heard about Critical Macro Finance. What are his thoughts on Danielas proposal to start nationalizing pension funds? I think we should nationalize most idle funds.
Great talk, definitely something I plan to investigate further in the future.
36:00 The line between a social democrat and a socialist depends on what you mean by "socialist."
Democratic socialists and social democrats are effectively the same thing, but the difference is that SDs want to keep capitalism while DSs want to use the same reforms as SD to eventually transition to socialism (in both cases, capitalists never let it get too far, and always, in every instance, start the drive back towards standard capitalism via "austerity" etc).
There are a lot of branches of socialism (Richard Wolff gives 3 "types," but they're not socialism. They're *pathways* to socialism, which don't have good track records for success. Better outcomes in general than standard capitalism, especially considering where the countries using them started, but never transitioning away from top-down to bottom-up control), but the "mainstream" type is best described in one word: democracy. Democracy in the workplace, democracy in the community, democracy between communities and workplaces, etc. Democracy ("from below," not above) is the core principle of socialism.
With that in mind, the difference between a social democrat and a socialist is that...
1) a social democrat is fine with maintaining a largely top-down economic system that merely benefits them more than standard capitalism; how much that system exploits the people of other countries is not something they really think about (though individuals might, it won't change that they support the exploitation for the national/personal benefit);
2) a social democrat is fine with maintaining a largely top-down political system that "allows" them to use it as a middle-man for negotiations between the public interest and the private capitalist interest; while that does benefit the people more than standard capitalism, the majority of people still have to negotiate with an extreme minority for everything (it's capitalism. It's a top-down economic system based on feudalism), the capitalist class will still have a lot of sway in politics (even with regulations, their propaganda will always be the most prominent), and the state will still do its best to blunt the public demand in favor of the private capitalists, no matter how big or small a difference it makes;
3) a social democrat is still an imperialist when push comes to shove; as mentioned above, in order to maintain their comfort, countless others must suffer great poverty, war, etc, and while the social democrat may be morally opposed to it, they will always support the capitalist system that perpetuates it. As for socialists...
4) a socialist rejects the top-down economic system in favor of a democratically controlled one; the control is not via a central state authority, but the many communities (which consists of workers and non-workers, like the elderly, the infirm, the children, etc) discussing the issues to the greatest extent possible in order to come to an eventual decision on how to manage things (yes, it takes a long time, but it's decided by the people, not someone representing an elite class posing as a public servant), using trial-and-error to find the best mix of policies, etc, but always democratically;
5) a socialist rejects the top-down political system; see #4
6) a socialist seeks global solidarity ("workers of the world unite") in all things, economic and political; the goal is that all who can should work according to their abilities *and desires*, that all should get what they *need* to live a reasonably good life, and that there be no exploitation of one by another. The goal, in short, is to transition from the dog-eat-dog reality of capitalism, through the building of democratic (economic and political) norms of socialism, to the "stateless, classless, moneyless," post-scarcity global society of communism.
It's a simple thing to distinguish between a social democrat and a socialist. Socialists don't want capitalism or other top-down systems that perpetuate oppression, whereas social democrats see it/them as useful tools for the public benefit of their particular country/federation.
@bina nocht You're a social democrat. Generosity, empathy and all of the other virtues exist under capitalism, but they're stifled because people are worried about their own survival, incentivized to be selfish and seek greater wealth, etc. All of those things you listed that you want can happen under capitalism (social democracy), but there's a catch; your son is correct. You can have those things in social democracy (capitalism), but "for how long" is the issue. If you look at the social democracies of Europe that do those things, even if imperfectly, you'll notice a very longstanding trend. Since it's the one I "kind of" know better than the rest, let's look at Sweden as an example.
There's a common talking point among capitalists that "Sweden rejected socialism." The talking point among capitalists is that it was the welfare state being too expensive or taxes too high that caused the people to "reject" socialism; the truth doesn't matter when you're trying to propagandize for something profitable and against something less profitable. What happened in Sweden was a strong socialist movement that was pushing for a future through legislation that would have strongly resembled the one you describe, but the movement stalled and reversed course. The social democrat party became autocratic and stopped listening to the demands of the public that made up its base, which lost them control of the government after ruling for 44 years. Ever since then Sweden has been deregulating slowly, moving backwards towards standard capitalism.
Why does that matter as an example, though? If you do things the "right" way, you should be able to protect against that kind of regression, right? Thinking that way shows that you don't understand capitalism. Capitalism isn't just an economic system, but also a political one that disguises itself as a purely economic system. You can't reduce it to small-scale trading or even stock markets with no consequences. When the pursuit of wealth for your personal acquisition (or even nationally when in competition with other nations) is a significant (or "not insignificant") driving factor in an economy, seeking profit at any cost becomes a given. Individual business owners can be very generous and responsible, even in capitalism, but the profit motive will push them out of the competition as those seeking more profit build larger business empires/corporations and outcompete them through sheer volume. They can also do like Amazon, underpricing their goods to drive the others out of business, and then raising their prices after securing the market. You can make laws against that sort of thing, but that still assumes that capitalism is something that it isn't: a purely economic system.
Capitalists rightfully (according to capitalist values) see everything as a commodity. You've probably heard "everyone has their price" at some point. A person's integrity and loyalty can be bought and sold, just like any hat or chocolate bar or stock. Now turn your eyes to the political system, which is made up of people who exist within the capitalist system, even as regulated and restrained as you imagine it should be. Their integrity and loyalty is also a commodity for those with the money to buy it, or if you look at things historically, they are themselves the owners of businesses (or valuable stocks) that they have an interest in protecting and enriching. Either way, there is a fundamental turth about any profit-based economic system that social democrats can never truly address without abandoning capitalism: no matter how well regulated, the pursuit of profits will always result in the corruption of government, and the coopting of government towards the ends of pursuing profits.
You can regulate everything and put all of the necessities like housing and food into the hands of the public, even completely removing them from State control, but capitalists will always find a way to convince people that the regulations themselves are harmful and should be removed, that the necessities would be more efficiently controlled by private entities that specialize in it, etc. It may take many generations, but over time capitalists will gain control as a consequence of seeking greater profit. Further, imagine the society that would exist beyond the dream of generosity. People become complacent when they are guaranteed the basics. Every social democracy backs that up. There are people who still fight for better, but overall the people are content to let their government do as it will, provided that it "feels" like it is working in their interest. They don't pay as close attention to the machinations of the elite, or the ways and consequences of their government siding with the elite. In most political systems, there are three powers: the people, the State, and the elite (capitalists, aristocrats, etc). In social democracy, the State is the mediator between the people and the elite, but consider that there are fewer elites, and they all have astronomically more influence with the State than any number of non-elites.
Your son is correct. You can't have capitalism and socialism at the same time. Capitalists will always seek to increase profits, which corresponds to an increase in political power, which allows them to undermine any socialistic goals as a powerful minority against a mostly powerless majority. It doesn't matter how well you regulate capitalism, because that power dynamic won't stop existing. Any time there are people with significantly more resources, those with significantly less have to band together to equalize the power, and that can mean that one elite can exert more influence than dozens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of non-elites, depending on the disparity. Add to that the influence that the elite have over the media, allowing them to convince many of those non-elites to support the agenda of the elite (look at the U.S. as an example. Conservatives are easily convinced to side with the most profiteering party against their own interests. Liberals are also convinced to side with the other party which serves the same interests, but in a different way...and the media is owned by those interests).
Socialism isn't a set of policies or demands for "better." It's economic and political democracy based in leftist (that is, anti-hierarchy, which requires empathy, generosity, etc) values. You can't have that under capitalism, because capitalism by its very nature is hierarchical. You can have a stock market without consequences only if it's effectively just a simulation for enjoyment, rather than a tool for transferring wealth from one person to another. You can trade hats beyond what is needed so long as nobody gains more influence over the economy or democracy (which is made up of people) from doing so. In other words, you have to remove profit as a motive entirely, or else that motive will cause backsliding into the conditions you thought you overcame.
A "vanguard" is a term that people today should avoid. In the times of Marx and Lenin, the industrial workers, not a political elite, were considered the "vanguard" simply because they were the most socially connected to each other, making them more conscious of their class. The way it's commonly used is as an elite that takes on the mantle of "leader" while the masses do the grunt work. To achieve socialism (economic/political democracy based in leftist values), you need a supermajority of the people to want it enough to create it for themselves, because you can't create such a democracy through elite/vanguard rule; it can only be done by the people themselves, building it for themselves, and maintaining and improving it by themselves together as a society.
@bina nocht I had to cut it short, believe it or not, because of post length. I'll say that what you say you want sounds great. It's "better" than what currently exists in the majority of the world. We should always strive for better outcomes, but we should do it with our eyes open to the implications of both what/how we change and what we don't change, such as antagonisms between them. Understanding capitalism (and other top-down systems) is important to understanding why it is antagonistic to such a future, and it gives you the tools to build a better future.
Building socialism (and eventual communism) means building and normalizing democracy at the community level, and empowering that democracy so that important decisions are made by the whole community rather than "leaders" (like economic or party elites) after discussing the issues, formulating possible solutions, making compromises, agreeing on solutions, upholding the decisions as a community, and revisiting the issue to maintain or improve on the decision as necessary. Letting profit or significant wealth disparity into the equation, even if all needs and most wants are taken care of, undermines and degrades democracy by giving a few individuals more influence than the rest, no matter how well you regulate it. So think of socialism as the people of a community building a cohesive community that is governed by the people of that community through common democracy, working together with other similar communities to create a vast network that is mutualistic, cooperative, and self-governing.
If you look at it that way, then building socialism is something only the people of your community can do for themselves, and not something that can be done for you by some obscure "vanguard." It can be started under capitalism to change society from the bottom-up into a socialist society by normalizing socialism, but unless capitalism is overthrown by spreading and institutionalizing that bottom-up approach (meaning that it becomes the standard, not just some outlier experiment), then it won't last because capitalism will always find a way to undermine it...or else use false pretenses to destroy it...or else just destroy it for national (i.e. capitalist) security.
Towards the end, worker democracy get a mention. A point on that, that I often fell gets forgotten, is that a lowering of the power distance can be an alternative way for workers to obtain more say in their daily work. This imo should not replace worker input/voting power in board decisions but will have the effect that the individual worker will have a higher say in their own daily work.
Can you interview David Soskice or Bob Hancke on the VoC and Comparative School? Also whats your opinion of IPE and Blyth and Acemoglu?
Saw this go up for a moment before, why did it not stay up?
I think this gets streamed on the main channel and archived on here but I'm not entirely sure.
24:21 infact they(mainstream) far more ideological and abstract starta
A lot of the things discussed here are talking points that Varoufakis employs. I know he is no longer an academic and it might be hard to get a hold of him, but maybe he would be an interesting guest. He seems like he can't really stop drinking his own coolaid sometimes though, but I do not know if that is only when he has his politician hat on.
What would be the fundamental difference, if there is one, between Market Socialism and Post-Keynesian
Post-Keynesian theory is a school of thought which is more concerned with using a theory of the macroeconomy to produce policy proposals that get us to full employment. Market socialism is a school of thought which is usually less concerned with formal modelling, but still utilizes theory and ethics to argue for a market system of collective ownership. They’re not at odds with one another, but you could be a post-Keynesian with more moderate views on organizing the economy (like a social democrat).
It’s disappointing hearing his sidestep of the last question. The problem with non-Marxist economics is that none of them can answer that question. Economic power always leads to political power. Businesses will always use their power to lower tax and deregulate the economy. It doesn’t matter how much the state sets regulations because the power imbalance in the economy will always lead to capital being able to force the state to represent their interests.
Very rarely do they confront the historical intersection of political & economic power. They're quick to importune governments to 'act,' but they're largely & regrettably blind to the cozy affiliation between the regulators & the regulated. The latter don't eschew involvement with the former in some crusade for laissez-faire, but welcome the opportunity to reach into the State's coffers. If anything, there's no folklore more useful to the corporations at the helm than the desirable fiction that the State is casted as the trust-busting crusader for the powerless, bullied consumer. But the real failing is actually piercing the veil of 'economic power,' discerning the political-coercion at its foundation.
@bina nocht Well, what do you mean 'economic power'? The genuine, self-supplying power of reciprocity & democracy, of fair, open competition? Or, the bogus counterfeit of conferred power, which only reaps 'advantages' by brute force & manipulation?
Economic power is political power
As a political economy masters grad. I truly appreciate Marxian and post-Keynesian economists. Even institutionalist economists tend to provide a far more coherent understanding of capitalism than the neoclassical economics that dominates our economics departments. I find it absurd that a school of economics can dominate an entire field while publishing the most incoherent mathematical gibberish. Maths and modeling isn't inherently bad, however if your assumptions and structure is total nonsense, then what is the point?
you are confused