A headline at the top of the Business Day section of the New York Times (Saturday, April 28,
2012, p. B1), “Economic Growth Slows Unexpectedly to 2.2%,” reminded me of a
thought I have had often over the years. Namely, the role, attitude, and
ideological perspective of “economists” in capitalist societies.
As usual, the professional panglossians, aka “economists,” looked at the U.S.
economy through rose-colored glasses and put an optimistic spin on things. As
usual, they overestimated how well the “recovery” is going. (To be fair, since
the close brush with economic death of the housing market crash and
near-collapse of the finance-capital sector house of cards, a few voices of
realism or pessimism are now allowed to be heard from, as splashes of cold
water to keep overexuberance in check.)
“Economists” are no mere technicians. They are also
ideologues. In addition to their function as numbers-crunchers (a sort of
glorified clerk job) their role is to act as boosters of the capitalist economic system.
Capitalist economics is called simply “economics.” (Similar to how the
corporate oligarchy’s media is referred
to as “the media.”) This of course has the effect making what it actually is
invisible, and presenting it as some kind of value-free, neutral, objective
“science,” which it most certainly is not.
Most of the people called “economists” are ideological
cheerleaders, professional shills for capitalism.
On the other side are Marxists who see every recession as the
Final Crisis of Capitalism. But the public never hears from them, because
they’re barred from the media. (So what is this “free speech” we hear so much
about?) Of course, such views have to be excluded, to maintain the illusion
that capitalist economics is simply “economics,” and that the current economic
setup is merely natural reality, not a man-made construct.
Lest someone draw an incorrect inference about my own views,
I do not see socialism per se as the
answer. For one thing, “Lord” Acton was on to an important truth when he said
that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Having
government own all economic enterprises fails on that ground alone. Also it is
grossly inefficient. And markets do provide necessary signals about demand and
prices. Just look at the Soviet Union, which manufactured shoddy goods no one
wanted based on quotas issued by bureaucrats in Moscow. Or Cuba, where shops
run by unmotivated government employees have no interest in customer service.
At least under capitalism, while there is indeed rotten customer service, and
shoddy and dangerous products, there’s a possibility because of market
pressures for satisfying consumer demands. Of course, the scandal of untested
medical devices maiming people [see Consumer Reports May 2012, e.g.] and dangerous drugs allowed
on the market shows that U.S. capitalism at least is UNDERREGULATED. (Try
telling that to the Republican OR Democratic Parties.) More example sof
underregulation: repeated BP oil installation “accidents” (in Alaska, Texas,
the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caucasus) and Massey coal’s chronic criminal
conduct over years, virtually unchecked by sham government “oversight.”
Corporations like BP and Massey should be designated as RICO entities and
disbanded. (Massey was bought out at a premium price by another coal company
AFTER its last lethal mine disaster. Guess they figured that they wouldn’t have
to bear much of a burden, like Dow Chemical figured when it bought the
murderous Union Carbide corporation of Bhopal infamy. But then “Dioxin Dow” is
no more scrupulous than UC, so what the hell, they must have figured.)
What is really needed is serious regulation, not sham
regulation as mostly exists in the U.S. This in turn somehow requires that the
power of capital to control government be greatly limited. There is no prospect
of this happening under the current U.S. political system.
Taboo-truths.blogspot.com
Jasonzenith.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment