I would hardly substitute the views of Keynes with corporatism. He attacked neoclassical theorists (correctly) for not coming up with a valid argument that addresses macro-economic trends. Keynes reasoned that during recessionary times deficit spending would bring the economy back onto its feet; the debt could then later be payed off during stimulated growth periods. He also favored government-sponsored work programs to ensure almost full employment and economic productivity.
You're being intellectually dishonest by calling all those who believe the market requires government assistance a corporatist. It's a well established fact, both historically and empirically, that laissez faire can produce some terrible results: business cycles in the 19th century were much more volatile than they are now. Major depressions occurred every twenty years, with minimal growth in comparison to the welfare state boom.
All property rights are "state-sanctioned," not just corporations. Even Ayn Rand addressed the necessity of a state for capitalism to properly function: without it property "rights" are unenforceable without reverting to barbarism. Many of today's woes in the business and labor world originate from the persistence of neoclassical theorists. For example if corporations are so dreadfully entrenched in state affairs (which I agree, they are) then why not allow every employee working at a corporation the right to organize? I am asking logically; theoretically this could be very devastating by leading to a mass strike.
__________________
"If the substance of life is information, transmitted through genes, then society and culture are essentially immense information transmission systems, and the city, a huge external memory storage device."
Purists are intolerably dull-thinkers.
Last edited by GeneCosta; 02-03-2008 at 09:48 AM.
|