|
Edited on Fri Dec-31-04 01:53 PM by necso
and I am unable to give you a very good answer. But, perhaps, I can give you a little context.
A "science" (perhaps "study" is a better word) like economics tends to be compromised of "schools" of thought. Economics is interesting because these schools are just as likely to be based on political thought (or personal "philosophies") as economic theory. For example, communism has, more or less, an economic philosophy embedded in it. And while one can argue what exact theoretical forms communist economics can take, there are certainly bounds on what form a communist economy can take -- for instance, large scale private ownership of (large) businesses would generally be inconsistent with communism. (This association of economics with politics provides a powerful weapon to the neocons, who can scream "socialism" at any economic or politico-economic concept that they don't like.)
And I am not sure that there is a "populist" school of economics. There are certainly economic theories (or fragments of economic theories) and policies that have populist elements within them. Keynesian theory, where it manages demand and saves the general populace from the rigors of unmanaged demand swings (especially the demand for labor), is a fair example, I think. Of course, businesses also benefit when demand is kept from "bottoming-out", as demand is their "driver" and a source of both their incomes and profits. (One can argue that the "best" companies survive these downturns and that this is the proper operation of the market, but this is a rather shallow analysis of the phenomenon -- for example, businesses may survive an economic downturn specifically because they prepared for and caused it as a means of killing off less mature but more "fit" competitors. -- And there are many more arguments to be made against this -- or any -- shallow interpretation of market operations, of both a theoretical and historical nature.)
The policy of unemployment insurance is another example of populist economics. Enabling a worker to maintain an income in times of "market adjustment" certainly benefits the worker (a "popular" benefit), but it also preserves the labor supply in the "low" part of the cycle and helps assure that labor is available (without undue labor cost impacts) when the cycle swings "up". (It also helps to keep demand higher than would otherwise be the case.) So again, this is a policy that benefits both the populace and business. Indeed, there is no inherent attribute of "populist" economics that makes it an unalloyed hostile force to business.
However, business is generally opposed to any policies, good or bad, that interfere in even the smallest manner in how business is conducted ("handouts" are, however, generally viewed favorably). Considering how those who run businesses (manage investments, speculate, etc) generally have no special acuity or other "gifts" (other than "ambition" -- if this is anything but base, unalloyed human nature), and are driven (in today's American culture at least) by unfettered self interest, short term thinking, abhorrence of government regulations and unions, etc, this aversion to outside forces is, frankly, ignorant and unwise. (But such is human nature.)
And there are elements within "non-populist" economic theories that can be interpreted in ways that are "populist". For example, competition is an essential element of the "market" and if this concept is logically extended to the competition for labor (perhaps "demand" is a more common usage), then labor costs (and pay) can easily be envisioned to seek some "natural" and well rewarded "balance". (The market would never work at all unless the rewards were seen as being at least adequate, if not "good" -- and, of course, labor typically has little choice in the matter of supply, putting it at a considerable disadvantage. -- Ordinarily, this type of "demand" is not spoken much of by "free market" types, who prefer the cheapest possible labor regardless of whether or not this is "unnatural" in the marketplace, even at the peak of the business "cycle". In this context, however, the role of unrestricted immigration in driving down labor costs can be easily understood.)
Indeed, I would say that there are many inherent elements in the free market that scream for outside forces to keep the market operating in a manner that approaches the best possible performance (which generally benefits both business and the populace). Competition alone has tremendous repercussions ranging from fostering the growth of new competitors (otherwise they will be crushed, typically) to preventing marketplace collusion and the growth of monopolies (which are "above" the forces of the market). And while outside forces cannot necessarily put in place real freedom of choice and demand alternatives, these forces can work in that direction -- and spare the markets from the worst of the disruption that accompanies (for example) the fall off of supply when faced with an inflexible (or rising) demand -- particularly when this is the result of "unnatural" market manipulation. (Think of the great delay in government action when California faced its recent power "crisis", and the attendant costs.)
And I think that populist economics is as much a way of looking at current economic theories as it is a unique school of its own. The fundaments of such an "outlook" might include: national security; national economic "power" (capital flight being a real concern here) and independence (a "balance" of imports and exports, where true independence is unachievable or undesirable); a balance of business and popular (people-based) interests (for example, national health care benefits all -- except for those who will suffer when the dollar value of this "slice" is diminished); optimum marketplace "production" and operation (real choice, real competition, demand alternatives, etc); business cycle mitigation; and economic sustainability. It is interesting that elements of these fundaments have some role in government operations to this day, although this is on the downswing at this time, and one can argue, to our considerable cost. Of course, "popular" economic concerns must play some role in "populist" economics, but this may be more a matter of phrasing and communication than dictating any essential change in the fundaments. (To wit, the people must be able to understand what the hell you are talking about -- a thing that we are not always proficient at.)
Now, I am no economist (I have always worked for a living --- just kidding) and this is a feeble discussion of the subject matter. And in my limited experience "schools" are based on the work of some noted "savant", which in this case would require an economist. Granted that this is the case, then we need to have some learned, wise and acclaimed economist take a "populist" view of economic theory and go where it takes him. ("Fat chance", I would say.)
However, I am interested in any names that fellow members might suggest as being current scholars and proponents of economic populism. In practical terms, however, this means avoiding too close an association with any political philosophy that will tarnish the strictly economic (and nationalist) arguments (that is, socialists, etc, need not apply).
And, again, I am nothing more than just another concerned American.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
