We’ve heard much talk recently—I wouldn’t call it discussion—regarding the virtues and effectivity of the “free market.” I’m curious to know if this so-called free market concept has historically referred only to the ‘real productive economy,’ i,e., the industrial and concomitant business sector. Or has it also referred simultaneously to the financialized economy, at least as we now know it? It seems to me that we might fairly discuss the virtues of the free market if we could factor out the financialized sector which seems to have turned part of the credit and investment system into a casino at best. But is the seemingly cancerous financial sector a legitimate let alone trustworthy partner in the market? Surely we have evidence now that it is not.
This splitting off of finance as a parasitic result of the over-extension of ‘free market logic’ seems to vulgarize the concept and value of the free market. Furthermore, it confuses a possibly meaningful and productive political discussion. That is, carrying out the political discussion on the basis of the political economy as, on the one hand, homogeneous, "free market capitalism" versus, on the other hand,"proto-socialist big government interventionists" seems to not quite represent what is happening nor what is possible in attempting to bring about a more auspicious reform in America today.
No comments:
Post a Comment