Marxist-Lentilist

Had great fun today blogging and responding to posts I put up on TASC's Progressive Economy website - first reponding to comments from mainstream neo-classical economists on the release of the Comhar Green New Deal report -http://www.progressive-economy.ie/2009/10/comhar-report-towards-green-new-deal.html? and also a reply 'The Neo-classical empire strikes back' - http://www.progressive-economy.ie/2009/10/green-new-deal-neo-classical-empire.html to a post Richard Tol had put up on http://www/irisheconomy.ie attacking the report. The replies to these two posts and ensuing conversations were illiminatation. I'll put them below


"I'm sure Richard Tol, if he so chooses, will be well able to defend his position. However, for me, Richard's post identifies the clear choice between, on one hand, governments setting (and committing to) the policy and taxation regime, facilitating the market mechanisms (e.g., cap-and-trade) and applying the necessary regulation and, on the other, governments being the prime movers, investors, policy-makers, regulators, winner-pickers, etc. Att all times and places, when and where this choice is valid,and applying the tried and tested tools of economic analysis, the former is superior to the latter.
October 2, 2009 2:35 PM
John Barry said...
OK, fair enough - its clear where we both stand on an unfettered market and role of the state etc. but what about the other points raised in my post - for example the ideological bias and dominance of one take (neo-classical)on economics? I'm unsurprised whenever I raise this 'hidden' aspect of the mainstream take on economics that the silence is both deafening and telling. I'm NOT saying neo-classical appraches are always and everywhere wrong etc, all I'm asking for is a) an explicit recognition of its normative assumptions and b) greater pluralism in the debate about economic policies. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
October 2, 2009 2:46 PM
Paul Hunt said...
The difficulties always arise when the economic circumstances are such that some deviation from the first option may be required to achieve a valid policy objective. The configuration of energy policy, regulation and economic organisation in Ireland is so dysfunctional that major reform is required if the objective is to begin to alter the pattern of energy consumption and to reduce carbon emissions in the short to medium term.But this, of course, isn't on the political agenda. There may, indeed, be a role for direct government intervention in the context of incomplete, inadequate or malfunctioning markets, but only when the fundamental dysfunction is addressed. As a result we are fated to experience expensive, economy-damaging government interventions.
October 2, 2009 3:00 PM
John Barry said...
And the question as to the ideological and normative assumptions of neo-classical economics?.....Go on, you can say it here - you're among free thinkers!
October 2, 2009 3:19 PM
Paul Hunt said...
You jumped into the join between my posts - posting on this site is a pain. By no means "unfettered". Even the most imaginative S-M fan would struggle to conceive of the incentives and constraints I see as necessary. The huge body of theory and evidence has persuaded me that markets are the least worst tool we have to make capitalists (possessors of human, physical or financial capital)jump through hoops to deliver economically and socially useful outcomes. And, to the greatest extent possible, governments should focus on using this tool effectively - rather than intervening directly. There will always be plenty for governments to do in other areas.
October 2, 2009 3:22 PM
John Barry said...
So, just to be clear - the basic ideological position is the following:Markets are good, but need government regulationGovernments should stay out of marketsMarkets deliver for societyAnd of course none of these are 'objective' or 'scientific' but based on normative assumoptions not about how society or the economy is, but how the economy ought to be.But may I ask, though I guess I know the answer - what are markets for? what does a market based/organised economy deliver? Namely, orthodox economic growth - which again has a whole range of normative implications and assumptions - ranging from how this acts as a substitute for greater socio-economic inequality, its implications in terms of global justice and the distribution of development opportunities globally; how a sub-system (the economy) can expotentially grow when the larger system (the ecosystem) is finte and fixed; to the really thorny issue of the contribution of this model of economic growth to well-being beyond a threshold. So... if one is not an egalitarian, is not particularly concerned abotu global justice, or ecological limits, or that well-being ought to be a matter for public policy, then its clear - neo-classical economic growth is yer only man. Is what I've said here a complete distortion of your position?
October 2, 2009 3:39 PM
Paul Hunt said...
I'm not dodging your legitimate questions. I'm not keen on labelling - it encourages pigeon-holing and stereotyping (as well as creating carricatures), but we need to distinguish between Neocons, Neo-liberals and Progressives. As I have pointed out on previous posts, the Neocons have shamelessly purloined the neo-liberal brand which has a distinguished pedigree from Adam Smith through JS Mill to Keynes and onto Krugman, Sen and Stiglitz in the modern era. Only for the purposes of this post I would describe Neocons as "Markets everywhere; government nowhere (expect to enforce prperty rights, to clean up the mess they make or to prosecute profitable wars)"; Genuine Neo-liberals as "Markets where possible; government as and when required"; Progressives as "Governments everywhere; and markets only if we really have to". I know this is probably unfair, but if the cap fits...
October 2, 2009 3:44 PM
John Barry said...
Paul, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not interested in labelling myself, but am asking about the underlying values, and normative principles which each and every theory of political economy has - whether it makes these explicit or not. Each of the three positions you outline - neo-cons, neo-liberals and progressives - have different (and some shared) normative views, all I'm asking for is a greater honesty or self-awareness that none of these positions - and others - are objective, scientific, value-free or non-ideological. That's all. My main gripe is the continuing fiction amongst neo-classical economists that their position on the economy is somehow non-political or non-ethical or non-ideological.

So far no reply to this last post....