I think Dani Rodrik is very likely right about this.
The trilemma of the global economy
Mon, 2010-02-15 17:26
#1
The trilemma of the global economy
Mon, 2010-02-15 20:06
#2
So I maintain that any reform of the international economic system must face up to this trilemma. If we want more globalization, we must either give up some democracy or some national sovereignty. Pretending that we can have all three simultaneously leaves us in an unstable no-man's land.
Well after reading Michael Hudson, I think that Europe and Asia will not be free or sovereign until they break with the current US dollar recycling scheme for central banks. Those countries have been financing USA's domestic budget deficits and US military spending for about 40 years. And it's because the US over-spends and over-consumes that compels those countries to continue buying US debt, and donating their national savings to US imperialism. I think the question is, why wouldn't those countries want to de-couple from the dollar, and finance their own economic needs by sovereign credit and money? The US would have no other choice but to levy war taxes on the American public in order to continue its military-Keynesianism. I think some countries may even be wondering why they even have central banks today. How much of monetary policies should be decided by elected governments, and how much of it by central bankers operating "at arm's length" from democratically elected governments? If they are not elected by the people, then they are not accountable to the people and can have no place in a modern democracy.
Tue, 2010-02-16 16:38
#3
B9sus4
"Global economic integration" is just geekspeak for financierism.. which Hudson calls "rentierism". It's not compatible with democracy or national sovereignty under any circumstances. The whole point of Synarchy is to destroy democracy and thence national sovereignty in order to install Pinochets in every state as torturers/killers to keep the slaves in line. So long as we keep playing their game and utilizing these loaded terms as if it was anything other than ideological crap, we will continue to be hoodwinked by the predators.
Tue, 2010-02-16 17:01
#4
Finally, we can downgrade our ambitions with respect to how much international economic integration we can (or should) achieve. So we go for a limited version of globalization, which is what the post-war Bretton Woods regime was about (with its capital controls and limited trade liberalization). It has unfortunately become a victim of its own success. We have forgotten the compromise embedded in that system, and which was the source of its success.
As a socialist, I generally agree with the idea of globalization and nations trading freely - just not the neoliberal capitalist version of it. We should want development to take place in thirdworld capitalist countries, but we can also desire that more equal societies happen as a result and not the unfair and undemocratic situation created by marauding capital around the world today. According to Marx, whatever societies capitalists create and develop over time are to be taken over by socialists in the near future and used for the benefit of the proles. This is in preparation for people's communism.