First, capitalism is killing itself. Since, as a matter of fact, capitalism depends upon the existence of markets in which there are many participants, and the whole trend within our current economy is for there to be fewer and fewer meaningful participants, with the sole remaining companies servicing some sectors looking more and more like monopolists with the absolute power to abuse consumers for their own private gain, then capitalism is dying from within.
Jeebus. Capitalism and markets are not the same thing. There is no requirement for there to be markets in capitalism. We’ve actually got some rather fierce warnings about what happens with monopoly capitalism.
We also don’t require capitalism to have markets.
They’re just different things. And a Professor of Political Economy doesn’t grok this?
That expansion of the universities wasn’t a good idea, was it?
Second, in that case it is for the Tories to say what they going to do to regulate markets to ensure that they are effective when every current trend shows that markets are trying to destroy competition which is the only thing that neoclassical economic theory says makes them efficient.
The capitalists would destroy market competition in a heart beat. As would all too many socialists of course. It’s not the markets trying to destroy the competition, it’s the other lot, those people entirely orthogonal to markets and or competition’ existence.
Third, it is absurd to claim that either capitalism or socialism provides a single, simple answer to the future nature of the UK economy. The truth is that the free market is a myth: there is, quite simply no such thing, and nor can there be without effective regulation. And at the same time, there is absolutely no appetite in the UK for a socialist economy where the right of a person to undertake trade on their own account, or with others, is denied.
That last sentence has absolutely nothing at all to do with socialism of any form. It has to do with hte absence of markets an the entry of competition into them.
To put it in a nutshell then, Danny Finkelstein’s argument is nonsense
Rich considering the preceding, isn’t it?