The moral ecology of markets: on the failure of the amoral defense of markets

Many economists have defended capitalism; most have tried to do so within the self-imposed methodological constraint that economists should employ only empirical arguments, not normative ones. This essay examines three classic amoral defenses of capitalism—by Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, and Friedrich Hayek—and argues that each fails on its own terms, since each implicitly incorporates moral presumptions essential to the author's argument. Constructively, the essay proposes that no one can adequately endorse (or critique) markets without making a moral evaluation of their context—their “moral ecology.” Four issues are identified as necessarily addressed in every adequate evaluation of markets. The essay does not endorse any one position on these elements, but argues instead that seemingly incommensurable standpoints on markets—ranging from Marxist to libertarian—actually represent positions on the these four basic issues.     

Minsky Goes to Buffalo—and Takes on the Economics Establishment

This essay is based on remarks presented by the author at The Fourth Bi-Annual Cross-Border Post Keynesian Conference, Buffalo State College, on October 9, 2009. It addresses the economic challenges facing Buffalo, New York, and countless other American cities, especially in the Northeast and Midwest; draws on the writings of Hyman Minsky to offer an interpretation of what many now call the Great Recession, which began in late 2007; and challenges the image of Minsky presented by mainstream economists and journalists, with special attention to a recent lecture by Paul Krugman. The essay closes by returning to Buffalo, where—as Minsky anticipated in the 1990s—the economic fate of working families depends largely on the outcome of a national struggle over the shape of future U.S. economic transformation.     

当代全球化与社会主义的发展

全球化是一个不以人的意志为转移的世界历史发展潮流，它推动了资本主义和社会主义的发展，其本质是以资本主义发达国家为主导的全球化。在当代全球化条件下，社会主义的发展将面临新的机遇与挑战。     

Economic Democracy: Solution or New Challenge ∗

Abstract Kaleckians and partisans of the capital monopoly approach have argued that additional outlays on unproductive labor increase economic activity under three conditions: investment is sensitive to realized rates of capacity utilization; savings out of wages and salaries are assumed away; prices are fixed by a markup over unit direct costs. The present model examines what happens when the last hypothesis is modified, i.e., when megacorps are assumed to fix prices on the basis of total unit costs, more specifically on the basis of target-return pricing procedures. Because higher costs are shifted on to productive labor, through higher prices and a reduction in their real wages, additional unproductive outlays may have a negative impact on economic activity. It turns out, in addition, that one must carefully distinguish between unproductive labor outlays and unproductive capital outlays when firms are assumed to shift these additional costs to consumers, on the basis of target-return pricing procedures.     

Must equality and efficiency conflict? The economics of Andrew Glyn

This paper aims to provide an introductory overview of AndrewGlyn's economics. Throughout his intellectual career, Glyn'scentral concern was to understand how economic efficiency canbe made consistent with egalitarian objectives. In pursuingthis concern, his work engaged critically with developmentsin contemporary capitalism and with different proposals forpromoting egalitarian objectives, including revolutionary socialism,social democratic corporatism, and basic income capitalism.Glyn's legacy is a set of works which provide great insightinto the development of capitalism and on the limits and possibilitiesof egalitarian advance.     

资本主义生产方式变迁中的资本主义制度演进——一个发展马克思经济学的新路径

过去理解资本主义制度演变时简单地采用生产力决定生产关系的原理,这给我们带来一个难以回答的问题,即什么样的生产力水平决定资本主义制度走向灭亡.其实,在马克思经济学理论中包含着一个对生产力决定生产关系原理的深入解释:生产力对生产关系的决定作用要通过生产方式这样一个中介,一方面体现为促进生产力的发展,另一方面孕育了生产关系的变革.在资本主义制度演进过程中,资本主义生产方式发展经历了三个阶段,这与资本主义制度演进的三个时期正相对应.这不仅表明用生产方式的演进可以解释资本主义制度变迁,而且也表明马克思经济学中包含着具有现实解释力的理论.     

Editorial

No abstract available for this article.     

The Natural Roots of Capitalism and Its Virtues and Values

When we think of theories that attempt to root capitalism in nature, the one that comes most readily to mind is Social Darwinism. In this theory, nature – driven by Darwinian natural selection (the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest) – is interpreted to imply, when applied to human activities, that extreme competition will allow the most "fit" competitors to rise to the top and to survive in this "struggle for existence," and this process of dog-eat-dog competition leads to both material and social progress. Not only has this theory been shown to be seriously flawed, the putative social implications of Darwinian natural selection do not accord with the findings of contemporary neoDarwinists who maintain, for example, that the behavior of monkeys and apes reveals a blend of competition and cooperation and, generally, a close connection to human moral behavior.Adam Smith provides a more helpful view of the connection between nature and capitalism. He maintains that nature's wisdom, as seen in its harmony and balance, is displayed in economics and human nature. Competitive free enterprise, as a vehicle for exchange, functions within a cooperative context and exhibits virtues and values such as mutual help and benefit, trust, harmony, and friendship. I shall show that neoDarwinists agree with Smith's view that nature supports a connection between competition and cooperation, and they maintain that moral activity, rather than destructive dog-eat-dog competition, is necessary to achieve the goals of natural selection.     

Fear and hope in an age of mass automation: debating the future of work

Alternative perspectives from economics and political economy now agree that work is set to disappear through the impact of mass automation. Some worry about the negative effects on unemployment and inequality, while others see the opportunity to extend free time. This paper confronts and criticises these perspectives. It addresses previous visions of an automated (‘workless’) future presented by Marx and Keynes and shows the enduring barriers to working less in capitalist society. It then questions whether work will be reduced by technological progress; rather, it argues that work will likely persist, despite and indeed because of the wider use of new technology. The threat to workers from technology is seen to come more from the erosion in the quality of work than from the loss of work. The paper argues that a better future for work and workers ultimately depends on broader changes in ownership.