Sunday, October 19, 2008

New era

It must be. Because now even the leading financial magazine in the US, Business Week, is officially using the scandalous word "nationalization". They even featured the term prominently on their Web home page:

The lead article is Forget Adam Smith, Whatever Works by Pete Engardio 10/16/2008 (10/23/08 print edition). The article itself uses the term that has now emerged from its taboo status in the US:

The Bush Administration, by committing $250 billion to buy equity stakes in a huge swath of the U.S. banking system and extending all manner of financial guarantees to depositors and money-market investors, has just violated some enshrined principles of American-style, free-market capitalism.

You might dismiss all this as extreme measures for extreme times, a pragmatic adjustment that will be quickly undone once order is restored. But the significance, not to mention irony, of a Republican Administration partially nationalizing the U.S. banking system cannot be overstated. It could well go down as an important turning point in postwar American economic history, the beginning of a fundamental rethink of the proper boundaries between the public and private sectors. "The pendulum between the state and markets is swinging back before our eyes," says Daniel Yergin, co-author of the 1998 book The Commanding Heights, which chronicled the triumph of market capitalism over state-led economics since World War II. "And it is happening a lot faster than anyone expected." [my emphasis]
It's good to see this because there's some real value in calling things by their names. But it's also a sign of how highly ideological and at the same time vague the way we commonly talk about economic issues has become.

Not that all terminological issues have disappeared. For instance, Yergin's term "market capitalism" is pretty weird. Any kind of capitalism has to have a "market". So does any other kind, for that matter. Which is why the even more common term "market system" is basically meaningless.

The cover of the magazine features the banner title "The Future of Kapitalism". The story linked above features an interview with the author, Pete Engardio, being questioned by BW's executive editor, John Byrne. Byrne asks Engardio to explain why the cover spells "capitalism" as "kapitalism". He responds:

Well, I think the editor thought starting "capitalism" with a "k" kind of denotes a bit of socialism, the way Karl Marx spelled "capital".
Say what? Are you sure it wasn't meant to remind us that Marx's first name begins with a "K"? Because that would make about as much sense. Marx spelled "capitalism" with a "k" when he was writing in German because the German word is "Kapitalismus" (not "Kapitalism"). That's just strange.


| +Save/Share | |

Links to this post:

Create a Link


"It is the logic of our times
No subject for immortal verse
That we who lived by honest dreams
Defend the bad against the worse."

-- Cecil Day-Lewis from Where Are The War Poets?


  • What is the Blue Voice?
  • Bruce Miller
  • Fdtate
  • Marcia Ellen (on hiatus)
  • Marigolds2
  • Neil
  • Tankwoman
  • Wonky Muse


  • Weird Republican sleaze
  • Oh Noes! Obama Cavorts With Terriers!
  • Margaret and Helen
  • Newspaper Endorsements Pour In For Obama
  • Palin's Epic Failin'
  • Four things that annoy me
  • Al Smith Dinner
  • Who Is This Obama, Uh, Batman?!
  • Snap Polls: Obama Trounces McCain, 3-0
  • The End of Reaganomics



    [Tip: Point cursor to any comment to see title of post being discussed.]
    www TBV




    Environmental Links
    Gay/Lesbian Links
    News & Media Links
    Organization Links
    Political Links
    Religious Links
    Watchdog Links



    Atom/XML Feed
    Blogarama - Blog Directory
    Blogwise - blog directory



    hits since 06-13-2005

    site design: wonky muse