Thats not a reply to the point I am making. It doesn't matter if I am a Marxist or not, if I go into the banking sector, my business model will dictate me to behave in a certain way. I will have to be pro-high interest rates, pro-low capital requirements, pro-eased regulations on finance, anti-capital control measures, eased conversion models...etc.
Surely, individuals can have their opinions, but each sector you go into, given the conditions are stable(e.g high debt can change redistributive aspect), you can get an idea of what the "interests" for each sector group are.
Fixed capital and mobile capital have competing interests, labour has different interests, pensioners have different interests, investors have different interests, exporters have different interests, import-competers have different interests, service economy/intangible assets have different interests, central banks have different interests, consumers have differents interests....etc
These are all structural phenomena and are not tied necessarily to a marxist analysis.
In fact, Marxism simplifies all this into a class based analysis, merely ptting labor and capital against each other, whereas in reality capital and labour within a given sector have cooperating interests.
Thats not the point they are making.You really believe there is no data to show that unproductive firms are being protected by some type of banks? Are you sure you're paying attention to development economics classes? Why would you even be against mercantilism then?
Even when things go as planned, the phenomena of unprofitable firms getting special protection does happen, it's mentioned in endless working papers related to development economics, by Rodrik, Mazzucato and Chang for example.
First of all, PROTECTIONISM is LIMITED by WTO, a "globalist" regime that governs trade. Therefore such protection is only likely for domestic-oriented firms which are small in scale and have lower productivity than exporting firms.
For instance, as we speak, Trump is trying to pass protectionism measures on unproductive sectors simply to create jobs(that will not be sustainable on the long run anyways), something the "globalists" see as a step backwards.
Banks don't have any means to "protect" firms....I guess what you are trying to say is banks are giving out easy loans? If you are against that, that means you should be backing Obama's regulations, not Trump trying to give free-reign to banking.
Since 2008, there had been many regulations to decrease systemic risks but due to slowed down economy, they tried to keep a balance.
I am not against or pro-mercantilism. I don't take sides in economics based on my beliefs. I look into the purpose and the outcome that is trying to be achieved and weigh it according to what kind of a world I imagine is best to be. This means that protection under some circumstances can be good, in some circumstances it can for populist purposes.
Most of the protectionist ideas coming from right-wing are for unproductive, dying sectors so that a dying breed of labor can live without adapting to these changes and primarily to the growing economic importance of the non-western world which is competing their privileges.
There are things like debt and unchecked trade deficit that Trump wants to fix which makes sense, but he wants a short-cut to gain votes from the losers of the century. Which will come back to hurt USA as it will lose its prominance by not trying to innovate and structurally change and instead backtrack to an old economic model to increase employment. The EU right-wing has a similar attitude.
I don't understand how this ties to a heterodox theory. Bankers tend have tons of investments in various assets and crises simply tear down the value of their investments in such a short time leacing them with large, unsustainable debts. Bankers have killed themselves over this before, its not the first time. Their mistake is that just because they are in the sector, they can have more certainty and therefore less risks.You keep calling all kinds of heterodox analysis as "conspiracy theory", acting as if everything is relatively normal, the simple fact bankers killed themselves like flies means something is not correct in how things happened. Groups of qualified people don't start a trend of suicide simply out of randomness. But I guess assuming there was a reason is "conspiracy theorist" when talking with this types
We are not discussing capitalism.The solution you offer is more Obama regulations? Don't realize in your dialect Obama should be considered part of the Capitalist Elite who keeps the Prolet down? So now you believe Capitalism can work well if the correct people are in charge (Obama in charge = good capitalism; Trump in charge = bad Capitalism)? So good Capitalism can exist after all? (provided the correct people are in the Elite?)
You keep refuting your own points.
The problem is the right-wing mishmash of reality without any academic basis to make ridiculous points like calling the elite a jewish marxist alien conspiracy to destroy the western world and blaming all this on a "left".
You are talking about the evil of the financial elite and how they ruined the world and caused a crisis etc and now yo uare telling me that you are against banking regulations? What do you want? How will banks function? If you doN't want banks, how will capitalism function?
And I am refuting my points?
I am telling you, Trump is trying to tear down the walls that keep financial elite containted and you are telling me he serves the proleteriat.
He FOOLS the proleteriat and serves the elite.
The Brexit and Trump isn't pro proleteriat on the long-run. What west needs is a brave structural transformation. Stagnating in dying sectors for short-run to gain populist will only speed up the convergence of the non-western world and further deepen the competitive pressures on the west on the long-run.Now I can't blame the left for picking the only defensors avaliable. If you think their power is too monopolistic, wonder why the only ones who have patience to protect Prolet as likes of Trump and Brexit.
The language of populism has taken over the west. This is desperation, not power.