What is the Alternative to Keynesian Corporatism?
“The ideas of
economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly
understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual
influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.” From The General Theory by John Maynard Keynes
Much of the centralized
planning and rationalization for the Fascist alliance between the State and Corporatism is rooted in the erroneous Keynesian
fiscal tenets, which plague Western economies. Without a widespread acceptance of an alternative economic model, the
political despotism will continue to ruin the financial futures of generations to come. The ruling political class is so enamored
with the free spending debt dogma that prospects for abandoning such deviate and suicidal policies will meet with ardent resistance
from the establishment. Need proof, just look at the historic disparity in income and net worth that has doubled the paper
wealth of the top elites as the general population languishes.
Prolific academic and Libertarian Gary North takes on this issue in his article, On Replacing the Keynesian Establishment. His essays are always informative, historically based and intuitive in presenting a fresh viewpoint in dealing with the
dysfunctional economic system that has become our mutual prison.
“In planning to undermine the Keynesian establishment, there really needs
to be somebody with money and vision who sits down and devises a plan to do it . . .
There is nothing even remotely resembling a systematic
program to deal with Keynes, let alone Keynesianism. That’s why I devised one, but limited it tactically. It has to
do what has not been done, namely, to bury Keynes’s major book. That is where the resistance must start; that is not where it should end.”
The noble mission that Dr. North pursues is worth a full review. Start with an
examination of the recent account and a public question posed in How the Keynesians Won . . . And Will Lose.
has Keynesianism prevailed? Dr. North, In the 1950's Henry Hazlett wrote The Failure of the New Economics which demolished
The General Theory line by line with clear, irrefutable arguments. I can't imagine another field of study in which a theory
can be dominant after such complete debunking. Is it the triumph of propaganda over fact? Is it that 99% of all econ professors
are either spineless or fools? People blame Hayek for not challenging Keynes but Hazlett certainly did the work (though somewhat
later). Is the fed funding 90% of econ research so only Keynesians get funded? How do you explain this baffling situation?”
North’s response consumes the remainder of
that citation. After studying his detailed analysis, the next source is an exhausted comparison between What Many Mainstream
Economists Believe and Economics from an Alternative Perspective by Geoff Hodgson.
At the outset, it must be acknowledged
(as the question to North implies) that mainstream economics is based upon Keynesian support for government expansion and
greater influence. The clearest example of a destructive doctrine that government lackeys rally to promote is Free Trade.
Mr. Hodgson cites that Mainstream Economics
defend that “Free trade is generally beneficial for both developing and developed countries and Economic development
is principally a consequence of the spread of free markets.” He compares this viewpoint to that of Alternatives
to the Keynesian creed. “Free Trade in practice means the commercial swamping of nascent enterprise by big foreign
corporations. Without a robust system of national administration, and without state-backed monetary and legal institutions,
no significant market system is possible.”
A national policy of Rational Tariffs Lower Irrational Trade Deficits supports the case made by the anti- Keynesians as does the Varying Verity exchange on Tariffs. In addition is the empirical reality documented in the article, Tariffs For Survival Or Profits For Multinationals.
have always been the traditional method to protect our sovereignty as an independent nation. Arguments that America benefits
from Free Trade, when it is not Fair, are the siren's calls of a deceptive vamp. Just look at the record that Free Trade has
inflicted on our economy and security. Our Balance of Payments problem requires the financing of this deficit by foreign investment.”
Gary North claims that “Friedrich Hayek suffered
from a crucial intellectual defect. He was what he called a puzzler, in contrast to what he called a master of his subject.”
As with most Libertarian, their propensity to accept
Free Trade as a laudable objective seems to suffer a significant blind spot in their own economic philosophy. North wrote
in Free Trade: The Litmus Test of Economics.
conservative will admit to being a mercantilist. Yet every conservative who defends tariffs as anything other than revenue-generating
taxes is in fact a mercantilist, and by necessity he must accept the mercantilist philosophy of life.
I believe in free trade. That is because I believe
that the same principles of private ownership and voluntary exchange that exist inside the borders of the United States —
cities, counties, states — should also apply to voluntary exchange across the borders of the United States.”
Well, this paleo-conservative on the BATR Mercantile page makes the case for a Merchant Class economy. The best alternative to Keynesian Corporatism requires a strong national
economy. Those who seek to be citizens of the world, at the expense of domestic prosperity, play directly into the hands of
the Transnational Corporatocracy. No one can seriously dispute that the overall economic well being of the average citizen
has declined under the decades of punitive Free Trade.
North is entirely correct that a substitute and inclusive economic framework needs to be intellectually developed
to replace the global internationalism that has ushered in the New World Order chattel debt imprisonment society. Any meaningful
government reform is illusionary under this debt obligation monetary system. With each new trade treaty, the plight of humanity
worsens. Only a domestic re-industrialization and a small business renaissance economy can defeat the forces of globalization.
James Hall – November 5, 2014
Subscription sign-up for the BATR RealPolitik Newsletter
Discuss or comment about this essay on the BATR Forum