Financial Times:
[T]he era of economic theocracy, in which unelected experts ran the global economy, is over. But politicians’ lust for control is no guarantee of better economic management.
So goes the corporatist argument against a representative democracy in which the public is occasionally represented, as opposed to not at all. Politicians are at least subject to public influence; "unelected experts," less so. As for guarantees: retirement and health care, please!
That the Federal Reserve must "preserve its independence" from lusting politicians is a droll notion, indeed; especially in light of the "unwelcome advances" taken by bankers!
2 comments:
i don't buy the FT's narrative implied in this excerpt for one moment.
i have seen no evidence of the political body's lust to control the market in any way adversarial to corporate interests.
aside from a permissible amount of tokenism, it would seem "elected" politicians can be employed just as easily as unelected experts. the task is the same. right now the job requires a politician's touch to keep the people on board. what did Mary Poppins say? a spoonful of sugar.
the market is not an honest broker. the invisible hand is giving us the finger.
That's entertainment, Montag!
And you're right to point out that "the market" is not a neutral entity, but reflects the prerogatives of its most powerful players.
Post a Comment