by Marxian economist Michael Roberts reviews Branco Milanovic's Global Inequality. And finds it wanting. It's the assumptions, stupid.In my view, the problem is the same as it is with almost economists with whom I am familiar. They don't read widely out of their field in relevant fields like sociology, political science, and history and anthropology. They look through an economic lens that is colored by their ill-informed assumptions regarding context. Used to mathematical modeling, they are either uncomfortable with "the messy stuff," or they have an ideological bias that influences their point of view.I would characterize my difficulties with Milanovic's work as resulting from lack of nuance. But I think he is drastically wrong in lumping China together with Western developed countries as
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: capitalism
This could be interesting, too:
Peter Radford writes AJR, Nobel, and prompt engineering
Asad Zaman writes Escaping the jungle: Rethinking land ownership for a sustainable Future
Lars Pålsson Syll writes In praise of pluralism
Joel Eissenberg writes Capitalism prevails
Marxian economist Michael Roberts reviews Branco Milanovic's Global Inequality. And finds it wanting. It's the assumptions, stupid.
In my view, the problem is the same as it is with almost economists with whom I am familiar. They don't read widely out of their field in relevant fields like sociology, political science, and history and anthropology. They look through an economic lens that is colored by their ill-informed assumptions regarding context. Used to mathematical modeling, they are either uncomfortable with "the messy stuff," or they have an ideological bias that influences their point of view.
I would characterize my difficulties with Milanovic's work as resulting from lack of nuance. But I think he is drastically wrong in lumping China together with Western developed countries as "capitalist." China is Exhibit A of market socialism in the while markets underpin the Chinese economy giving it the appearance of being capitalistic.
The Chinese system is essentially a command system controlled by the CCP, and the CCP controls the commanding heights of the Chinese economy and Chinese society, either directly or indirectly. This is a curious melding of the ancient Chinese imperial system based on meritocracy (Mandarinism), Confucian culture, and Western ideology (Marxism-Leninism).
The goal of US policy with respect to China to turn it into a capitalist country that international capital, centered in the US and UK, can control. The eyes of the Western elite, China is Communist in spite of its market trappings. It has now become clear that the market trappings are never going to lead China to convert to Western liberalism without being subjugated first. So now subjugation is on the table, and the object of the trade war is aimed at forcing China to submit.
In the view of many political and military leaders, geopolitics is a game of king of the mountain. There is always a jockeying for dominance, which means submission of the rest. This is about global domination with trillions upon trillions on the table. The stakes have never been higher. Go figure.
Michael Roberts Blog — blogging from a marxist economist
Capitalism – not so alone
Michael Roberts