re: global keynesianism

Someone once mentioned somewhere on csf.colorado.edu that something like
global Keynesianism or transnational socialism would be a good idea. That
formulation cought my attention and I liked it ever since. Thus, when Paul
raises the issue of global Keynesianism, that is interesting as a debating
point. For example, raising the global minimum wage or structuring global
economic policies around health-education-welfare goals, as Paul suggests,
seems like a good idea. Let's say, Wagar's utopia of a global commonwealth
of socialist republics would come about, what kind of economic policies
would that commonwealth pursue? Most likely, economic policies structured
around health-education-welfare goals. In this regard, Wagar-style
transnational socialism and global Keynesianism could have all kinds of
commonalities. A big problem is, of course, what would a global steering
committee of a global- Keynesian variety do (or be able to do) about the
power of global corporations and financial investors? This could, perhaps,
also be discussed in the context of the Boswell/Chase-Dunn "spiral of
capitalism and socialism". Even though their idiom is different from Paul
Riesz's, I see some similarity of intent, for example, when they write (p.
12 of their new book): "Global democracy is the equivalent of social
democracy at the world level". Social democracy at the world level would
presumably pursue economic policies structured around
health-education-welfare priorities. That is what Paul suggests under the
label "global Keynesianism". There is also a commonality with the goals of
the anti-IMF etc. movement, which is also interested in worldwide health,
education and welfare of people, as opposed to health and welfare of global
corporations.

Gert Kohler
Oakville, Canada