Re: GLOBAL KEYNESIANISM

To Ismsail Legardien:
You said in your posting:
"Neo-liberalism is based, in general, on principles of non intervention and
on the primacy of economics - the sole reliance on "the market" more
specifically on some kind of "invisible" appendage."
My answer: The problem with the sole reliance on markets is the fact, that
growing  numbers of people become unemployed during recessions or because
of increasing automation and other consequences of a globalizing economy
and have to rely on public welfare (where it exists) or on begging or
crime, where it does not (this has happened in Chile last year). The
failure of the Worldbank to take such considerations into account led to
the massive demonstrations in Seattle and other places. 
It all depends on what you consider the main task of our Society. Great
leaders like Franklin Delano Roosevelt felt, that all the people should
reap some benefits and that the poorest and weakest sectors need special
protection. But even if you do not share such idealistic views, there are
some much more practical reasons for attending such problems. The
resentment of these growing millions left behind by neoliberal policies and
globalization might result in violence of a massive scale, comparable to
the bloodiest revolution of the past. 
You said "Can you answer some of these questions, please?
1. What, if not regulation and public policy (hardly economic "mechanisms")
are these checks and balances? "

I refer to the separation of powers, to periodic elections etc.; all absent
under communism.

"2. More importantly, how, exactly does neo-liberalism "organize society"
-albeit "not ideal".

See above about the consequences of relying on markets exclusively.

"3. The paragraph or the message contained in it is ahistorical because it
assumes that the United States (for example) has ALWAYS been "a neo-liberal
country" and by extension cannot or fails to explain structural differences
between the US (today) and the US, say 200 years ago. it also fails to see
or cannot see the difference between the US today and, say, Togo, or
Burkina Faso. For instance, what are the structural (social, political and
economic) differences between the US (today) and these sub-Saharan
Countries, today? Or, what is the difference between the US, say 150 years
ago and Togo, today - in terms of development? This above conception of
neo-liberalism tends to resemble a super-athlete that DEMANDS, or FORCES
disabled, or incapacitated people to run in the same races as
other super-athletes, then says, there are mechanisms for voice or exit,
but predetermines that the race will go ahead regardless." 

How did you arrive at these conclusions? In my opinion Neo-liberalism came
into power only recently, after the mismanagement of Keynesian policies
under L.B. Johnson. As to your other references I fail to see their
connection to my recommendations on Global Keynesianism.

"In general, "wealth" has always been important."
Maybe, but lately the need to finance campaigns through private or
corporate donations has resulted in elected representatives defending the
interests of their donors in detriment of looking out for the interests of
the rest of the population. This fact has led to many attempts to reform
campaign financing, so far without result, because of the opposition of
such donors.
 
Any comments?
Regards Paul Riesz