Re: RE: Re: Wanniski

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I ask you, since the WSJ editorial page is the semi-official mouthpiece
> for capitalism, why would they publish a viewpoint that makes no economic
> sense (from the perspective of capitalism)?

There's always been a split amongst the capitalists, between those who want
to get as much wealth as possible by any means necessary and those who look
to the long-term collective interests of the capitalist class as a whole.

The former group clings to the various ideologies termed "libertarian,"
_laissez-faire_, neo-liberalism, classical liberalism, etc. (corresponding
to the most common extra-US meaning of "liberalism"), since these views
validate their perspective and either tell them that's what's good for me
is all that counts (as with Ayn Rand) or that what's good for me will
benefit everyone else sooner or later (the trickle-down theory). This is
the view that's most represented in the WSJ, though their news stories can
be very good (and contradicting the editorial party line).

The latter group is sometimes called modern or New Deal liberalism
(corresponding to the common US meaning of "liberalism," the dreaded "L
word"). They warn that too much greed is a bad thing and may undermine the
legitimacy of the ruling class (though of course they don't say it that
way). They point to the need for government regulation and a democratic
veneer (consent of the governed). This view is represented more in BUSINESS
WEEK, though they try to present a variety of viewpoints. (I really don't
know other business magazines that well.)

Of course, it's not really a either/or: instead, it's a continuum. A
capitalist who's very "libertarian" on one issue (cutting progressive
taxes) can easily be "modern liberal" on another (bailing out bankrupt
businesses).

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine