------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BDB4FF.898B2660
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-3way@netnexus.org [mailto:owner-3way@netnexus.org]On Behalf
Of anthony painter
Sent: 19 July 1998 05:14
To: 3way@netnexus.org
Subject: Re: 3way Third Way
The (political)economics of the third-way:
I think that valuable direction can be given to this debate by analysing
the aims of any 'third-way' economics.
Can I propose ( tentatively) the following principles behind any
economics of the third-way:
1) Sustainability:
- Sustainable productivity What does this
mean?
- Environmental sustainability
- Political sustainability Does this mean
that if a Government is too unpopular it loses power.
2) Equity
Obviously, this list is not exhaustive but any list of aims should be as
short as possible for the sake of clarity. I don't see that a thing
becomes better because your list of objectives is short.
As I understand the 'third-way' and in terms of my own beliefs about
what the 'third-way' should mean, we should take the values of the left
and embed them within the political and socio-economic environment in
which we have to operate in.
This therefore ceases to a "third way" and merely becomes a remodelling
of the Leftist view. What are the values of the left, are they merely the
continued expansion of central control and redistribution of income to the
lower classes? Is there no interest in the new paradigm which awaits us in
the 21st Century, see Charles Handy et al. What do you do about the
polarization of wealth, the increasing relationship between IQ and income in
the advanced economies, the destruction of existing structures, the
weakening of the power of individual States and the competition between
States based on competitive fitness?
When analysed against the above list both classical and keynesian
economic models fail IN THE PRESENT SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT OF BRITAIN/
EUROPE/ THE GLOBE in the 1990s.
Keynesian economics as epitomised in the Keynesian welfare state
(1944-1976) matched the above aims ideologically. However, it was
seriously deficient in terms of sustainability which affected its
ability to provide equity in the long-term. Why? Reasons?
Classical economics has no theory of distribution and, therefore, must
be challenged on the basis of equity. Also, it proved to lack
sustainability- politically unfeasible for more than a decade, and there
is no necessary reason for it to prove to be sustainable in terms of
productivity and the environment ( in fact, it is very unlikely that it
will prove to be so.)
Therefore, the 'third-way' cannot be some sort of messy compromise
between two failed means of organising ( or not as the case may be) our
political economy. Personally, I believe that a strategy which attempts
to improve competitiveness through investment in human and
infrastructure investment should be the main focus of the sustainability
element of the 'third-way.' International cooperation and the further
strengthening of our democratic structures will provide the foundation
for a more rational debate on income and opportunity re-distribution.
What does this mean?
Just as a quick post-script, I think the idea for a grand empirical
project was interesting but I think that any project which is the beyond
the practical and intellectual limits of the entire economics profession
is a little beyond the possibilities of this debate. Do you really
believe this statement? Therefore, I'm
afraid that we may have to rely on 'arm-chair theorising'!
Anthony Painter.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to 3way, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BDB4FF.898B2660
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
The (political)economics of the =
third-way:
I think=20
that valuable direction can be given to this debate by =
analysing
the aims=20
of any 'third-way' economics.
Can I propose ( tentatively) =
the=20
following principles behind any
economics of the =
third-way:
1)=20
Sustainability:
=20
=20
- Sustainable=20
productivity What does this=20
=
mean?
&nb=
sp; &nbs=
p; =20
- Environmental =
sustainability
=20
=20
- Political=20
sustainability Does this =
mean that if=20
a Government is too unpopular it loses power.
2)=20
Equity
Obviously, this list is not exhaustive but any list of =
aims=20
should be as
short as possible for the sake of clarity. =
As I =
understand the=20
'third-way' and in terms of my own beliefs about
what the =
'third-way'=20
should mean, we should take the values of the left
and embed them =
within=20
the political and socio-economic environment in
which we have to =
operate=20
in.
This therefore ceases to a =
"third=20
way" and merely becomes a remodelling of the Leftist =
view. What=20
are the values of the left, are they merely the continued expansion =
of=20
central control and redistribution of income to the lower =
classes? Is=20
there no interest in the new paradigm which awaits us in the 21st =
Century,=20
see Charles Handy et al. What do you do about the polarization =
of=20
wealth, the increasing relationship between IQ and income in the =
advanced=20
economies, the destruction of existing structures, the weakening of =
the=20
power of individual States and the competition between States based =
on=20
competitive fitness?
When analysed against the =
above list=20
both classical and keynesian
economic models fail IN THE PRESENT =
SOCIAL=20
ENVIRONMENT OF BRITAIN/
EUROPE/ THE GLOBE in the =
1990s.
Keynesian=20
economics as epitomised in the Keynesian welfare =
state
(1944-1976)=20
matched the above aims ideologically. However, it was
seriously =
deficient=20
in terms of sustainability which affected its
ability to provide =
equity=20
in the long-term. Why? =20
Reasons?
Classical economics has no theory of =
distribution=20
and, therefore, must
be challenged on the basis of equity. Also, =
it=20
proved to lack
sustainability- politically unfeasible for more =
than a=20
decade, and there
is no necessary reason for it to prove to be=20
sustainable in terms of
productivity and the environment ( in =
fact, it is=20
very unlikely that it
will prove to be =
so.)
Therefore, the=20
'third-way' cannot be some sort of messy compromise
between two =
failed=20
means of organising ( or not as the case may be) our
political =
economy.=20
Personally, I believe that a strategy which attempts
to improve=20
competitiveness through investment in human and
infrastructure =
investment=20
should be the main focus of the sustainability
element of the=20
'third-way.' International cooperation and the =
further
strengthening of=20
our democratic structures will provide the foundation
for a more =
rational=20
debate on income and opportunity re-distribution. What=20
does this mean?
Just as a quick post-script, I think =
the idea=20
for a grand empirical
project was interesting but I think that =
any=20
project which is the beyond
the practical and intellectual limits =
of the=20
entire economics profession
is a little beyond the possibilities =
of this=20
debate. Do you really believe this statement?=20
Therefore, I'm
afraid that we may have to rely on =
'arm-chair=20
theorising'!
Anthony=20
=
Painter.
______________________________________________________
---------------------------=
----------------------------------
Posted=20
to 3way, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email =
provided by=20
new media consultants On-Line=20
Publishing