I seem to recall so called arguments for stuff like bailing out the banks in 2008, or the attacks by the capitalists on social policies suggested by the labour party in the 80’s and recently by Corbyn. Am I mis-recalling? Has something gone wrong with my memory?
Why is it that, for example, with the TTIP agreement, corporations could take legal action against democratically elected governments if these pursue policies which might impinge upon their possible profits?
I think bringing the TTIP into this is a bit too far..
Thought it might be an example for how far things might go to keep markets happy.. Wrong? Well.. The point is that with this eu referendum, suddenly making the markets a bit jittery, unhappy, upset and the like – is not an issue what so ever! Is it not a bit surprising? Or even curious?
What is the it that might be curious?
That when the discourse is within capitalistic elements that work with the “market forces” – there is no question of upsetting the traders/gamblers this way or another. However, when the questions involved in a given discourse seem unfamiliar or hostile to the capitalist market – then suddenly upsetting the mood in the stock exchanges becomes a major issue.
Well.. Hummmm.. What is the deal here.. If you heared something you understood, its probable that you’d feel more relaxed about that then if it was something that seemed out of your context. No?
True. However, and perhaps indeed this is the crux of the question – then upsetting the markets is a political question rather than “purely economic”? Perhaps when the market upsets me, or destroys people’s livelihoods and aspirations; when the markets’ actions shuts working places and industries for entire communities, when the market forces coerces people to work more while being payed less, when through the market logic we get people living in constant distress having to juggle low payed work just to keep barely afloat – perhaps all these effects upon people are not an outcome of some economic necessity? Perhaps we can now see that in-fact, these are indeed as suspected, an outcome of a political motivated view?
What, because the markets aren’t too upset by a possible brexit?
No. lol.. Yes.. Because the markets do not mind – do not protest or make an issue along the lines of “don’t upset us” – despite obviously being in a bit of a turmoil. ie When a tory/capitalist tells me that scrapping paid education might, errr, upset the markets – and that is just pure economics, perhaps now i can produce a theorem rather than a supposition as to why it is a political not a “pure” economic question?
Yes.. If the market upsetness was something to do with pure economics, then surely, by negation, the process of brexit referendum which upsets the markets is also a pure economic issue that we shouldn’t engage with. (given the axiom of not upsetting markets) However, since upsetting markets is fine when its politically expedient for the ruling tory/capitalist party – then it points towards the axiom being either wrong or incorrect?
Are you not doing some sort of over correlations here?