Shadow Banking 101 - with Conner Howell
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 жов 2024
- Turn your videos into live streams with Restream restre.am/ANIm
Conner Howell is a graduate student in economics at the University of Missouri - Kansas City. He does research on securitization and shadow banking through a Post-Keynesian lens. I'm hnoping to learn much more about this important and mysterious sector, and how it can inform our approach to economics.
Conner Howell was, really, an _amazing_ guest. He was very engaging. His answers were crystal clear, insightful, and stunningly articulate, like he’s been doing this type of thing for years. In any case, a great show. Have this guy on again!
Start: 3:23
Fyi, Conner's blue sky link isn't in the description
1:19:30 "A lot of people try to pin me down on this 'capitalism socialism.' I think there's are pros and cons to each..."
I mean...the "pros" of capitalism are really only relative to feudalism. Capitalism is about the acquisition of capital; there is no consideration for efficient resource distribution, and the only reason efficient resource use is even a factor is because of profits vs costs. Innovation doesn't increase in capitalism, it increases as more people have access to better education and more freedom to use it creatively. Society doesn't get richer in capitalism, it transfers the wealth from many to a few (a lot like feudalism). Quality of life doesn't improve in capitalism, it improves when people fight against capitalism to win the concession of improvements (a lot like feudalism). The one thing capitalism claimed as its "pro" was the socialization of labor increasing productivity, which increased the availability of goods and services. Capitalism wasn't necessary for that; feudalism could have done it as well if the lords and monarchs had the inclination...which they did in some places, which is why some empires were advanced for their time (look into mass production in ancient China).
Capitalism is not that big of a step away from feudalism. It's actually a lot closer to feudalism than people want to admit/acknowledge. Describe capitalism (or even just a group of capitalist businesses existing in any type of government), whatever you think it means, describe feudalism, and then swap out key words; they are almost identical. Same with the system called "republic." There's very little difference between them UNLESS you focus entirely on the aesthetics. The same laws can exist in each, the same norms can exist in each. Their power dynamics are almost identical. The aesthetic differences are mostly "elections" and "not based in bloodlines," but even those are regularly just cope; we don't have dynastic rule so much in most republics, but that doesn't mean certain families aren't more likely to be involved in high offices than other people, and dynastic WEALTH AND BUSINESS OWNERSHIP is still a thing despite the rise of the corporation (which still maintains very similar dynamics and a preference for certain families).
The problem with the pros/cons of socialism is that we don't know what they are or might be because every revolution is so heavily and thoroughly attacked by capitalist countries over the long and short terms that they don't have a chance to do anything but hunker down and become entirely state-driven; too many revolutions start out with statism as the goal, too, and as any Marxist worth the label can tell you, statism is not socialism is not statism (a lot of people claiming to be Marxists will disagree, but that comes from rejecting Marx by cherry-picking decontextualized quotes. Read "Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy," where Marx disabuses people like Bakunin of that notion; Bakunin actually describes exactly what those "Marxists" point to as socialism of the Marxist variety). We can look at possibilities based on what socialists advocate for according to their branch of socialism, but the primary "con" that anyone will be able to argue is "people can't do whatever they want," which REALLY means "there aren't rich people who can do whatever they want, middle class people who can do some of what they want, and poor people who are stuck doing what they hate." Democratization of the economy at all levels makes it possible for more people to do more things that they want, have more of a say, etc etc etc.
You COULD argue that socialism might not be as "efficient" as capitalism, but "efficient for who" is the obvious retort. "Efficiency" in capitalism requires shortchanging a lot of people, and is often a mask for all of the other costs of doing business paid for by the people through subsidies or pushing the increased costs onto individuals. Democracy (socialism) may take longer (not the obscenity of the caricatures, though), but the decisions made are communally approved rather than mandated from an entity whose sole interest is profits.
Most of the "cons" of socialism that people come up with are more about statism, which also applies to all top-down systems that don't operate PRIMARILY for profit, and caricatures designed specifically to make democracy seem non-viable (they never have evidence, only thought experiments/hypotheticals designed specifically to support their argument). Hand-waiving "pros and cons to each" is really just giving credibility to caricatures and the people who push them, and to statists posing as socialists.
You're right in saying that you need people to define socialism for you to identify pros/cons, because there are many branches, but the pros of capitalism are too heavily outweighed by its cons to even make an argument for keeping it; statism, a bad system, is better than capitalism just as capitalism, an even worse system, was better than feudalism; in all cases you have top-down control, but in statism and feudalism you know who to blame for the conditions of society whereas in capitalism "it's your fault for not working hard enough" and other BS that pits working people against each other. Socialism, whatever branch, is vastly more democratic and pro-social than statism and capitalism. If you have issues with democracy, then that doesn't stem from evidence, it stems from Aristotlean arguments for top-down dynamics.
This all goes back to the point you made earlier, too: nobody saw this coming (whatever the latest economic problem "this" is each time). People who pay attention to the economy may not predict every recession or other economic issue, but it's entirely predictable THAT they will happen. It's a feature, not a bug, so predicting what might cause them should actually be a job on its own so that they can be addressed before they turn into a "thing." But that's not profitable, and the interest in capitalism is not public good, so discrediting anyone who does try to address them is the preferred approach by capitalists. Again, the cons outweigh the pros far too much to defend it against anything but feudalism, and only in very limited ways.
I like how Conner explained things on an introductory level and then expanded upon his ideas. He had a conversational style of delivery, it didn't seem like a practiced lecture. Please invite this guest back to your show.