@FT : The US Jobs Report or In Defence of Plutocracy! Almost Marx comments

The Financial Times assigns ‘reporter’ Mamta Badkar the task of ballyhooing the June Jobs Report. Of course, the comments section is closed, the editors of this Tory tabloid knows their readership.

Now, this essay features the usual graphs, that chart the rise and fall of the various economic indicators, and framed in the Techno-Speak of the current expression of the Economic Theology. Note that this theological vocabulary partakes of the philosophical mendacity of  Leo Strauss, and the arcane neologisms of the comparable vocabulary of Heidegger, mixed with a radical nostalgia for the ‘primordial language of the Greek Golden Age‘: Attic vs Demotic Greek in its crudest form.  In the case of the Financial Times their particular political nostalgia is for the Adam Smith of The Wealth of Nations,  rather than the historical Smith, that gives equal weight to The Theory of Moral Sentiments.  The Party Line of The Financial Times is that Keynes is in eclipse, yet the Trinity of Mises/Hayek/Friedman is demonstrably failed. Self apologetics the central motive of this political intervention, not to speak of a fear of their readership!

The very expression of wages disappoint’ is utterly vacuous, given the fact that worker insecurity is one of the pillars of Neo-Liberalism. Even if the Greenspan quotation on that matter has become muddled, in its many misquotations and paraphrases, it expresses not just a contempt for workers of all kinds, it expresses Neo-Liberalism as representative of a class of Platonic Guardians, in sum a New Feudalism, in which Capital replaces the Royalty of the past, as the answer to the unending political/economic crisis of the Democratic West. The inability of those Economic Technocrats to bring back an utterly elusive economic prosperity, the Crash of 2008 has metastasized into a permanent crisis.

Almost Marx




About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.