Isaac Chan’s Reviews > Capitalism and Its Critics: A History: From the Industrial Revolution to AI > Status Update

Hobson concluded that the only reason for the British empire to be persuaded to embark on so many imperialist ventures, was that 'the business interests of the nation as a whole are subordinated to those of certain sectional interests that usurp control ...' I'm thinking, do nations even have 'business interests as a whole'? Krugman taught me – no. (In 'Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession')

Note 2/2:

And yes, I have already learned of Hobson and his fascinating theory of underconsumption due to inequality from Kenneth Waltz. The masses cannot spend! And the rich won't spend enough due to satiation and diminishing marginal utility.

Note 1/2:
Hobson responded to imperialists like Cecil Rhodes in 1898, who claimed that expanding the British empire was the best way to create markets for British products and jobs for British workers. I wonder – what's wrong with just trading with those countries? Coz you can't force them to accept your terms?

Note 1/2:
Veblen seemed to take the effort to stress the point that even poor people engage in conspicuous consumption as well – 'no class of society, not even the most abjectly poor, forgoes all customary conspicuous consumption ...', as if this is a big deal. Why? I'm not surprised in the slightest. Maybe times have changed (and, if so, it probably reflects the tremendous economic growth we've had since ...

Note 2/2:

But now, I think: 'Every spending has an opportunity cost. That stimulus to the producers of said wasteful goods is just what is seen. What is not seen is the spending that would've been otherwise directed towards useful goods, or even productive investment in the real economy. Thus that conspicuous consumption is a waste, at the end of the day, similar to the broken window.'

Note 1/2:
Regarding this commentary on Veblen's conspicuous consumption and waste, Bastiat made me rethink smtg:

Prior to Bastiat, I might have thought: 'How can any consumption be a waste? Even if it's spent on leisure goods that are "manifestly incapable of doing anything that is of any use" (Veblen's words), that spending still stimulates industry.'

Note 2/2:

... suspicious of government, which they saw as corrupted and captured by the elite.

Note 1/2:
Henry George wrote (paraphrasing): The 'truth in socialism' was that to make the economy work for everyone, the state would have to play a bigger role.

Was George one of the first socialist-leaning thinkers who thought that the state was necessary for redistribution, then? (As if the state isn't run by people, too, who in turn respond to incentives) Recall that the earliest socialists were deeply ...

Note 2/2:

... seems that he doesn't, since capital always demands a risk premium.

And so it turns out that the law of declining profitability first appeared in the Grundrisse.

Note 1/2:
The Grundrisse's biggest innovation in terms of econ theory was the 'law of declining profitability' of capitalism. Yes, this was Marx's main point of the self-contradictory nature of capitalism. I've forgotten what Piketty's view about this is already, i.e. whether he thought *r* would naturally decline due to diminishing marginal returns, but given his stance that r seems to always remain above g, it ...