This thinking stems from the comment made Dueñas Fernando Gaspar week my column "The Counter-tara" warning that Amartya Sen "Smith defends this interpretation (I made mine ) whereby he leaves everything to the market's invisible hand. " The inspirational credit (if any) of this simile belongs to him (Fernando).
"The creditable performance of the Allegedly Capitalist systems in the days when to real Achievements There Were drew on a combination of Institutions That Went Beyond much relying only on a profit-maximising market economy" . Amartya Sen With this statement I am trying to trace the path paved: capitalism we have today works because it is not largely because it is not only market or, even better, because it corrects market failures. So is democracy, for example, to observe in detail the measures that contemporary democracies remain so, we see that almost all are "contrademocráticas", ie, contradict or moderate the majority principle: constitutional limits on the power, fundamental rights, judicial activism, balance of powers, alternation of power, freedom of press, etc..
pseudocapitalismo Just as we have today, with its "visible hand" that contradicts it (the State), suggests our current "contrademocracia (Rosanvallon) or " Democracy has been turned against itself "; Smith's invisible hand suggests the fundamental norm of Kelsen on the mythical dimension that involves any mistake that is at the heart of a great theory. Let's see if I develop the comparison.
Smith says there is an "invisible hand" that regulates the market and it does work well (better known contemporaneously as "market forces"). But, in the words of Amartya Sen, Smith also said that although "capital markets and did a good job within its own sphere ... were not self-sufficient" . So if the market "well" but only "within its own sphere" and not "self" is simply because they do not work well alone, therefore, to be intervene, then the invisible hand, simply does not exist outside the elegant theory: practice is an aporia, as is the "fundamental rule" of Kelsen, which "supposedly" (and attention here to the genuine meaning of the phrase) is on the basis of any legal system and, I add, whether to "assume" is also just does not exist.
Stiglitz said it better than me: "That the reason the invisible hand is invisible Often Seems That It Is Often Not There" . The invisible hand is an unfortunate metaphor, a lie, there, and it does not moral detract Smith (who, as Sen shows, however its unique "invention" was concerned with the aberrations of unbridled capitalism), but it takes strength to his theory of "free" market.
For their part, content to strip the notion of market fair to say that "works well" despite making it conducive to injustice, is a dialectical trap axiologically unsustainable, and that is precisely what liar form radical neoliberal defenders : that the market per se is the panacea for "works well" (and is, in effect, for the handful of men who took over the world).
However, there is great thinkers who lack the intellectual executor (nor of public enemies) and, like Robert Walter did Kelsen (liters of ink to explain why the fundamental rule is not is a priori untenable metaphysical) seems to be doing Amartya Sen Smith (also did Chomsky ): that Smith has written that the market was self-sufficient all it does is to highlight the lack of invisible hand. Kelsen and for having said that justice is a concept that is beyond the positive law and enters the axiological field (politics) only revealed how the natural law is indispensable. In sum, the inherent injustice of the "invisible hand" of Smith not only descriptive but also axiological disputes.
"contradictory and complex? Yes, but Edgar Morin would say that the only way you can hit. Obviously I do not think that neither Kelsen nor Smith have been naive enough to believe the short story "invisible / fundamental." But then, at least historically, appears to be bright to be ambitious enough not to fear mistakes transecular thundered: nobody is exempt from wanting to go down in history, and is becoming the laughing stock (and time reference point) of the intelligentsia of the later generations.
Finally, it is argued that to bring down the system is required Kelsen external criticism. As I gather from the text of Sen's comment in the case of external criticism Smith (your system), he came from unknowingly (or knowingly?). No wonder: it seems to me that Kelsen did the same with the text "What is justice?" In respect of legal positivism. They look too.
end with a quote that I find relevant to evaluative round the idea that reported this point:
"If justice perished, Then it is no Longer Worthwhile for men to live upon the earth ', Kant.
http://relooney .fatcow.com/00_New_2988.pdf
0 comments:
Post a Comment