ckaihatsu

Got it. Thanks again, Chris. Very informative.

As I understand it, protectionism is just the nation-state grouping of combined capital interests on the international stage -- it probably gets as close to being 'purely' capitalist-political as is empirically possible, because of each country ultimately being in competition with all others.

So Trump's quasi-isolationism could be seen as routine national economic protectionism given the overall global environment of indefinite nothing-going-on-right-now -- but to really see the extended dynamic we would also have to look at various nationalist currency devaluations, since those lead right into trade wars and then world wars.

I *don't* see this dynamic as being influenced by -- or, rather, *needing* to be influenced-by -- populism or localist-capitalist interests.

Thanks, Chris. That makes sense.

It just leaves me wondering about one last thing. If both bourgeois strata are broadly pro-trade, then what is the source of protectionist advocacy in politics? Do you attribute it entirely to populism and nothing else? Do you believe any part of it to be explainable by the desire of local small businesses to restrain transnational competitors?

And I do understand what you're getting at -- the *economic* ideology of a singular bourgeois camp doesn't always match-up-to and complement its *political* ideology. You're pointing out that Keynesians / liberals / Democrats should probably *all* be pro-economic-and-worker-movement, instead of politically lording over immigrants and domestic blue-collar workers, with economic nationalism.

I think we can roundly call this *opportunism* from the progressive camp, and I would attribute it to a-taste-of-power. Now emboldened with a foothold in the left-vacuum left by Trumpism and the country's far-rightward shift, progressive politics has no way to *consolidate* its position except by leaning in the direction of *nationalism*, which, ideologically, it's supposed to be *rebuffing* on all fronts.

Hope this helps, thanks.

Back to the rentier-capital, aristocracy-like faction, their ideology at least acknowledges that *others* have to do well in the economy, so that they can hand over their earnings to rentier-ownership in the form of rents and interest. I'd say it's their unique material position and resulting perspective on the overall economy -- aside from revolutionaries, of course -- that motivates their ideological call for the unfettered economic movement of capital, goods, and people.

And I do understand what you're getting at -- the *economic* ideology of a singular bourgeois camp doesn't always match-up-to and complement its *political* ideology. You're pointing out that Keynesians / liberals / Democrats should probably *all* be pro-economic-and-worker-movement, instead of politically lording over immigrants and domestic blue-collar workers, with economic nationalism.

Your retelling of the Keynesian vs. monetarists distinctions is as-to-be-expected -- monetarists are basically pro-deflation because they want the official value of their existing wealth to *go up*. (I mentally picture deflation as being like 'islands' of wealth-hoarding that become more-concentrated in their mass / value as deflation increases -- obviously synonymous with 'being overvalued'.)

The liberal / Keynesian economic ideology calls for *more movement* in the economy, to supply (government-funded) capital to borrowers, for greater equity velocity, and hopefully for more M-C-M' cycles, for growth (GDP). We're seeing far fewer equity opportunities, though, these days, as evidenced by the continuing near-zero interest rates in the U.S. and EU.

(Continuation of preceding comment)

...Furthermore, in the US, the question of international trade creates schisms both among Democrats and among Republicans.

Among US social liberals, there is a schism between the establishment "modern liberals," who are even ahead of the Republicans in their championing of free-trade agreements, and the more left-leaning "progressives," whose rhetoric often espouses such populist positions as "stopping our jobs from going to China" (a group that includes Sanders and his supporters, and has remarkably similar views on trade as Trump's supporters).

So this is an *extremely* divisive issue, and I'm at pains to discern all the forces at work.

Hi, Chris. You've talked about the conflicting interests of the "rentier economic faction" and equity holders. There's something I'm struggling to grasp, namely their disagreements on trade policy.

Keynesians are concerned with maintaining a "trade balance;" monetarists are not (neither the Chicago School nor the Austrian School). In fact, Friedman even argued that there was nothing behind "trade balance" efforts but the lobbying interests of exporting industries. Whether and how this plays into the hands of either stratum, I don't know.

The same group which argues for a tight monetary policy and a balanced budget is also the groups which argues most aggressively for the free movements of goods and people. Why *would* the "rentier economic faction" be at the forefront of the latter?

(Continued in next comment)

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

"I haven't been claiming that 'exchange value' and 'value' are different concepts." - i haven't been claiming that you've been claiming that...? only that RM has.