Unlike psychological terminology—which consists mainly of terms of invective (try to think of a desirable personality complex)—today’s economic vocabulary is euphemistic. One rarely hears the terms “rentier” or “usury” that played so central a role in the debates of past centuries.
Perhaps the bookers over at Fox News decided to get Rep. Adam Smith, one of 16 Democrats who voted against the fiscal cliff deal, on “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday because they thought the congressman would agree with the program’s hosts. If that was the case, they were sorely mistaken.
Perhaps the most troubling reality in the 21st century is that our economics now dictates our cultural values, rather than the reverse, where we the people would decide how resources, production and mutual prosperity should be systematized to achieve the best society for all.
Many in Britain and the United States are in mourning for what’s taken as the suicide of the American (or Thatcherite, or Chicago-school) model of capitalism, accompanied by the non-interventionist state that hands the national economy over to business and financial leaders to run.
Sizing up Hillary Clinton’s economic outlook on a campaign stop Sunday, rival presidential candidate Mitt Romney took aim at Clinton’s approach, accusing her of harboring ideas more in line with “Communist Manifesto” author Karl Marx’s theories than those of capitalist champion Adam Smith.