{"content":[{"text":"Where does this leave us? Once again, an apparently moderate time seems at hand. \n Employment and business cycle dynamics have been milder since the crisis. A number of \n factors may be at work: rapid technical change, including AI and robotic production; \n unprecedented zero-bound monetary policy (‘quantitative easing’, etc.); and the emergence \n of platform capitalism. Does this mean we are about to launch into an era of post-capitalism \n (Paul Mason 2016), global managerial capitalism (Dumenil and Levy 2018), or the \n spontaneous emergence of the moral economy (Bowles 2016)?","bbox":{"left":0.117686,"top":0.072724,"width":0.764027,"height":0.12430400000000001}},{"text":"This is unlikely. These visions all erase the contradiction between the increasing power of \n capital and the declining capacity of the state – the apparently recurrent phenomenon that \n O’Connor first highlighted in 1973. We then turn to what appears to be the emergence of a \n third fiscal crisis of the state, characterized by empowered capital, a diminished state, and \n mobile humanity. And whereas post-War national leaders faced policy tradeoffs (as in \n Okun’s famous inflation/unemployment ‘big tradeoff’), today’s political leaders operate in \n policy contexts roiled by populist ‘revolts’ that challenge the very legitimacy of state power. \n Here we review recent warnings by authors such as Mounk (2018) and Snyder (2018). To \n comprehend this new context, much less contending with it, we need a pluralist and \n interdisciplinary economics – that is, an economics that rediscovers its identity as \n historically embedded political economy.","bbox":{"left":0.117686,"top":0.214871,"width":0.7628450000000001,"height":0.19537600000000002}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}