> . . .
> political end. Here's part of a recent column by the beloved Pat
> Buchanan (NY Post, 11/29):
I'd like to note that on the level of op-ed
analysis, Buchanan's comments here are
unimpeachable. The only wrinkle in the quote is
the gratuitous, jew-baiting reference to Goldman
Sachs. Gratuitous not because G-S is not
accurately classified in terms of its interest
and political clout, but because it is singled
out, in contrast to investment banks with Irish
names.
At the same time, it should be acknowledged that
G-S is a little different. They've reportedly
got their hooks into Gingrich and Dole as well as
the Clinton Administration. Moreover, they are
insulated by their jewishness, such as it is.
Excessively pointed critiques come off as
anti-semitic. Even criticism based on generic
references to bankers has been attacked as
anti-semitic.
> "How is Mexico to repay the IMF? The devaluation of the peso by
> 50 percent doubled the price of U.S. goods and cut by 50 percent
> the price of Mexican exports. Devaluation thus wiped out the tiny
> U.S. trade surplus. And when U.S. companies saw the price of
> Mexican labor had been cut in half in dollars, they laid off
> their workers, shut down their U.S. plants and headed south for
> the Rio Grande.
>
> "This, then, is the great trade-off of the Global Economy. Wall
> Street gets reimbursed, while Main Street loses its export
> market, its factories and its jobs, and is put on the hook by the
> IMF so "investors" on Wall Street do not have to swallow really
> bug losses. We do it all -- to make the world safe for Goldman
> Sachs!"
>
> I suspect this sort of argument will get a strong response in the
> wroking class. People do have a sense there's a crisis out there
> that can hit them, and that they will pay for the financiers'
> fun and games.
>
> If the workers' movement, and left theorists, don't sharply point
> the finger at capitalism as responsible for enormous economic
> uncertainty as well as growing working-class misery, then right-
> wing populists will win with their line and aim U.S. workers' anger at
> their brothers and sisters abroad.
I very much agree that we have to try to avoid
being pre-empted on this. I don't think the
hazard in this context is emnity against foreign
workers, but ownership of the issue for the
neo-fascist right.
I do think there are two problems in a
critique that is aimed at the System with a
capital S. One is political, that it repels
workers and pushes them right, since it
could be taken to imply an ultimatist left
solution or 'maximum program' is the only relief
from financial crimes. The second is economic,
that the 'systemic' critique is wrong, that
financial regulation under progressive governance
in a mixed economy could be effective. So I take
your point as far as it goes, but think it needs
to go further.
Cheers,
MBS
==================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200
202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
Opinions here do not necessarily represent the
views of anyone associated with the Economic
Policy Institute.
===================================================
