Krugman attacks the EPI!
P. Krugman from yesterday's NY TIMES: Real experts [such as Krugman himself], you see, tend to have views that are not entirely one-sided. For example, Columbia's Jagdish Bhagwati, a staunch free-trader, is also very critical of unrestricted flows of short-term capital. Right or not, this mixed stance reflects an honest mind at work. You might think that hacks would at least try to simulate an open mind -- that simply for the sake of appearances the Heritage Foundation would try to find some tax it supports, or the Economic Policy Institute find some trade liberalization it favors. But it almost never happens. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
The Slightly Progressive Payroll Tax
I tell people the numbers show the payroll tax is progressive thru the 9th income decile and they call me nuts. Well they will find some other reason to call me nuts, lord knows there are a couple, but CTJ has just put out a "Tax Day 2000" paper with that very same result. Their tables show the payroll tax is progressive thru the fourth quintile (they don't show deciles) for all taxpayers. Also amusing is CTJ's response to the Tax Foundation's "Tax Freedom Day" idiocy. Turns out that for the middle quintile of taxpayers, "Tax Freedom Day" (the day their income accumulates sufficiently to offset their imputed annual income tax liability) is January 21. The piece is not up on their web site yet, but it should be any time now: http://www.ctj.org mbs
Re: Krugman attacks the EPI!
Jim Devine wrote: P. Krugman from yesterday's NY TIMES: Real experts [such as Krugman himself], you see, tend to have views that are not entirely one-sided. For example, Columbia's Jagdish Bhagwati, a staunch free-trader, is also very critical of unrestricted flows of short-term capital. Right or not, this mixed stance reflects an honest mind at work. You might think that hacks would at least try to simulate an open mind -- that simply for the sake of appearances the Heritage Foundation would try to find some tax it supports, or the Economic Policy Institute find some trade liberalization it favors. But it almost never happens. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine Come now - I bet EPI would support China and Japan liberalizing their trade laws! Doug
Re: The Slightly Progressive Payroll Tax
Turns out that for the middle quintile of taxpayers, "Tax Freedom Day" (the day their income accumulates sufficiently to offset their imputed annual income tax liability) is January 21. Inauguration day? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
I don't see any originality in Krugman's argument. The same story written in pseudo economic terms. What a news! As a free marketeer, he suddenly discovers that the "Economic Policy Institute find some trade liberalizaton it favors. But it almost never happens". Bingo! capitalism has never been a free trade.. Mine P. Krugman from yesterday's NY TIMES: Real experts [such as Krugman himself], you see, tend to have views that are not entirely one-sided. For example, Columbia's Jagdish Bhagwati, a staunch free-trader, is also very critical of unrestricted flows of short-term capital. Right or not, this mixed stance reflects an honest mind at work. You might think that hacks would at least try to simulate an open mind -- that simply for the sake of appearances the Heritage Foundation would try to find some tax it supports, or the Economic Policy Institute find some trade liberalization it favors. But it almost never happens. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Krugman attacks the EPI!
Quick. Where's my heart medicine?!! Looks like a blatant, predatory exercise of market power in the intellectual marketplace. Where's the DoJ when you need them? You left out the best part, really the only element offered in support of his argument that academics are compelled to be objective, whereas we pack-traveling miscreants are driven by ideology: "But the structure of rewards in a field in which top departments are constantly jostling for prestige favors cleverness and originality, not political correctness of any stripe." Of course, Prof K neglects the 'structure of rewards' in re: textbooks, grants, and honoraria for speaking at Concord Coalition conferences. mbs P. Krugman from yesterday's NY TIMES: Real experts [such as Krugman himself], you see, tend to have views that are not entirely one-sided. For example, Columbia's Jagdish Bhagwati, a staunch free-trader, is also very critical of unrestricted flows of short-term capital. Right or not, this mixed stance reflects an honest mind at work. You might think that hacks would at least try to simulate an open mind -- that simply for the sake of appearances the Heritage Foundation would try to find some tax it supports, or the Economic Policy Institute find some trade liberalization it favors. But it almost never happens. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Krugman Watch: What a Hack!
From the New York TIMES op-ed, April 23, 2000, by Paul Krugman: ... this is a good occasion to talk about political bias in economic analysis. It is a real issue. But the corruption is more subtle -- and also more evenly spread across the political spectrum -- than my hate mailers seem to realize. Before I get started, I should mention that PK, following the lead of most other pundits, is engaged in recycling: much of what follows in his column appears in his books. First of all, academic research in economics is by and large carried out without strong political bias. I'm not saying that what you read in the journals is always right (don't get me started), or that the researchers themselves are noble characters: successful economists, like successful academics in any field, are usually ambitious men and women with large egos. But the structure of rewards in a field in which top departments are constantly jostling for prestige favors cleverness and originality, not political correctness of any stripe. PK doesn't inquire into the meaning of the words "cleverness and originality," since to those at the top of the economics profession's pecking order such as himself, the meaning is self-evident. The way in which the economics profession is set up, "cleverness and originality" are defined in purely formal terms, in using fancy mathematics or statistical techniques. I have no argument about fancy statistics or econometrics, but the profession's systematic privileging of fancy mathematics has a subtle political effect. Mathematics, by its very nature, simplifies and idealizes the real world, ironing out the heterogeneity of different cases. An excessive emphasis on math creates a bias against common-sense and empirical knowledge, i.e., all of Howard Gardner's 8 (or 9) varieties of intelligence except analytical intelligence (the stuff tested by old-fashioned IQ tests). Hegel is often quoted as saying "the real is rational, the rational is real." The orthodox school would agree: if it's not "rational" (describable in a mathematical form), it's not real. But even though they share his philosophical idealism, they typically lack Hegel's dynamic vision. Because of the privileging of formal rather than empirical knowledge (deductive rather than inductive reasoning), economists have done some very weird things. Since WW 2, they have almost worshipped the utterly utopian Walrasian general equilibrium model. Nowadays, there are large numbers of economists who want to impose this model on the world, not seeing non-market institutions such as communities as really being "real." Starting in the 1970s, this model has invaded macroeconomics (my main field), so that at one point, the irrational theory of "rational expectations" (i.e., that people's guesses about the uncertain future are correct on average) was taken seriously. Often combined with this was the assumption that markets "clear" instantaneously (so that the quantity demanded always equals the quantity supplied in all markets at all times). This stuff is nice mathematically, but as realistic as Plato's REPUBLIC. Most macroeconomists have rejected this stuff, but the fact that it was actually popular for awhile suggests a severe problem with the field. It reflects a larger problem of economics. Someday, I hope, that economists will realize that mathematics is only a tool among several tools. One good sign is the existence of the journal JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, which is largely non-formalistic and encourages economists with different perspectives to communicate with each other. But I think it will be a cold day in hell before economists will be rewarded for publishing in more popular journals like CHALLENGE. (Even those who publish in the JEP have to prove themselves to be elite enough by publishing in formalistic journals such as the AMERICAN ECONOMICS REVIEW.) It will be even colder when people are rewarded despite their having non-orthodox politic perspectives. (The alternative is that they hide their politics: I know of several economists who hid their leftist politics the way that Jews in the age of the Inquisition hid their faith -- until they got tenure.) Actually, it won't be colder. It will be hotter. During the heat of the 1960s and early 1970s, when millions were marching in the streets against the Vietnam war, sexism, ecological destruction, and similar abuses, the political perspective of the economics profession shifted to the left. Of course, as the Reagan era set in, the political perspective of the vast majority of US economists followed the general trend in society, moving toward the right and/or cynicism. Of course, PK ignores the societal influence on the economics profession, since at least his people are above politics. While hired guns do not flourish at Harvard or the University of Chicago, however, in Washington they roam in packs. PK doesn't mention
Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
At 01:06 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote: I don't see any originality in Krugman's argument. there's no originality in his argument. He proved himself to be original and clever a few years ago, so he doesn't have to be so any more. Instead, he can be a pundit. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
technical query
Advertising is such a pain. An example: if I minimize my e-mail program (Eudora) under Windows, I can see not only the name of the program but the beginning of who is the recipient or sender of any message at the bottom of the screen (on the "task bar"). Well, at home I have a different version of Eudora. If I minimize it, it says "Eudora by QUALCOMM," which takes up a lot of space -- so that I don't know the name of the recipient or sender of the open message. Is there any way to fix this? (I've tried all the obvious ways.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 2000 RELEASED TODAY: Regional and state unemployment rates remained generally stable in March. All four regions posted little or no change over the month, and 40 states and the District of Columbia recorded shifts of 0.3 percentage point or less. The national jobless rate was unchanged at 4.1 percent. Nonfarm employment increased in 46 states. ... Severe job-related injuries -- those that require a day or more away from work to recover -- continued to decline in 1998 to 1.7 million, a 6-year low, BLS reports. Lost workday cases have declined 37 percent since 1992, from 2.3 million in 1992 to 1.7 million in 1998. ... Cases of carpal tunnel syndrome also have continued to slide in 1998. According to BLS, those cases declined from 41,000 in 1993 to 26,300 in 1998. But workers who suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome continue to require more time away from work to recuperate -- 24 days -- than those who are otherwise injured. ... (Dean Scott in Daily Labor Report, page D-3). Initial claims filed with state agencies for unemployment insurance benefits decreased by 9,000 to a seasonally adjusted 257,000 in the week ended April 15, the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration reports. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-1) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has posted tables on its Internet site providing a breakdown of job patterns among minorities and women in private industry in 1998. The tables were compiled from data submitted by nearly 40,000 employers with approximately 50 million employees who filed EEO-1 reporting forms with the commission. ... The data are presented in aggregated format for major geographic areas and by industry group. ... The site is http://www.eeoc.gov application/ms-tnef
Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
i did *not* mean by "originality" "creativity" or "cleverness". I meant that Krugman "repeats" his free market dogma... the "unoriginality" he rediscovered before he became a pundit! Mine Miner wrote: At 01:06 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote: I don't see any originality in Krugman's argument. there's no originality in his argument. He proved himself to be original and clever a few years ago, so he doesn't have to be so any more. Instead, he can be a pundit. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
At 02:30 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote: i did *not* mean by "originality" "creativity" or "cleverness". I meant that Krugman "repeats" his free market dogma... the "unoriginality" he rediscovered before he became a pundit! I think that it's unfair to dub PK a practitioner of "free market dogma," since he's a technocratic type. It's okay to deviate from the free market, in this view, if the experts say it's okay. (Of course, he and the rest of the Big Name School elite determine who the "experts" are. It's a lot like the bureaucratic variant of political correctness, where the elite determines what's naught and what's nice.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
At 02:30 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
i did *not* mean by "originality" "creativity" or "cleverness". I
meant
that Krugman "repeats" his free market dogma... the "unoriginality" he
rediscovered before he became a pundit!
I think that it's unfair to dub PK a practitioner of "free market dogma,"
since he's a technocratic type.
Unfairness? I am not quite sure. Almost all the technocrats I am aware of
are "closet" free marketeers, either preaching "state regulated
capitalism" to make sure market works or openly admitting the inherent
justness of the market ("market is good but elites politicize it"
rhetoric). Both types are capitalists. They are just differently
capitalist. i don't think a technocrat would have a problem with free
market in so far as elites intervene to secure capitalism.
Mine, Aysen
Jim Devine
Re: Krugman Watch: What a Hack!
The sentence that stands out is: First of all, academic research in economics is by and large carried out without strong political bias. How many Marxists have been hired by major universities in the last decade to teach economics? Now maybe all Marxists are hacks by definition and incapable of doing good work. Could, say, Brad De Long get a job at Chicago? Or would they define him as a hack? There are things that you can say and things that you can not. Krugman postures as a perfectly reasonable person in making his assertion. Nobody unfamiliar with the workings of academia could have any reason to doubt what he says. Such is the privilege of punditry. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
I wrote:
I think that it's unfair to dub PK a practitioner of "free market dogma,"
since he's a technocratic type.
Mine writes:
Unfairness? I am not quite sure. Almost all the technocrats I am aware
of are "closet" free marketeers, either preaching "state regulated
capitalism" to make sure market works or openly admitting the inherent
justness of the market ("market is good but elites politicize it"
rhetoric). Both types are capitalists. They are just differently
capitalist. i don't think a technocrat would have a problem with free
market in so far as elites intervene to secure capitalism.
It's unfair simply in the sense that it's better to know more about people
before applying labels to them.
It's hard to tell, but I think we agree: most technocrats believe that "the
market" needs the helping hand of government to move toward being the "true
free market." Most of them don't say that the market is "just." Rather,
they'd probably say that notions of justice are vague and therefore weak. I
wouldn't say they were "capitalists" as much as pro-capitalist.
(Capitalists own significant amounts of capital, I would say enough to be
independently wealthy.)
I'm no fan of technocrats and see no reason to prefer the state-managed
capitalism of Japan or South Korea as superior to the more free-market
version of the US. Technocrats in power in a post-capitalist country can
also set themselves up as a new ruling class, as in the old USSR.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
Technocrats in power in a post-capitalist country can also set themselves up as a new ruling class, as in the old USSR. True, but now. In the past, USSR was a socialist economy, neither a "state commanded capitalism" nor a "free market capitalism it was "state socialist".. Mine,Aysen Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
At 05:00 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote: Technocrats in power in a post-capitalist country can also set themselves up as a new ruling class, as in the old USSR. True, but now. In the past, USSR was a socialist economy, neither a "state commanded capitalism" nor a "free market capitalism it was "state socialist".. I don't want to get into _that_ discussion. Buy you'll note that I referred to a "post-capitalist country." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
I am somewhat confused by the term technocrat. Is it used to mean one who
uses power, or representative of a adherent of Technocracy's technological
social design.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:18324] Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
At 02:30 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
i did *not* mean by "originality" "creativity" or "cleverness". I
meant
that Krugman "repeats" his free market dogma... the "unoriginality" he
rediscovered before he became a pundit!
I think that it's unfair to dub PK a practitioner of "free market dogma,"
since he's a technocratic type.
Unfairness? I am not quite sure. Almost all the technocrats I am aware of
are "closet" free marketeers, either preaching "state regulated
capitalism" to make sure market works or openly admitting the inherent
justness of the market ("market is good but elites politicize it"
rhetoric). Both types are capitalists. They are just differently
capitalist. i don't think a technocrat would have a problem with free
market in so far as elites intervene to secure capitalism.
Mine, Aysen
Jim Devine
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
-Fredreiche Neitzsche
Re: Re: Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
At 05:00 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote: Technocrats in power in a post-capitalist country can also set themselves up as a new ruling class, as in the old USSR. True, but now. In the past, USSR was a socialist economy, neither a "state commanded capitalism" nor a "free market capitalism it was "state socialist".. I don't want to get into _that_ discussion. Buy you'll note that I referred to a "post-capitalist country." Sorry, I probably misunderstood your last sentence "as in the old USSR"! Mine, Aysen Jim Devine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
At 06:11 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote: I am somewhat confused by the term technocrat. Is it used to mean one who uses power, or representative of a adherent of Technocracy's technological social design. yeah, but nowadays, as I understand it, a "technocrat" is simply an "expert" who makes technical decisions for governments or corporations. Someone who's technocratic is someone who thinks that experts are the ones who should be making such decisions. It's not old-fashioned technocracy, since in the end it's the capitalists who rule under capitalism and create the "mission statements" that guide the technocrats. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Nafta again
I just picked this up from Sam Lanfranco's labor list. The New York Times April 24, 2000 UPS Sues Canada Over Postal System ATLANTA (AP) -- United Parcel Service is suing Canada, alleging that the country's postal service has been allowed to use its mail monopoly to expand into the courier business and compete unfairly. The complaint, called a statement of claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement, accuses the government of allowing Canada Post Corp. to use the infrastructure built for letter delivery for its courier products. It seeks an ``absolute bare minimum'' of $160 million in damages starting in 1997, said Susan Webb, a spokeswoman for UPS Canada, based in Mississauga, Ontario. But the loss amount is ``a bit of a loose figure,'' Webb said of damages UPS feels it has sustained from lost market share. UPS filed the suit last week with the Justice Department in Ottawa. The complaint names Canada as the defendant because Atlanta-based UPS claims the government violated NAFTA terms concerning investments and monopolies. The claim also says Canada Post doesn't have to collect or pay taxes on packages it imports to Canada, unlike other courier companies that operate there. UPS also says that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency pays Canada Post several million dollars each year based on package import volumes. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Fwd: more on Diamond
here's another comment on Diamond's GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL, by Barkley Rosser, a pen-l alumnus. From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Jim Devine" [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Brad De Long" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: more on Diamond Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:20:12 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 Over the weekend I took a closer look at Diamond's book in light of the discussion I have seen. My opinion is somewhat improved, although one should really look at some of the books it draws on. It is well done, but quite a bit of this has been said before. However, Diamond does a fair job of mentioning such works in his Readings section in the back, noting McNeill's book as being especially influential (McNeill wrote a praising blurb on the dust cover that I saw). Also, Zinsser was published in 1935 by Little Brown out of Boston. It has been well known for some time that disease played a major role in the conquest of Austronesia and the Americas. The question thus still gets back to Africa as I mentioned before. I looked closely at his discussion of this and think he makes some plausible points. One is this business about the east-west axis versus the north-south axis, that it is easier to transfer crops and technologies east-west as could be done in Eurasia than north-south which is the axis in Africa. That may be the biggie, actually. Diamond clearly recognizes that Africans have more disease resistance than Eurasians and also argues that the other crucial factor was the lack of easily domesticated animals in Africa that was a key, relative to Eurasia, and raises the spectre of Africans on rhinos conquering Rome. I miswrote before about dogs and measles. Measles came from rinderpest from cattle, but not a big deal. Diamond does link even some of the diseases from wild animals with crop production, an interesting point. Malaria, an African originated disease, and one of the really big killers, tended to arise near agricultural villages. Also, bubonic plague, although from wild rats, was tied to crop production as the rats tended to be attracted by grains. I'm still not sure it is the great work of genius of the 1990s, but it does a pretty credible job and deals with quite a few difficult issues. It is also nice to see an effort to come up with a non-racist explanation for this stuff. Barkley Rosser Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
Jim:
Quite apart from all these political questions, I'm wondering how you think
Krugman's arrogance plays? Do you think it comes off as authoritative or
off-putting to non-lefties? It is interesting to me that the Times should feel
compelled to muscle up with two dismissive columnists--Krugman and Friedman--on
the issues of trade and globalization?
Joel Blau
Jim Devine wrote:
I wrote:
I think that it's unfair to dub PK a practitioner of "free market dogma,"
since he's a technocratic type.
Mine writes:
Unfairness? I am not quite sure. Almost all the technocrats I am aware
of are "closet" free marketeers, either preaching "state regulated
capitalism" to make sure market works or openly admitting the inherent
justness of the market ("market is good but elites politicize it"
rhetoric). Both types are capitalists. They are just differently
capitalist. i don't think a technocrat would have a problem with free
market in so far as elites intervene to secure capitalism.
It's unfair simply in the sense that it's better to know more about people
before applying labels to them.
It's hard to tell, but I think we agree: most technocrats believe that "the
market" needs the helping hand of government to move toward being the "true
free market." Most of them don't say that the market is "just." Rather,
they'd probably say that notions of justice are vague and therefore weak. I
wouldn't say they were "capitalists" as much as pro-capitalist.
(Capitalists own significant amounts of capital, I would say enough to be
independently wealthy.)
I'm no fan of technocrats and see no reason to prefer the state-managed
capitalism of Japan or South Korea as superior to the more free-market
version of the US. Technocrats in power in a post-capitalist country can
also set themselves up as a new ruling class, as in the old USSR.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
Joel asks: Quite apart from all these political questions, I'm wondering how you think Krugman's arrogance plays? Do you think it comes off as authoritative or off-putting to non-lefties? It is interesting to me that the Times should feel compelled to muscle up with two dismissive columnists--Krugman and Friedman--on the issues of trade and globalization? I don't know how such arrogance plays. But I'll bet that the TIMES is willing to accept arrogance for a Good Cause. Arrogance in the defense of liberty is no vice! (to paraphrase an old line from Barry Goldwater. Remember him?) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
Jordan wrote:
I am somewhat confused by the term technocrat. Is it used to mean one who
uses power, or representative of a adherent of Technocracy's
technological
social design.
Jordan, I think this is a legitimate question. Under capitalism,
technocrats are part of the ruling class in two significant ways.
First, as you say, they advise governments on so called technical
matters, and design policies that support the policies of the ruling
class. However, technocrats are not per se experts (I am an "expert",
let's say, on computers but this does not make me a technocrat); technos
benefit materially from their position and exert significant political
power through the hegemonic ruling block (business+bureaucracy+civil
society). Technocrats do not occupy a fixed position; they switch back and
forth universities, research institutions, think-tanks, international
organizations, media, business lobies and governments.
Second, when the ruling classes are in crisis and the dominated are
discontented (let's says rebellion or financial crisis), technos are
capable of finding new ways of rationalizing the economic power of the
priviliged classes to the people (state initiated neo-liberal reforms;
South Korea); ruling classes need coercion and consent to be able to rule
(Remember Gramsci). in that sense, technos play a very significant role in
"engineering" consent. For example, in many peripheral contexts and more
so in Latin America, technocrats were able to turn the debt crisis to
their own benefit in order to justify the privatization efforts to the
eloctrate and working classes ("Give support to our reforms or the economy
will collapse" rhetoric).
Finally, technocrats easly gain access to the ruling class when
socio-economic conditions are more conducive for circulation of elites.
This changes from context to context depending on the composition of
ruling classes. In the development of new economic policies or
accumulation in a society, let's say,from state capitalism to free market
capitalism (ie, Middle Estern states), technocrats may cause temporary
dislocations within the ruling class in the begining. Allied with more
pro-market oriented business and foreign interests, they constitute a
counter elite (but *not* anti-systemic, of course) in the sense of trying
to "reorient" or "remodify" the planning of the old political
econom under the the influence of the petty-bourgeois intelligensia and
the industrial bourgeoisie.It is remarkable to note, for example, IMF's
relaxation of financial pressures on Algeria after the military staged a
coup d'etat in 1992. Core hegemonic powers do not make concesssions for
"free ticket", they "reimpose" authoritarianism on those systems to be
able to better liberalize their trade regimes.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:18324] Re: Re: Krugman attacks the EPI! (fwd)
At 02:30 PM 4/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
i did *not* mean by "originality" "creativity" or "cleverness". I
meant
that Krugman "repeats" his free market dogma... the "unoriginality" he
rediscovered before he became a pundit!
I think that it's unfair to dub PK a practitioner of "free market dogma,"
since he's a technocratic type.
Unfairness? I am not quite sure. Almost all the technocrats I am aware of
are "closet" free marketeers, either preaching "state regulated
capitalism" to make sure market works or openly admitting the inherent
justness of the market ("market is good but elites politicize it"
rhetoric). Both types are capitalists. They are just differently
capitalist. i don't think a technocrat would have a problem with free
market in so far as elites intervene to secure capitalism.
Mine, Aysen
Jim Devine
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
-Fredreiche Neitzsche
