Re: [Pen-l] The battle for Obama's economic soul
That doesn't make him a bad guy, does it? (especially if the decline is primarily above the median). --ravi Volcker is a very bad guy. In fact, anybody who has ever run the Federal Reserve is a skunk. ___ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Re: [Pen-l] The battle for Obama's economic soul
Greetings Economists, On Oct 22, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: Key among the good guys is former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, Doyle; Volcker engineered the recession of that first Reagan period. Nasty customer indeed. Not a good guy. thanks, Doyle Saylor ___ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Re: [Pen-l] The battle for Obama's economic soul
On Oct 22, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: That doesn't make him a bad guy, does it? (especially if the decline is primarily above the median). Volcker is a very bad guy. Yes, absolutely. No disagreement on that. But if he says that one should expect a decline in American standards of living, that may be (pending finer scrutiny) one of the better things he has said/done. We (the list) have argued this before, but I have not seen any good refutation of the self-evident fact (IMHO) that the entire world cannot live at American levels, and if we are to give residents of the poorer nations a standard of living that is tolerable, it may well be at the cost of that SUV or colour television in each room or a mobile phone per family member (over the age of 5) that is sort of the staple for a middle-class (or higher) American family, or even its equivalent in the 70s when Volcker initiated the rather unlikely phenomenon of Fed Chair as Rock Star. Don't you think? --ravi -- Support something better than yourself, and only a bit worse than Doug! ;-) PeTA = http://peta.org/ Greenpeace = http://greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/ ___ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Re: [Pen-l] The battle for Obama's economic soul
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:30 AM, ravi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, absolutely. No disagreement on that. But if he says that one should expect a decline in American standards of living, that may be (pending finer scrutiny) one of the better things he has said/done. We (the list) have argued this before, but I have not seen any good refutation of the self-evident fact (IMHO) that the entire world cannot live at American levels, and if we are to give residents of the poorer nations a standard of living that is tolerable, it may well be at the cost of that SUV or colour television in each room or a mobile phone per family member (over the age of 5) that is sort of the staple for a middle-class (or higher) American family, or even its equivalent in the 70s when Volcker initiated the rather unlikely phenomenon of Fed Chair as Rock Star. Don't you think? I agree 100%. -raghu. -- I busted a mirror and got seven years bad luck, but my lawyer says he can get me five. ___ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Re: [Pen-l] The battle for Obama's economic soul
I'm touched by the generous interpretations of Paul Volcker's remark, but his point was to impose austerity on the working class. He was the commander of a class war from above. And if the right paid attention to PEN-L and weren't already on the ropes, they might be able to make some hay with these weird endorsements of his position. Doug ___ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Re: [Pen-l] The battle for Obama's economic soul
Fair enough but I am not inclined to say the guy is pure evil and every word of his should always be interpreted with the utmost cynicism. Maybe if you can provide the context in which he made the remark, we may be able to evaluate it better. -raghu. Jimmy Carter's Economy: Policy in an Age of Limits | Book Reviews Published by EH.Net (January 2004) W. Carl Biven, Jimmy Carter's Economy: Policy in an Age of Limits. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002, ix + 346p., (Hardcover), ISBN:0-8078-2738-X. Reviewed for EH.Net by Toby G. Bates, Department of History, University of Mississippi W. Carl Biven's Jimmy Carter's Economy: Policy in a Age of Limits examines the steps and missteps in the national fiscal strategy of the Carter administration and details a president tested by economic forces over which he possessed limited control. The author utilizes personal interviews with former members of the Carter administration, as well as an exhaustive examination of primary and secondary material, to detail a coalescence of events that faced the new chief executive. The severity of the economic problems prevented the application of any lasting solutions. In a business-like chronological narrative Biven argues that Carter inherited many of the complex economic problems of his term, gamely attempted various solutions, but in the end failed due to his management style, political infighting, and the overall limits forced by the dire economic times upon government policies. Biven details three central problems that haunted the Carter administration: the Iranian hostage crisis, division in the Democratic Party, and most importantly the national economy. Double-digit inflation, slow national growth, high unemployment, a decline in the rate of growth of output per worker, and serious international economic challenges from Japan and Germany remained just a few of the problems the thirty-ninth president faced upon entry into the White House. Biven describes a Democratic party traditionally committed to full employment and the protection of the welfare state. The author concludes, however, that Carter understood that to confront the economic ills challenging the nation his political party needed to reconsider traditional national priorities and undertake an overall shift to the political center. Carter's personality and work traits played a role in his administration's reaction to the economic despair confronting the nation. The president focused, such as in the case of inflation, on the microeconomic problems as opposed to macroeconomics. The author suggests that Carter preferred problems of a micro-nature where less of a chance existed for political or other outside entanglements. Biven quotes government officials that suggest that the president, due to his background in engineering, remained too wedded to minute details. Biven begins his scholarship with an examination of the 1976 presidential election. He argues that while the economy had begun to recover from the severe recession suffered under President Gerald Ford, a different perception existed between true statistical recovery and an awareness of an upturn among the American populace. High unemployment and inflation dogged the incumbent, and Carter subsequently won a close election. Biven argues that initially Carter utilized traditional Democratic economists that remained wedded to Keynesian ideals. The problem, however, was that while these economic advisers focused at the outset on unemployment, the true threat to economic stability remained inflation. Biven writes that it was not until early 1979, after what the author describes as an inflation explosion, that Carter's advisors shifted into anti-inflation mode and recognized the problem as issue number one. In other words, the economic problems in the mid to late 1970s required new ways of thinking, as the nation faced unprecedented troubles. Biven details not only the domestic economic problems confronting the nation but the tensions inside the government to reach solutions. Carter did not possess a great deal of knowledge concerning economics so it was vital for the president to be surrounded by qualified advisors. The author documents the efforts of the Economic Policy Group, labeled by some as the Troika, to confront many of the nation's economic woes. The first Troika consisted of the Secretary of the Treasury Michael Blumenthal, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget Bert Lance, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic advisors Charles Schultze. The Economic Policy Group also contained the secretaries of state, commerce, labor, housing and urban development, as well as the national security advisor. A Quadriad of advisors also possessed a role in economic policy as it consisted of the Troika as well as the Federal Reserve Chairman. Tensions surfaced as many viewed the groups as being too large
Re: [Pen-l] The battle for Obama's economic soul
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jimmy Carter's Economy: Policy in an Age of Limits | Book Reviews Published by EH.Net (January 2004) Thanks. I looked on Google and it seems that his actual quote was the standard of living of the average American has to decline: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6441987/Volcker-Asserts-US-Must-Trim-Living-Standard-NYT-10181979 That statement is ambiguous, and in the light of his later actions, he probably didn't mean anything progressive. So it looks like Doug was right (though his original quote was not accurate). I'd agree with the amended statement the average standard of living of Americans has to decline. -raghu. -- You will pay for your sins. If you already have please disregard this message. ___ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Re: [Pen-l] The battle for Obama's economic soul
On Oct 22, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Doug Henwood wrote: On Oct 22, 2008, at 3:38 PM, ravi wrote: Sometimes, when your opponent gives you the phrases you need, it is wise to use them. And sometimes you should acknowledge that those phrases are embedded in a worldview hostile to your own. And I did (in response to LP), in case it wasn't obvious. But to me, when someone like Volcker says we need a decline in American SoL, that seems a great opportunity to drive home some points: not much can decline in the SoL of the bottom 50% -- perhaps a few things -- but the value of your idea, Chairman Volcker, is made clear when we look at the excesses of the top 20%. You are right in that the intended/original subtext of his warning is an ominous one and that (warning statement) should therefore make him a bad guy. --ravi -- Support something better than yourself ;-) PeTA = http://peta.org/ Greenpeace = http://greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/ ___ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Re: [Pen-l] The battle for Obama's economic soul
Doug Henwood wrote: I'm touched by the generous interpretations of Paul Volcker's remark, but his point was to impose austerity on the working class. He was the commander of a class war from above. ... Right. Volcker didn't want to hurt the incomes of the super-rich. He wanted to raise them. He doesn't favor lowering US incomes to the third world level. Rather, he favors lowering working-class incomes to that level, if needed. raghu: Fair enough but I am not inclined to say the guy is pure evil and every word of his should always be interpreted with the utmost cynicism. Maybe if you can provide the context in which he made the remark, we may be able to evaluate it better. No-one says that Volcker is pure evil. I don't get this practice of arguing against proposition X by saying that X isn't _completely true_ as if that says that X is totally wrong. Doug criticizes Volcker for being a Field Marshall of finance capital and someone says well, he can't be all bad. (He loves dogs and children after all!) But he can be a leader of the one-sided class war while being a nice guy on the personal level. Interpreting Volcker's words does not involve the utmost cynicism. Rather, it involves putting them into context: he's a leader of finance capital, organized paper wealth. He may be very non-cynical when considering issues involving the care and feeding of his peers. Louis: Volcker is a very bad guy. In fact, anybody who has ever run the Federal Reserve is a skunk. What about G. William Miller (who Volcker replaced)? Gerry Epstein has argued that the banks spurred an informal coup d'état against Miller because he didn't serve their interests well. This view is reflected in the article in the Wikipedia seen below. But the article suggests that he really did not do a good job. In any event, I have a feeling that any non-skunk who led the Fed would be quickly ousted. It's part of the job description to be a skunk. George William Miller (March 9, 1925 – March 17, 2006) served as the 65th United States Secretary of the Treasury under President Carter from August 6, 1979 to January 20, 1981. He previously served as the 11th Chairman of the Federal Reserve, where he began service on March 8, 1978. Miller was the first and currently only Federal Reserve Chairman to come from a corporate background, rather than from economics or finance. He is also the only person to have served both as Federal Reserve Chairman and as Treasury Secretary. ... Miller succeeded Arthur Burns as Fed Chairman in January 1978. He inherited a high inflation economy, still suffering from the increase in oil prices from OPEC. The change in the Consumer Price Index was 4.9% in 1976 and 6.7% in 1977. Nevertheless, Miller maintained a [mis-described] Keynesian belief that inflation could prime the pump of the economy, and would at any rate be self-correcting. He thus pursued a strongly doveish policy and opposed raising interest rates. The effect of this was to send the dollar's value spiraling downward. In November 1978, only 11 months into his term, the dollar had fallen nearly 34% against the German mark and almost 42% against the Japanese yen, prompting the Carter administration to launch a dollar rescue package including emergency sales from the U.S. gold stock, borrowing from the International Monetary Fund, and auctions of Treasury securities denominated in foreign currencies. This proved only a short-term fix; while temporarily steadying the dollar, it soon resumed its fall. The portmanteau stagflation, the combination of stagnation and inflation, increased in popularity during this time to describe the high rate of inflation that was failing to spur the economy. Miller's lackadaisical measures against inflation caused distress among members of the Carter Administration itself. Treasury Secretary Blumenthal, Inflation Adviser Alfred Kahn, and Chief Presidential Economist Charles Schultze all advocated for increasing the interest rate prior to the April 1979 meeting, where Miller opposed such measures. Carter had to admonish his own staff over the press leaks used to carry on the dispute. Miller was not perceived as having great prestige; not coming from an economics or Wall Street background, he was seen as an outsider. A 2003 article in The Economist said that America's central bankers have all made their weight felt across the political sphere, with the possible exception of William Miller, whose brief tenure in 1978-79 was notable for his attempts to ban smoking at the board. It is rare for the influential chair's opinion to not carry the vote at the Federal Reserve's meetings, but Miller was outvoted by the Board of Governors at a meeting in 1979 where he opposed an increase in the discount rate, the rate at which the Federal Reserve lends to banks. Economic historians have generally considered Miller's short tenure unsuccessful. The high inflation that Miller allowed required harsh shock
Re: [Pen-l] The battle for Obama's economic soul
Doug's LBO excesses? On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:58 PM, raghu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No-one says that Volcker is pure evil. I don't get this practice of arguing against proposition X by saying that X isn't _completely true_ as if that says that X is totally wrong. Doug criticizes Volcker for being a Field Marshall of finance capital and someone says well, he can't be all bad. (He loves dogs and children after all!) Volcker can and does say a lot of things that make perfect sense. As I recall he warned against the LBO excesses of the 1980's, and more recently against the housing bubble well before it burst. Volcker's ideas obviously are not much aligned with mine, but that doesn't mean I can't agree with *some* of the things he says. -raghu. -- I busted a mirror and got seven years bad luck, but my lawyer says he can get me five. ___ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Jim Devine / Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama. -- JL. ___ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Re: [Pen-l] The battle for Obama's economic soul
Volcker even sounds like a cross between vulgar and vulcan. Scary. On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:58 PM, raghu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No-one says that Volcker is pure evil. I don't get this practice of arguing against proposition X by saying that X isn't _completely true_ as if that says that X is totally wrong. Doug criticizes Volcker for being a Field Marshall of finance capital and someone says well, he can't be all bad. (He loves dogs and children after all!) Volcker can and does say a lot of things that make perfect sense. As I recall he warned against the LBO excesses of the 1980's, and more recently against the housing bubble well before it burst. Volcker's ideas obviously are not much aligned with mine, but that doesn't mean I can't agree with *some* of the things he says. -raghu. -- I busted a mirror and got seven years bad luck, but my lawyer says he can get me five. ___ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Sandwichman ___ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
