Tony, Mike, Mark, Two errors of opposite signs; Krugman provides the corrections to both errors.
Mike, your expectations are too high to put onto this article. Krugman's historical account of a fifty-year-long history of the New Deal tax system being dismantled while wealth accumulated, wealth paid for the politicians who allowed it to accumulate even more wealth, is his overall account of his time frame. He cites the collapse in the rate of auditing millionaires from 7.2% to 0.7% as his key evidence. These rates collapsed over the years 2011-19. He interjects at one point to note that these numbers were before Trump. There is no break in the narrative of Krugman's article because he is not attempting to identify a break in the narrative. Additionally, there is an error in categorization. Social structures of accumulation are identified based upon how surplus is extracted and legitimized (i.e., validation), not by whom extracts or legitimizes it. Tax evasion is a means of extracting; however, it is not a mechanism of extraction. $600 billion per annum is a massive flow of resources from the state to property owners, and as such, it is organizing nothing. As such, you cannot construct a political economy on nonenforcement because nonenforcement is not a method of coordinating. Nonenforcement is parasitic on an accumulation regime, which it does not create. Mark, "same shit, different toilet," has the opposite problem. The seed corn argument absorbs each and every momentary circumstance and thus fails to provide a basis for defining periods. Mechanisms used to govern under neoliberalism were impersonal and based on rules: central banking independence, rules-based trade systems, courts guaranteeing contracts, and markets disciplining. The claim made by neoliberalism concerning these mechanisms was that they applied universally. What has taken place since then is that claims to universality are now based on individual discretion. Personalized tariff exemptions, pardons for certain individuals, selectively prosecuting other individuals, and issuing permits on a case-by-case basis. This represents a fundamental transformation of the relationship between capital and the state regarding mediation, and if you fail to recognize it, you will be unable to understand why certain capitalist fractions are fearful of an administration that reduces their taxes. As such, what has occurred is not a transformation in the political economy but rather a transformation in the political form. Krugman recognizes a symptom of the current situation and labels it as moral decay. Weber would label this process as patrimonialization, i.e., the conversion of public office into a private household resource for rulers. The IRS serves as the paradigmatic example here, and the fact that Krugman finds puzzling is not a preference for cheating. Rather than a preference, it is simply a selection criterion. Dependence is the end goal. For this reason, I believe your policy recommendation—utilizing the impersonal fiscal apparatus to discipline the oligarchy—is the weak link in your entire position. In other words, you want to utilize an apparatus that is currently at issue within this conflict and not merely a neutral instrument available for use. This option was attempted previously. The effort included funding totaling approximately 80 billion dollars along with a "trifecta," i.e., control of Congress and the White House. Unfortunately, it was reversed by the end of two election cycles. When fruit has been plucked and regrown once, twice, or three times, it is not low-hanging. Reformist thought has consistently sidestepped the primary question: namely, who is going to compel an administration to prosecute its own donor base and subsequently maintain that prosecution until the next reversal? Without naming such a social force as described above, your proposal for action will remain correct but unfulfilled due to a lack of constituents demanding the same. Bonapartist regimes are not successors but rather substitutes for successor regimes. They exist where no capitalist faction can rule in its own name and the working class cannot rule in its own. Thus, both portions of this dialogue are half correct. No new social structure of accumulation exists; something has fundamentally changed. Tony -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43245): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43245 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/121011868/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
