From: Jim Devine raghu wrote: > Volcker has been consistently progressive on financial reform issues > for a very long time.
What in heck does "progressive" mean, anyway? Bull-Moose Teddy Roosevelt? Fighting Bob LaFollette? the _Progressive_ magazine? the leftward half of the Democratic Party? Today's "progressive" ideas (like Obama's Mitt Romney plan for health care reform) are often to the right of yesterday's "progressive" ideas (Nixon's ideal health care reform), just as the Clinton Democrats were much the same as Eisenhower Republicans (as Clinton himself said), if that good. The word changes its meaning over time and with context. Without context, "progressive" means nothing. ^^^ CB: Part of the context here is the "Progressive Economics list <pen-l" Raghu seems to be using the word "progressive" in the context of financial reform to mean "forcing the financiers to take the medicine" which will be good for them (as a group) in the long run even if it hurts their short-term interest. If so, Volcker is a "progressive." However, I wouldn't identify serving the long-term collective interest of the bankers with "progressive" in this way. If forced to define the always-ambiguous if not vacuous term, I'd say that "progressive" means in favor of empowering the working class and other dominated groups in society. (This definition, naturally enough, puts the term in the context of my values and world-view.) ^^^^^ CB; This sounds like a good definition. On this most here share your world-view. ^^^^ Volcker doesn't "take on" the financial class. Instead, he's telling them what to do that's that will serve their own long-term self-interests. ^^^^^ CB: Is this also ultimately true of Krugman and Gailbraith ? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
