On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > One reason to drop the term "Reaganomics" is that to do so reminds us > to stop apologizing for Carter (why? because he's a Democrat and > Democrats are good by definition?) After all, not only did he appoint > Volcker (letting the genie out of the bottle, as it were), but the > latter caused a recession in 1980 (in addition to the later and bigger > one of 1982). And Carter wanted that recession in 1980, though he hope > that it would be over soon enough to aid his re-election. Carter also > started the "deregulation" ball rolling. > > But it's wrong to focus on personalities. Both Carter and Reagan were > products of their times, as were their policies. The capitalists and > their allies were mobilizing to fight low profit rates (and the > resulting stagflation), at the expense of labor and less powerful > constituencies. This mobilization grew in strength, getting stronger > during the Carter and Reagan years, and then again in the Clinton and > Bush #2 years. Bush #1 and Obama seem periods of consolidation and > rationalization, but not reversals of the neoliberal trend. These > periods help the neoliberal juggernaut grow further in strength. > > I guess the term "neoliberalism" is too "European" for a US audience. > We might call it "Calvin Coolidge Capitalism." But again there's too > much emphasis on a single individual's power and influence. Maybe > "Scroogean Capitalism" is better, since the cult of (hated) > personality is then around a fictional character.
Cheap labor conservatism? Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598 Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
