From: Jim Devine <[email protected]>
c b wrote: > Here's a Marxist political economic final exam ?for Keynesians: > What do Keynesian ideas on abating recession have to teach the Occupy > Wall Street, Chicago, LA, etc movement ? Nothing much, since the Occupy Wall Street movement [OWSM] is about power relations and Keynesian economics is not. Of course, it's always good for people to know what they're talking about (e.g., economics). ^^^^ CB: That Keynesian economics is not about power relations is nice food for thought. Would you elaborate ? Is that related to economics dropping the "political" in "political economy" ? Keynesianism' subject matter is critically impacted by power relations, no ? Isn't Wall Street about power relations ? I think that's why it is brilliant for OWSM to initiate the new protest form of politicizing the market. ^^^^^ > How would inculcating those > activists with Keynesian ideas be different from steering them to the > Democratic Party ...? It's good that people know something about what they're talking about, but if done accurately, teaching the OWSM about Keynesian economics wouldn't steer them toward the DP or Obama, since the latter embrace anemic Keynesian economics at best (as Fernando notes). ^^^^^^^ CB; I see how you thought I meant that. I'm referring to the fact it steers them to reform, not system changing, economics. Keynesianism is social democratic which = liberal DP in the US. ^^^^ Helping the OWSM know more about K economics would likely push them _away from_ the DP because they'd realize that the DP is so weak on this issue. If K economics is needed, standing outside the DP and yelling for solutions is more likely to produce those policies than joining the DP or MoveOn.org, supporting it, apologizing for it and its politicians, etc. ^^^^ CB: From my experience with Keynesianism, you give it too much credit. Keynesianism is no more revolutionary or radical reformist than the Democratic Party. ^^^^^^^ > How much does government spending abate recession ( quantify it) ?? There was temporary stimulus which had faded. It didn't deal with the housing market (upside-down mortgages, foreclosures, etc.) It didn't get businesses to use their ample cash reserves to invest in expanding their operations, while it didn't get banks to lend their ample cash reserves either. ^^^^ CB: This is a private enterprise system in which the government does not control private corporations, so it isn't very realiistic to make Obama or Bush or any President responsible for this. ^^^ It didn't really deal with the international dimension; it was the Republicans at the Fed who did so, but not sufficiently, it seems. As Fernando notes, it didn't help consumers enough. The flaccid nature of the K economics that Obama and Congress applied should have been obvious, given Obama's choice of people like Summers and Geithner to head his economics team. Those appointments said loud and clear that Obama was serving Wall Street, not the people. ^^^^^^^ CB: Krugman seems pretty flaccid , too. Keynesians all seem pretty flaccid on this. They aren't anti-Wall Street. Krugman or whatever "left" Keynesian you want to name , is not anti-Wall Sreet. Stiglitz was defending the capitalist system on the youtube of him at OWS LIberty Park. ^^^^^ > To > the anti-Obamaites, did the O Stimulus abate recession and > unemployment at all ? I can't speak for the rapidly growing camp of anti-Obamaites, ^^^^^ CB: That rapid growth is likely more in your imagination than in the masses of people. Anti-O'ism has peaked. For one thing the main component, the Tea Party , is losing steam. As for the ultra-left anti-Obamites, they are pretty small and not likely to be recruiting many more. Correctly, OWS has redirected fresh leftists to target the real ruling class leaders on Wall Street. ^^^^^^^ but the Obama/Congressional stimulus moderated the recession, but it wasn't enough and it didn't address the more fundamental problems (see above). ^^^^ CB So, it is not true that Obama did nothing to abate the recession. Economists can't demonstrate that government spending can be "enough" to end a recession. ^^^^ It's been shrinking, especially as Obama has shifted over to "balance the budget"/anti-government debt logic, while preemptive compromises with the Right seem to have been Obama's watchword. ^^^^^ CB: That was , of course, politically necessary given the white suprmecist, fascistic riot that was the 2010 election. O can't ignore that the People voted rightwing in 2010. That's the People's fault not his. You can fool all or a lot of the people some of the time. A whole lot got fooled in 2010. ^^^^^ Further, the state and local governments have cut back more and more. ^^^^^ CB: tax revenues are down becsuse of the recession. vicioius cycle reverse Keynesian multiplier ^^^^^ The Fed seems to have used up all of its ammunition (and is beginning to lose its stimulative will). Thus, we're likely to see a second dip in the recession (new falls in real GDP) and, more likely, a "lost decade" of slow growth of output and stagnant employment (and worsening long-term unemployment) as in Japan during the 1990s. This prognosis is getting worse as the European situation becomes more dire. ^^^^^ CB: What should be OWS's response to another Wall Street crash ? ^^^^^ > Would a Stimulus twice as large saved us from > the current supe-high unemployment rate ? or not ? Three times as > large ? That's history. The past cannot be reversed. ^^^^^ CB: I agree, but, I'm not asking about it to change it. I'm asking about it to put Keyneisains on the spot. as a science Keynesian economics should have some idea of what size stimulus would work, if any. My point is Keynesians scold Obama like they have more precise answers than they do. Economics is not tht precise and doesn't have that level of predictive power such that it could guarantee the result of ending the recession ^^^^^ The point is that Obama blew his control of both houses of Congress ^^^^^ CB: He didn't have control of the both houses of Congress. There were Blue Dogs in sufficient numbers to prevent him. I'm a lawyer, and I can tell you that's not the way Congress works. Members of Congress have their own direct connections to Wall Street and Corporate America. They don't follow the President like he's their military leader.. (because, it seems, he didn't want to offend his donors by letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire). ^^^ CB: Senator from Arkansas didn't want to offend her rich patrons, and a lot of other Blue Dogs didn't.That's a better explanation, not that it's all on Obama, especially to the extent that ultra-left analysis obsess on Obama the person. Very suspicious that personal obsession. It is focus on personality and not system. Tends to "big man theory" . Lots of thing wrong with it as political analysis and not personal focus. ^^^ ^^^^^^^ When he had that control, he might have been able to push through a more stimulative package (if he and the DP hadn't been so weak and beholden to the money boys). Now, he no longer has the ability (or the wish, it seems) to engage in the kind of stimulus that's needed in the future. ^^^^^ CB: He didn't have control. Tht's a delusion of anti-Obamites. More to the point of this thread, Keynesians don't have that good of a theory that they can forcefully say more stimulus would have ended the recession or made a much bigger reduction of unemployment. It doesn't seem that he doesnt' "have the wish" . That's anti-O left speculation and bias reaching for negative interpretations of his behavior. You don't know what his "wishes" are. ^^^^^ It's only when there's a serious deepening of economic stagnation that hits the money powers below the belt and/or a widening and deepening of movements like the OWSM that the White House and the DP will start thinking about serious stimulus. ^^^^^^^ CB: OWSM might cause Wall Street to disgorge i itself some money and make a stimulus; cause a recovery just in time to help Obama in 2012 election ( lol ' left anti-Obamites would really hate that ha, ha, ha ,ha, ha , ha !) > How precise really is Keynesian science ? No economics is a science like physics. In terms of the ability to predict the future, it's more like meteorology. The difference with meteorology is that economics has some control over the economy. K economics works, up to a point and not exactly. It doesn't help deal with supply-side constraints (such as the capitalist need for the existence of a reserve army of labor in order to preserve profitability). Textbook K economics doesn't address such issues as the fundamentally rotten financial system or the long-term stagnation of working-class standards of living, along with the seeming need for financial bubbles to prop up demand. ^^^^^^^ CB: By leaving out dealing with those other major parts of the economic system, how can Keynesianism speak authoritatively to Obama ... or OWSM ? How can it claim it "knows what it's talking about (e.g., economics)." if it leaves out major parts of the whole ? -- Jim Devine?/ ?"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
