Krugman & the Republicans (and almost everyone else) share an assumption:
that we are in a 'crisis' which constitutes a 'problem,' and that the task
is to 'solve' that problem. But what if Foster's title and his argument are
accurate? Then it is not a 'problem' that we have to deal with but a new
normality, and a more stable one (in terms of the capitalist system though
not in terms of the status of households). An _endless crisis_ is a
_stable_ state ("stagnang" & "stable" re synonyms but merely reflect
different subjective responses to the same actuality. The precariousness of
life will then discipline the working classes.
Carrol
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:49 AM
> To: Pen-l
> Subject: [Pen-l] PK on the future
>
> continuing Krugman's column:
> > If Mr. Obama wins, he'll presumably go back to pushing for modest
stimulus,
> aiming to convert the gradual recovery that seems to be under way into a
more
> rapid return to full employment.
>
> > Republicans, however, are committed to an economic doctrine that has
proved
> false, indeed disastrous, in other countries. Nor are they likely to
change their
> views in the light of experience. After all, facts haven't gotten in the
way of
> Republican orthodoxy on any other aspect of economic policy. The party
remains
> opposed to effective financial regulation despite the catastrophe of 2008;
it
> remains obsessed with the dangers of inflation despite years of false
alarms. So
> it's not likely to give up its politically convenient views about job
creation.
>
> > And here's the thing: if Mitt Romney wins the election, the G.O.P. will
surely
> consider its economic ideas vindicated. In other words, politically good
things may
> be about to happen to very bad ideas. And if that's how it plays out, the
American
> people will pay the price. <
>
> My crystal ball is cloudier than PK's. From the first Presidential
> debate, it seemed that Obama had embraced BS (Bowles-Simpson), while
> Biden also seemed to be leaning toward balancing the federal
> government's budget (blaming 2007-09 on Dubya's deficits).
>
> On the other hand, Romney & Ryan could easily engage in covert
> Keynesian stimulus, the way that their colleagues Ronnie Raygun and
> Dubya did: cut taxes for the rich while increasing military spending,
> counteracting the negative effects of cuts to programs that benefit
> the majority of the US population. All else equal, even though it has
> little or (more likely) no stimulative effect on the supply side,
> cutting taxes for the rich does stimulate the economy's aggregate
> demand. Of course, it's a very inefficient way of doing so (compared
> to, say, cutting social security taxes or raising unemployment
> insurance benefits)* while it's quite inequitable, encouraging the
> growth of inequality in both income and wealth. That is, it flunks the
> orthodox economists' two Big Tests (efficiency and equity).
>
> * here, "efficiency" would be measured by fiscal stimulus per dollar
> of increased government deficit. By the way, in terms of demand-side
> effects, an increase in military spending is quite efficient in these
> terms.
> --
> Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, at
> the very least you should know the nature of that evil.
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
