==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
Hello, I read this interview with historian Lawrence Goodwyn in AlterNet
(http://www.alternet.org/story/148582/lawrence_goodwyn%3A_the_great_predicament_facing_obama?page=5)
and was wondering if any of us here have more than the obvious political
response to rectifying the financial question (in this case, Goodwyn speaks
of the returning the determination of the distribution of wealth back to a
public discussion)? Goodwyn speaks as an historian; about the broad sweep of
returning to democratic principles eventually, but that we need more context
before leaders like Obama and, implicitly, the broad mass of people, can fully
overcome the privatizing of the financial question (ostensibly through those
who can develop and intellectual understanding of these matters).
My questions:
1) What do people think of and know about Lawrence Goodwyn?
2) Is his historical assessment of the financial question accurate?
Goodwyn's prescpription for gaining more context,which he elucidates through
the interview, is meant to convey that we have to take many trips to the
water to get clean,that is, a gradualist perspective in the rise to
consciousness of the American masses that will result in a stronger and more
robust Democratic Party, which in turn will bring us back to a democratic
society (yeah, I know, I'm just summarizing what he said).
Of course, we all have great political answers to this nonsense, but I was
wondering if those of you who are studied historians and economists also
believe that the financial question is largely unstudied and that we
collectively do not understand the prerequisites for a stable monetary system,
much less a stable and democratic monetary system.
I will read your comments and suggestions with great interest.
Manuel
From Lawrence Goodwyn: The Great Predicament Facing Obama | | AlterNet
http://www.alternet.org/story/148582/lawrence_goodwyn%3A_the_great_predicament_facing_obama?page=5
Lawrence Goodwyn said: The objective of the architects of the Fed system was
to settle what was called the financial question by removing the issue from
public discussion forever.
Turning that on its head is simply beyond the reach of any American president.
It is not just that the political support is not there, the intellectual
understanding is not there either. Essentially, the matter is unstudied. I
could explain why, but that is a dull and depressing subject that we'll have to
visit some other day. Suffice it to say that we know more about rockets to
outer space, and more about dinosaurs, than we do about the prerequisites for a
stable monetary system, much less a stable and democratic monetary system.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
