Elizabeth Warren...

onmyknees, I doubt that you will be surprised to learn that Ms Warren is a graduate in law and was once, sigh, a law professor at Harvard (where her husband is...a law professor)...years ago when I was in the Labour Party here in the UK 60% of the active members (the ones who attend meetings and get elected to various posts) were schoolteachers, 30% lawyers or solicitors (a curious distinction we have in the UK you dont have there) and the other 10% quite possibly workers. This is how our political systems seem to be evolving. Labour leader Ed Miliband is the son of a well-known but now dead Trotskyist Ralph Miliband, who once wrote a book trashing, yes you guessed it, the Labour Party (!). Ed -who did his, sigh, year at Harvard after reading PPE at Oxford (so it was economics not law)- worked in tv for a short while before writing speeches for Harriet Harman and making his way through Labour ranks-having entered several layers above everyone else, so I don't know if he has ever had a 'proper job'. He isn't fit to run the UK, that's basic.

But are you saying to Presidential candidates -You can't run America if you haven't run a business? Doesn't that narrow the field? I understand the fatigue with lawyers and teachers, but at some point feasible policies that make a positive difference should be considered. I can't see anyone on the horizon in either the USA or the UK who makes me feel confident about the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Lizzie Warren took an ax
gave the bankers 40 whacks
when she saw what she had done
she gave the traders 41

---

http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/v..._cable_guy.jpg

The woman has a classical socialist mind set. Does she think the factory and all its workers do not contribute to local and federal taxes to pay for roads, police, fire and community projects?

Without the factory Ms. Warren there would be no roads. Without the factory there would be famine, or communism. Maybe that is what she would prefer.

The woman has a classical socialist mind set. Does she think the factory and all its workers do not contribute to local and federal taxes to pay for roads, police, fire and community projects?
Without the factory Ms. Warren there would be no roads. Without the factory there would be famine, or communism. Maybe that is what she would prefer.

But Faldur, she is describing capitalism just as you have just done. Producers are consumers, and consumers are producers: a Marxist would criticise capitalism as an economic system that favours a small class of people who own capital: Habermas calls it the Private Appropriation of Socially Produced Wealth. Socialism ought to be arguing for public ownership of everything and the fair distribution of what is produced: from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. Very few politicians in either the UK or the USA say this.

The intellectual argument can be found with Marx who begins Vol 1 of Capital by declaring his intention to analyse the nature of the commodity. Most of Vol 1 is concerned with general descriptions of industrial capitalism -indeed Marx did for the mid-to-late 19th century what Adam Smith did for the late 18thc with a hefty dose of moral indignation thrown in. Having gone through the general circuit of capital production, in Vol 2 Marxx divides the production and consumption processes into two departments, and analyses what he calls the real subsumption of labour under capital. In effect, because the workers who make things must also buy them, because capital is constantly circulating through people's pockets, the tills in shops, bank accounts, capital expenditure on industry and so on, capitalism is a fish eating its own tail.

Pretty much as you described it -the only reason you are not a Marxist, Faldur, is that you do not accept that working people are exploited in the very act of producing wealth for others just as they are exploited when they purchase at a higher price the goods they collectively produced: you are not morally compromised by capitalism and do not want to see it replaced by something which, so far in history, has been shown to be economically inefficient and personally of great danger to human life....but that doesn't change the nature of capitalism. Everything is a commodity.

It's almost impossible to have an intellectual discussion of economic social systems as long as there's a face put on the terminology or abstract social constructs. There's no "be all & end all" philosophical book on any of this stuff. There are no commandments. If you lose the faces of philosophies & thoughts, you can lose the stereotypical pinnings, & maybe even have a civil discourse "outside the box".

Adam Smith was not divine! He was a smart guy & came up with some good descriptions, but he did not invent capitalism or any other economic "system". He was born into a world that was just starting the transition from aristocratic feudalism, at the onset of the industrial revolution. This isn't the 18th century, & we don't live under the rule of kings. So why does all currently recognized economic theory defer to him & his writings? Why are economic ideas automatically discounted if any part of it butts heads with Smith's "...Wealth of Nations"? Whatever theory you can come up with will not be recognized (let alone win you a Nobel Prize) unless you can prove that it jives with Smith's treatise. The face on "capitalism" narrows the parameters of the discussion & stifles independent thought.

Karl Marx was not divine! I've heard the tale that he coined the term "socialism" in as economic context. I ain't buying it, but I'm not going to waste the time to research it. He certainly didn't pull the basic ideas & constructs of his philosophy out of his ass. He was born into the same transitional industrializing world as Smith, that'd grown even more contentuous. This isn't the 19th century. He saw capitalism as an extention of feudalism without the bloodline requirement. Feudal lite... He was right about that. Don't think so? Look around. The modern feudalists (capitalists) are right back to the same old nonsense of hoarding wealth. That's the number one cause of strife. We're social critters who gather together in order to pool resources & make life better for the society in general. That's not Marx. It's mother nature. Why this automatic deferral to Marx when trying to discuss the general welfare of people & society? We can't discuss any aspect of this without the torches & pitchforks. The face on "socialism" narrows the parameters of the discussion & stifles independent thought.

& y'all wonder why I so vehemently dislike the left/right false dichotomy?
As far as I'm concerned, capitalism is just privatized socialism with a narrow scope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

Ben...I don't question her motives...in fact I don't care about her motives. I know some rogue cops who entered the police force to "help people". it's her ideology and philosophy that scares me. Hey Jimmy Carter's motives were as pure as snow, but he too was a disaster. You have to have pragmatic policies that work. Not a view of America that there are 2 types of people....the oppressed and their rich oppressors. Me being affluent because I made a business work, has the nothing to do with you being poorly educated, poorly motivated and aimless. Those are mutually exclusive of one another. She's another one that should stay in the cozy confines of her faculty lounge talking about theories.

---

Conservatives, true conservatives, believe in morality, traditional values and the rule of law. American bankers broke the law. But none have been sent to prison. This is the antithesis of actual conservatism.
In the 1980s Ronald Reagan sent 1,000 bankers to prison in the Saving and Loans crisis. Reflecting true conservative values. Again, the rule of law.
Liz Warren is concerned about the middle class. (And in order to have a functioning and meaningful democratic country you need a strong, vibrant and burgeoning middle class. Which happened in the 50s under Republican President Eisenhower. Was this a reflection of core conservatism? In the absence of a middle class you've a complete plutocracy.) And she rightly says: The middle class are getting hammered.
Wages, for the vast majority of the population, have been stagnant for over 30 years.
What happened in the 1980s is that America and the world shifted/switched from industrial capital to financial capital. Now industrial capital isn't concerned with inflation. So, workers, under industrial capitalism, made significant wage gains. But when the overall economy shifted to financial capital, well, the game changed. Inflation or wage growth &/or economic growth was a serious concern to finance... because it depreciated their investments.
I mean, mostly what's happening in the world economy is financial speculation. There isn't long term investment in the OVERALL economy. (I mean, in the 50s, 60s and early 70s, well, 90 percent of investment was LONG TERM. And 10 percent was speculation. Now it's: 10 percent long term investment and 90 percent short term. So, almost complete speculation. Which isn't good for the overall economy. Great for speculators. Like the Koch brothers. But very harmful -- as we've seen -- to the economy.)
So, the crux was and is the financialization of the world economy -- :)

And the conservative author Kevin Phillips:

Kevin Phillips: Financialized - YouTube

Hippifried I understand your disdain for grand theory and the reputations of Smith and Marx. The problem is that we live in capitalist societies, and apart from some micro-economic and social sub-theories, the basic propulsion of capitalism has not changed, which is why the 'authorities' in history are often consulted. Smith was morally neutral and Marx morally biased, but after them, it is Keynes who has acquired as great a status.

Fundamentally, this is because neither Smith nor Marx envisaged the growth of the State taking place in the manner in which it did. Neither had much experience of popular democracy either notwithstanding Marx's acid and historically inaccurate diatribes on its French version (The Class Struggle in France, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon). Keynes has become the dividing line between those who argue that in a deep recession only government can push the economy along and compensate for the lack of demand; while the libertarians who hate government anyway believe in markets and that all restrictions on markets should be lifted.

Robert Reich, an unashamed Keynesian has today outlined his vision for the American economy, too long to reproduce here so the link is below.

Theory tries to give coherence to a complex set of information -and there is always the danger that the theory will become more important than the evidence, but while you have a disdain for it, I actually like reading a lot of philosophical literature, it helps keep my brain functioning. That doesn't mean I believe in it, but I enjoy it.

But even I can't believe that simple Keynesian remedies will get the USA or the UK out this current depression.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...obs-depression

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

But even I can't believe that simple Keynesian remedies will get the USA or the UK out this current depression.

---

Argument from personal incredulity? You're better than that.

Fair point, bluegrasscat. Its been a tiring day. Given the volume of Federally funded projects in the USA, the government has been 'priming the pump' for years -Reagan did it for example; but it hasn't helped do much more than maintain those people's jobs, and for the most part they apear to be in the defence industry. As we have said before on this topic, the Fed could reduce costs in a number of areas and raise money -rationalising its currency, replacing sales taxes with a federal added value tax, reducing the cost of foreign entanglements. The reason I feel gloomy is that what the USA and also the UK needs are jobs at both blue and white collar level, the sort of things which contributed to 'mass employment' as far as that can be measured. New technology, moving jobs offshore has reduced the need for so much labour, hence the limited effect of 'simple Keynesian' policies. Reich in his article is arguing for the US to borrow more (at historically low interest rates) and spend more, but it is all based on the same belief that Osborne and the free marketers have, which is that we are in a cycle, and eventually we will get out of it. Maybe. But if we do, what proportion of people who were employed before be back in work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

New technology, moving jobs offshore has reduced the need for so much labour, hence the limited effect of 'simple Keynesian' policies. Reich in his article is arguing for the US to borrow more (at historically low interest rates) and spend more, but it is all based on the same belief that Osborne and the free marketers have, which is that we are in a cycle, and eventually we will get out of it. Maybe. But if we do, what proportion of people who were employed before be back in work?

---

It sounds like you're saying "since any government stimulus would be temporary, wouldn't any workers employed by it go back to unemployment when it ends." And if the stimulus had no impact on the economy other than shifting the unemployment needle then yes they would. But the expectation is that the temporary boost to GDP would restart consumer spending thus giving businesses reasons to hire and invest. Government spending gets the economic engine firing, and then hopefully it will be able to continue under its own momentum when the stimulus retracts.

And so what if these jobs are temporary? All construction jobs are temporary but no one suggests we never build anything because of it.

Economist Brad Delong has a more detailed explanation of how this could work.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/0...r-america.html

I don't have a problem with theories. I have a problem with the dearth of theories. You can't tell me that Keynes & Marx are the only independent thinkers in the last couple of centuries. Even Keynes deferred to Smith. He just expanded the basics without a thought to challenge the assumptions. Friedman too. He's just a contrarian to Keynes. With the demise of Marx as a serious thinker (despite the rantings of modern McCarthyites), we're left with Keynesians & antiKeynesians. Without competition in theory, there are no ethics. That would be counter to fiduciary responsibilities & therefore illegal. The moral code is tossed in the round file when dealing with economics, & that's bullshit.
This shit ain't working. We need a rethink.