How the Right Hijacked America's Economic Model

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
By Thomas Palley, AlterNet. Posted April 19, 2008.



The capture of Keynesianism has been a gradual process.

Communist revolutionary Che Guevara rapidly became an inspirational figure for revolutionary socialist change after his execution in Bolivia in 1967. Forty years later, Che lives on but his image now adorns t-shirts that have become popular fashion statements. This transformation reflects the extraordinary power of markets to capture and transform, turning an avowed enemy of the market system into a profit opportunity.

The process of capture also holds for economic policy, which has witnessed the conservative capture of Keynesianism. This capture is now on display as U.S. policymakers struggle to contain the effects of a collapsing house price bubble that was recklessly funded by Wall Street. The sting is that the full powers of Keynesian policies are being invoked to save an economy that no longer generates Keynesian outcomes of full employment and shared prosperity.

The political economic philosophy of Keynesianism emerged after World War II following the catastrophic experience of the Great Depression. The new paradigm advocated an economy with full employment and shared prosperity, and gave government the critical role of regulating markets and adjusting monetary and fiscal policy to ensure levels of demand sufficient to generate full employment.

These Keynesian tools are now being applied forcefully. The Federal Reserve has dramatically cut its interest rate target in response to financial sector weakness. Its goal has been to shore up asset prices, prevent further financial losses, lower mortgage rates to make houses more affordable and prevent further defaults, and to stimulate spending by lowering the cost of capital. Moreover, the Fed has done this despite consumer price inflation being above four percent.

Simultaneously, the Bush administration has pushed for fiscal stimulus, albeit with its usual preference for tax cuts benefiting business and the rich that deliver little bang for buck. The Democratically controlled Congress has also gotten in on the act with stimulus packages that are better designed, but still contain plenty of expensive and relatively ineffective tax cuts.

On one level, policymakers are absolutely right taking these measures, as the costs of a financial and economic meltdown are so large. But true Keynesian policy would also address the failure to generate full employment and shared prosperity. The current U.S. economic expansion looks like being the first ever in which median household income fails to recover its previous peak. Job growth has been tepid for much of the time, and the employment-to-population ratio has remained well below its previous peak. This dismal experience comes on top of three decades of wage stagnation during which household income only grew because of longer working hours and having both household heads work.

The capture of Keynesianism has been a gradual process. In the 1950s military Keynesianism became the hallmark of American policy, with defense spending becoming a huge and permanent component of government spending, to the benefit of the war industry. President Reagan continued the process of capture, pushing rhetoric and policies that undermined working families while simultaneously running budget deficits that kept the lid on unemployment. In the last recession of 2001, the Bush administration again invoked Keynesian stimulus for tax cuts that contained minimal stimulus and were closer to looting of government finances.

In 1971 President Nixon famously declared "We are all Keynesians now." Nixon was half-right. Everyone recognizes the need and efficacy of Keynesian policy instruments, including conservatives who are happy to promote tax cuts and interest rate reductions to support asset prices. However, most have forgotten the Keynesian goals of full employment and shared prosperity.

The result is Keynesian policy instruments remain, but Keynesian policy goals have been abandoned. Both Democrats and Republicans are quick to push for Keynesian stimulus policies when financial stability is threatened, but most (including too many Democrats) are silent when the economy fails to deliver shared prosperity.

Keynesian full employment stimulus policies must be accompanied by Keynesian structural policies that ensure wages grow with productivity, thereby ensuring sustainable demand growth. These structural policies include labor and social insurance laws supportive of unions and worker bargaining power, and international economic policies that prevent inappropriate competition and unsustainable trade deficits. The conservative capture of Keynesianism has both obliterated these structural policies and put a brake on reaching for full employment.
 

medicineman

New Member
A basic tutorial for keynesian economics for the rest of us:

Keynesian economics (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/, "kane-zeean"), also Keynesianism and Keynesian Theory, is an economictheory based on the ideas of twentieth-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. The state, according to Keynesian economics, can help maintain economic growth and stability in a mixed economy, in which both the public and private sectors play important roles. Keynesian economics seeks to provide solutions to what some consider failures of laissez-faireeconomic liberalism, which advocates that markets and the private sector operate best without state intervention. The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936.
In Keynes's theory, some micro-level actions of individuals and firms can lead to aggregate macroeconomic outcomes in which the economy operates below its potential output and growth. Many classical economists had believed in Say's Law, that supply creates its own demand, so that a "general glut" would be impossible. Keynes contended that aggregate demand for goods might be insufficient during economic downturns, leading to unnecessarily high unemployment and losses of potential output. Keynes argued that government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economy activity and reducing high unemployment and deflation. Keynes's macroeconomic theories were a response to mass unemployment in 1920s Britain and in 1930s America.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Some alternative viewpoints:

Milton Friedman: Little Giant of Free-Market Economics
by Mark Skousen(more by this author)
Posted 12/04/2006 ET



Milton Friedman, the intellectual architect of the free-market reforms of the post-World War II era, was a dear friend. I was probably the last person to go out to lunch with Milton. We met at his favorite restaurant in San Francisco, where I showed him a picture of him standing next to John Kenneth Galbraith, the premier Keynesian and welfare statist of the 20th Century. It was a picture in contrast: Milton Friedman, around 5 feet tall, and Galbraith, almost 6 feet, 10 inches. Beneath the picture was an ironic quotation by George Stigler: “All great economists are tall. There are two exceptions: John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman.” Milton was so pleased with the photo and caption that he sent it to all his friends only a few weeks before his passing, November 16.

Destroyed Keynesian Monolith

The triumph of free-market reforms introduced by Thatcher, Reagan and other leaders in the post-Berlin Wall era (reforms such as lower taxes, deregulation, privatization and the collapse of the Keynesian and Marxist paradigm) can be laid at the feet of a single giant figure: Milton Friedman. Other free-market economists had their impact, but Friedman’s was the most influential.

Founder of the modern-day Chicago School of Economics, Milton Friedman was the catalyst of many new and exciting ideas that transformed economics from the “dismal science” to the “imperial science” of today. His impact has been felt in not only policies such as monetarism, privatization of Social Security, school choice and futures markets in currencies, but also in scholarly pursuits that transformed the economic profession and its war of ideas. He was the first economist to counter effectively the Keynesian monolith and its myths that capitalism is inherently unstable, that money doesn’t matter and that there is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Friedman debunked them all. He demonstrated that money mattered a lot: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.”

His most important work is his 1963 magnum opus, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960, co-authored with Anna J. Schwartz. This book carefully demonstrated a close correlation between monetary policy and economic activity. They demonstrated beyond doubt that government ineptitude by the Federal Reserve, and not free-enterprise capitalism, caused the Great Depression, when the Fed allowed the money supply to collapse by over a third. This book marked the beginning of a counter-revolution—away from the Keynesian view that the welfare state and big government were beneficial. Now government was seen as the “cause” of our problems, not the cure, as Reagan used to say. Textbooks replaced “market failure” with “government failure.” And Friedman made it happen.

Friedman was able to succeed because he had impeccable credentials within the economics profession—earning his Ph. D. from Columbia University, becoming president of the American Economic Association in 1967, being published by Princeton University Press, teaching at the University of Chicago and winning the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1976 (appropriately on the 200th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence).

After establishing himself as a top-ranked economist, he wrote for the general public, especially Capitalism and Freedom (1962) and Free to Choose (1980), co-authored with his wife and fellow economist, Rose Friedman. (Rose was his beloved companion in life—they traveled and worked together, had two children and wrote the memoir, Two Lucky People.) Milton told me that he always regarded Capitalism and Freedom as his best book for the intelligent layman. I highly recommend it as an ideal libertarian document.

On a personal level, Milton was a unique friend. Milton had an “open door” policy toward people of all walks of life. Always intelligent and demanding of evidence, he kept his secretary busy with correspondence with friends and strangers. When I first met him in the early 1980s, he didn’t know me from Adam, but he was willing to meet with me and answered my questions seriously. Ever since then, I have kept up our friendship by letter, e-mails, telephone calls and dinner or lunch over the past dozen years. He invited me to my first Mont Pelerin Society meeting (a gathering of international scholars that Friedrich Hayek established in 1947), and through his influence, I became a member in 2002. He generously wrote blurbs for my recent books and was a big fan of “FreedomFest,” my annual gathering of freedom lovers. When I had the opportunity to teach at Columbia Business School, he wrote a favorable letter to the dean, which helped me get the position.

Truth and Beauty

Milton loved a good argument, and we had plenty over the years, especially about the gold standard and the Austrian theory of the business cycle. When I told him the title of my new book, Vienna and Chicago, Friends or Foes? (Capital Press/Regnery, 2006), he responded, “Both—we’re friends and foes!” In the early 1990s, when I wrote a marketing piece for another book with the headline, “Japan and Germany Will Surpass the U.S. economy by 2000,” he corrected me. “It won’t happen.” He was right. Occasionally, I was able to change his mind, but it was never easy.

Milton’s mind was bright and alert to the end, although he suffered pain in his legs and had a hard time walking. He had also gone through two open-heart surgeries in the 1980s. This year, when he turned 94, I asked him, “Do you think you will live to be 100?” His reply: “I hope not!” But Milton was almost always upbeat about life, even to the end. He was not a particularly religious man, but he expressed interest in religious topics near the end of his life. His favorite poem was Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” which ends: “Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all/ Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” He discovered both in a full and complete life. I consider it a privilege and honor that I knew him.


Mr. Skousen is a financial economist, author and university professor. He has been the editor of the financial advice newsletter, Forecasts & Strategies, for 26 years. Two of his books highlight Milton Friedman's career: "The Making of Modern Economics,"and "Vienna and Chicago, Friends or Foes?." Check out his latest book,
 

weedismyantidrug

Active Member
The free market, without any government regulation, can lead to only one inevitable outcome, all the wealth ends up in the hands of a few, (or one?) rich dude(s). Probably no none even realizes this, but Mexico is a fabulously wealthy country (we get a shitload of oil from them), but their standard of living is awful, the people get nothing "trickling down" to them, is this where the right wing nuts want to take our country???
 

ViRedd

New Member
The free market, without any government regulation, can lead to only one inevitable outcome, all the wealth ends up in the hands of a few, (or one?) rich dude(s). Probably no none even realizes this, but Mexico is a fabulously wealthy country (we get a shitload of oil from them), but their standard of living is awful, the people get nothing "trickling down" to them, is this where the right wing nuts want to take our country???
Mexico does NOT have a free market system. Mexico has a political system whereby the few plunder the many. The few plunder the many in Mexico by having passed laws to make their plunder legal. In Mexico, the government is the problem, not the solution. The so called "progressives" in this country are striving to make their plunder legal as well.

Pass through the border going south from San Diego into Mexico. Notice the difference in living standards? Prior to the Berlin Wall coming down, pass from West Berlin into East Berlin. Notice the difference in living standards? Pass through South Korea into North Korea ... notice the difference in living standards there? Go from Hong Kong into Mainland China ... notice the living standards there?

Now ask yourself ... what makes the difference?

The abundance we enjoy in the United States is NOT due to the policies of the so called "progressives." In fact, in other societies controlled by "progressives" there were nothing but shortages, depression, anxiety, fear, despair, starvation and death at the hands of the "progressive" leaders.

Marxism has failed every time its been tried ... but there are those who will keep on trying until they get it right. :roll:

Vi
 

weedismyantidrug

Active Member
"we????" Been to Detroit, lately??? Not really an expert on Mexican economics, but couldn't help notice some new Mexican billionaire just passed Bill Gates, is he affiliated with the Mexican government? Sounds kinda like a free-market to me. Actually, like the free market on steroids.
 

medicineman

New Member
I wondered what destroyed our economy. I always knew Reagan and his trickle down policies were part of it, I hadn't attributed it much to Freidman, but he will do as a culprit. Yup trickle down, now there's a concept. Kind of like drool. The rich are free to do what they want and the money just trickles down. By the time it gets to the bottom, there isn't much left now is there. Yeah, lets just let the rich run ripshod over the land, using all the commodities at their liesure and maybe a few crumbs will "trickle down". I say it's time to take the money back and start a keynesian economy. One where there is equality in wealth, at least, not the gap that now exists and is widening by leaps and bounds.
 

weedismyantidrug

Active Member
Please explain the "logic" behind trickle-down economics, and state whether you are for or against it. Med's analysis looks pretty logical to me. The lower you are on the economic ladder, the less the chance of any trickles reaching you. Logic kicks ass!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Please explain the "logic" behind trickle-down economics, and state whether you are for or against it. Med's analysis looks pretty logical to me. The lower you are on the economic ladder, the less the chance of any trickles reaching you. Logic kicks ass!
The less government interference in the market place the freer society we will live in. That is what was behind my comparison to San Diego and Mexico, West Berlin and East Berlin ... etc. How much government interference, regulation and control would you be satisfied with? We can take it from none ... where no one plunders anyone, to a complete communist state, where everyone plunders everyone. Or ... we can be like Mexico, where a few families at the top plunder everyone else. Me? ... I'd prefer a system where nobody plunders anyone. That sounds like the most moral and logical system to me ... how about you? :blsmoke:

Vi
 

weedismyantidrug

Active Member
Unfortunately, an unfettered free market will only lead to massive plundering all around. I notice you did not respond to my "trickle-down" question. Trickle-down is based on the plundering model, or else no one would be at the top (you need the "tricklers"/plunderers to make it all work).
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
The less government interference in the market place the freer society we will live in.

Vi
It's also what contributed to the Market crash of 1929 and the Following Great Depression.

An example of Trickle Down Economics is the greedy bastards and stock holders at the top get people to labor for less than a living wage, they make all the profits and they take a gigantic piss on everyone else.
 

medicineman

New Member
Unfortunatey, Vi has to be a trickler/plunderer or he wouldnt be
so adamant about leaving the rich to do as they please. I wonder, with all his money,(My precious) What he is doing schooling all us peons. seems like he should be off cruising the Carribean, or touring Europe, enjoying life. Instead he's still working amasing that great fortune that he will leave for his offspring and Uncle Sam.
 

ViRedd

New Member
It's also what contributed to the Market crash of 1929 and the Following Great Depression.

An example of Trickle Down Economics is the greedy bastards and stock holders at the top get people to labor for less than a living wage, they make all the profits and they take a gigantic piss on everyone else.
No way, Dank ...

The Great Depression was caused by misdirected, inflationary monetary policies of our government through the Federal Reserve banking system. Similar to our recent housing boom, there was a stock market boom ... caused by excessive expansion of the money supply, followed by the Federal Reserve contracting the money supply by one-third causing the stock market to crash when margins were called. When money dries up, especially where people are investing on margin, recessions and depressions occur.

To make matters even worse, FDR's unconstitutional make-work policies expanded the pain and extended the depression all the way though his three terms in office. A little known fact is that there were more unemployed at the beginning of his third term than there were at the beginning of his first term in office. Of course, the history revisionists on the left would have us belive that FDR "rescued" the nation from the jaws of depression. The American work force, ramping up production to fight WWII, is what finally got the nation out of the depression, not federal programs.


What you have put forth in your post is nothing other than revised history, a history much more palatable to statists, as they much prefer to pass the blame for economic downturns on to capitalism and free markets. Don't believe the bullshit, Dank ... you're way too smart for that.

Now then, on the "trickle down" thing. Would you guys prefer trickle up economics? Hey that's it ... let's destroy capitalism and the producers who make it work. Let's punish the achievers, regulate the hell out of industry, tax the hell out of capital, production and invention. Then we can rely on the people at the very bottom, those who beg for nickles and dimes, to start the trickle up system that you all seem so amorous of.

Other than a trip back into the Dark Ages ... what are you hoping to accomplish?

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Now then, on the "trickle down" thing. Would you guys prefer trickle up economics? Hey that's it ... let's destroy capitalism and the producers who make it work. Let's punish the achievers, regulate the hell out of industry, tax the hell out of capital, production and invention. Then we can rely on the people at the very bottom, those who beg for nickles and dimes, to start the trickle up system that you all seem so amorous of.

So you admit the trickle down system leaves this kind of economy. For shame. We need for there to be no beggars in this the greatest country on earth (well a great one in principle). No-one but you has mentioned trickle-up. What we need is a balanced society where there are no super rich and no super poor. There should be established a minimum and a maximum and everyone could fit somewhere in between. To eliminate beggars we need mental health institutions that care for the menataly ill. We need jobs that pay a living wage. We need medical for all citizens. We need to reign in the corporations and limit profit, something like 6% sounds reasonable, I'm sure we could work it out. As far as goods from foriegn lands, put huge tarrifs so corporations wouldn't want to leave. Bring back the manufacturing jobs and pay union wages. The middle class is fast dissapearing. MGM Grand, one of the largest Hotels in Vegas just layed off 420 managers. Drive down Sahara Ave, and see all the closed resturants, look at the edge of town and notice there is no construction happening. This country needs help and the kind of bullshit you espouse is killing it. Wake up Vi., your plutocratic policies are just not working. Who will the rich sell all their manufactured goods to if no-one has a job?
 

iblazethatkush

Well-Known Member
The less government interference in the market place the freer society we will live in.
Vi is correct on this one. There is no perfect financial model. But, the less gov't interference the better. Gov't is more evil than big corporations. So, you take the good with the bad.
 

medicineman

New Member
Vi is correct on this one. There is no perfect financial model. But, the less gov't interference the better. Gov't is more evil than big corporations. So, you take the good with the bad.
My friend, my friend, the government is the corporate lackey. they are bought and paid for. I don't like repressive laws but without corporate laws to reign them in, this plutocracy is doomed to failure. When the proletariat,(that's us) can no longer afford to live in their society, and we are all peons and beggars, they will have to enslave us and feed us gruel to do their bidding. I wonder why they can't see that without jobs, we can't consume their goods? Amazing the amount of greed they have, Just check out Vis' plans and you'll know the extent of greed and avarice.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
No way, Dank ...

The Great Depression was caused by misdirected, inflationary monetary policies of our government through the Federal Reserve banking system. Similar to our recent housing boom, there was a stock market boom ... caused by excessive expansion of the money supply, followed by the Federal Reserve contracting the money supply by one-third causing the stock market to crash when margins were called. When money dries up, especially where people are investing on margin, recessions and depressions occur.

To make matters even worse, FDR's unconstitutional make-work policies expanded the pain and extended the depression all the way though his three terms in office. A little known fact is that there were more unemployed at the beginning of his third term than there were at the beginning of his first term in office. Of course, the history revisionists on the left would have us belive that FDR "rescued" the nation from the jaws of depression. The American work force, ramping up production to fight WWII, is what finally got the nation out of the depression, not federal programs.


What you have put forth in your post is nothing other than revised history, a history much more palatable to statists, as they much prefer to pass the blame for economic downturns on to capitalism and free markets. Don't believe the bullshit, Dank ... you're way too smart for that.

Now then, on the "trickle down" thing. Would you guys prefer trickle up economics? Hey that's it ... let's destroy capitalism and the producers who make it work. Let's punish the achievers, regulate the hell out of industry, tax the hell out of capital, production and invention. Then we can rely on the people at the very bottom, those who beg for nickles and dimes, to start the trickle up system that you all seem so amorous of.

Other than a trip back into the Dark Ages ... what are you hoping to accomplish?

Vi
The Bold part proves my point, when you have unregulated markets and business it leads to Bubble economy. it can only expand so far and then the bubble will eventually pop.

You claim to be a conservative and yet you want liberal markets, the aim isn't to destroy capitalism, but to maintain it at a level that it doesn't expand so fast so that we don't keep having bubble markets that keep bursting and causing recession after recession.

I will admit Reagan in the sort term did a good thing with deregulating industries, but that plan was rather short sighted and he had no way to foresee that it would cause the bubble markets that we are experiencing now days.

Nor did he have anyway of knowing that his dream of NAFTA and a Global Economy would end up taking jobs out of America.

Dark Ages my ass, your View is more of the Dark ages if anyone with any sense were to thing about it.
American Companies Taking jobs overseas and hiring slave labor in countries like China (which on average make about 10 cents an hour). If that is your Idea of capitalism then I want no part of it, nor does anyone who has any sense.

Damn Vi Take off the "Rose Colored Glasses".
 

medicineman

New Member
No response from Vi. He basically knows he's wrong, but can't bring himself to admit it because his precious tax cuts would go away under any logical plan. We must raise taxes on the wealthy if we are to save this country from a great depression. Venture capitalists need to let loose of some of their money to fund new jobs. Jobs in Green industries for example. I am no economist, but there is a real absense of new capital being expended on creating jobs. When the money just sits in bank vaults, it is doing only the people that have it any gooid. Put it to work. The interest rates are pretty low so that should drive capital out of the vaults one would think.
 
Top