Has the left been right all the time?!

[Hygro]

He's not alone in that. And I have been convinced that it is a major contributing factor. But what I was referring to is this cottage industry of claiming that Wall St and the mortgage industry have no responsibility for their actions because they lack agency in the face of big bad government.

Well, he almost does claim that

But he claims that Big Bad Government was Big and Bad for not regulating our whole economy better, and that we should in many ways always expect a certain amount of greed. So not that they weren't agents, but that their agency should have come as any surprise or precedent.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, he almost does claim that

But he claims that Big Bad Government was Big and Bad for not regulating our whole economy better, and that we should in many ways always expect a certain amount of greed. So not that they weren't agents, but that their agency should have come as any surprise or precedent.

Does he admit that he screwed up as well? Not that he has one of the main parts, but he has a role in the cast of devils.


http://www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Are-Here-Financial/dp/1591843634

 

[Traitorfish]

The Communist Party called it a planned economy. Every important speech or "instruction" or "decision" (both meaning administrative order) at the time contained the phrase "the transition from planned economy into market economy with Chinese characteristics."

They described it as a "planned economy", yes, but they never claimed to have achieved the total abandonment of market mechanisms as the Soviets did, or at least not as far as I am aware. (The UK c.1944 was only marginally less heavily state-planned, and we'd hardly call that non-capitalistic.) The only real area of total state control was in land ownership, and that's something that you'll find being advocated by plebeian Jacobins c.1800, so it's hardly something that can be located solely within the terms of "socialist" central-planning. I mean, what, you want rhetorical coherency from Maoists?

 

[SeattleMist]

By Charles Moore:



Link to article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8655106/Im-starting-to-think-that-the-Left-might-actually-be-right.html

Points in the article(as I understand them):

-Freedom only for the rich
-Growth in world economy only benefitted the few
-Globalization has caused an unprecedented difference between rich and poor
-Democrazy has been hijacked by financial powers
-The unregulated markets are impoverishing the majority

Ofcourse I agree on most but what about you?
Is capitalism on the verge of bankruptcy?

It's been obvious since the 1930's that the Left has been correct the entire time.

 

[GamezRule]

Why exactly was Asia/Africa in such poverty before globalization?

 

[aelf]

Taken literally, "deregulation did not impoverish anyone" is obviously wrong. All you need is one single counter-example to prove the statement to be false. But, is that sort of precision useful? For a mathematical theorem, all we care about is if it is strictly valid or not. For a real world proposition, what we really care is its implication, ie what we should do about it. The implication you are looking for is that impoverishing people is bad, so deregulation is also bad and should be discontinued.

But in the real world, nothing is black and white. All policies are good in some aspects and bad in some other aspects. Welfare traps some people. Does that mean we should abolish welfare? You need to understand the extent and severity of both the good and the bad, and decide if the good can warrant the cost of the bad. In this case, how many people have been impoverished because of deregulation? How many people have benefited, from, say, cheap mortgages? These are not easy questions. Don't jump to a conclusion too easily.

Well, thank you for clarifying. Since the claim that deregulation did not impoverish anyone is, as you admit, obviously wrong, I did think you meant to say that you don't think it made people worse off. I'm glad to hear that my initial question was in fact quite pertinent to your point.

That said, with regards to your claim that deregulation has, on the whole, actually made people better off than before. How does that square with your later claim that deregulation was not necessarily good? Do you mean to say that things could have been even better had some regulations been retained or improved on and not eliminated with the rest?

 

[BasketCase]

Of course you would, but that doesn't change the fact that the state undertook such actions at the behest of the rich and powerful even at its most laissez faire

Wrong. The state can't enact the will of the rich because rich people compete against each other. They always have.....since caveman times.....

When different rich people want different things, which rich people is the state supposed to act at the behest of?? Modern politics itself is the proof: look at where the Democrats and Republicans get their campaign contributions. Rich people and corporations donate to both parties in about equal amounts. Because they are not a monolith--they are factions.

 

[Leoreth]

Why exactly was Asia/Africa in such poverty before globalization?

Partly because of a model of trade relations set up by the industrialized states to prohibit them from actually competing. So the exact opposite of globalization.

 

[Hygro]

Does he admit that he screwed up as well? Not that he has one of the main parts, but he has a role in the cast of devils.


http://www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Are-Here-Financial/dp/1591843634

I don't remember. Probably not, he's pretty positive about himself. Ironically, another professor that same semester assigned the book mentioned above. I dropped that class and never finished the book, unfortunately.

 

[Winston Hughes]

It looks as if a few posters here have misunderstood the article in question.

Moore is very firmly on the right of the political spectrum, being a long-time advocate of free-market capitalism and conservative values. The assumptions he starts from in this article are not his own, but those of the political left, against whom he is very much opposed. He goes on to show how those assumptions find resonance in recent world events, and then proceeds to argue that, despite being wildly off-target with its core ideology, the left has some valid criticisms of how things are done in the world today. Moore's purpose is not to support the leftist worldview, but rather to point out to his fellow rightists that they need to get their own house in order, it not being an option to simply shrug off the present circumstances (or to pin blame for them on leftist policies alone).

The article itself is not very well composed - which, I suppose, is the reason for the apparent misunderstandings of it - but I agree with its general thrust. Events are drawing attention to failures that many on the right are in total denial about. And while that state of denial persists, the right will be incapable of addressing the long-term problems our societies face. I would add that, with the left similarly hamstrung by its own ideological baggage, one of the defining features of our present situation is the stagnancy and cynicism of political dialogue. To my mind, Charles Moore deserves some credit for being rather more introspective about his political beliefs than the vast majority of commentators in the British media today.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't remember. Probably not, he's pretty positive about himself. Ironically, another professor that same semester assigned the book mentioned above. I dropped that class and never finished the book, unfortunately.

The thing is, I typically blame conservatives, because they really pushed for decades to make it happen. But the real point is that the conservatives won. And so all the so called "liberals" adopted the same ideology. Everyone is guilty. Some just more guilty than others. And Reich doesn't get a pass on it. Even if his part wasn't all that big of one comparatively.

 

[GamezRule]

Partly because of a model of trade relations set up by the industrialized states to prohibit them from actually competing. So the exact opposite of globalization.

Yay, Capitalism!

 

[Dachs]

Partly because of a model of trade relations set up by the industrialized states to prohibit them from actually competing.

Wait, when did this happen?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Wait, when did this happen?

Around the time the WTO was formed ?
Trade relations are very asymmetrical. We (and with we I mean EU+USA) wouldn't let an African or South American country get away with anything like our own farm subsidies.

 

[Dachs]

Around the time the WTO was formed ?
Trade relations are very asymmetrical. We (and with we I mean EU+USA) wouldn't let an African or South American country get away with anything like our own farm subsidies.

You can't say that something that happened during the globalizing process caused something that existed before globalization.

 

[Leoreth]

We're probably using different definitions here. In the usual political discourse (as far as I'm aware of), it's referring to more recent developments that led to outsourcing and production relocation into faraway countries like China.

Of course globalization in its more general definition is going on for much longer.

 

[BasketCase]

The assumptions he starts from in this article are not his own, but those of the political left, against whom he is very much opposed. He goes on to show how those assumptions find resonance in recent world events, and then proceeds to argue that, despite being wildly off-target with its core ideology, the left has some valid criticisms of how things are done in the world today.

Most of those criticisms by the left are way off base; the left is correct only in that some things are going wrong in the world today, but they're completely wrong about why things go wrong. It's all about the "why".

Take Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example. The left is always pointing to those knuckleheads as a failure of capitalism. And they're wrong. That's capitalism working the way it's supposed to work. When a business does something stupid, it's supposed to crash. The mortgage and banking crises are not failures of capitalism, they're successes of capitalism. They're the Laws of Evolution: businesses that are smart and invest their money wisely, are successful. Businesses that are not and don't, get eaten for lunch.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wrong. The state can't enact the will of the rich because rich people compete against each other. They always have.....since caveman times.....

When different rich people want different things, which rich people is the state supposed to act at the behest of?? Modern politics itself is the proof: look at where the Democrats and Republicans get their campaign contributions. Rich people and corporations donate to both parties in about equal amounts. Because they are not a monolith--they are factions.

What, seriously? Rich people compete? This is new. I did not know this. Are you sure? Oh dear. I think I'm going to have to go and tell people about this. This could change everything...

Or, in other words, duh. That's something which has not only been taken into account, but is pretty integral to the entire socialist analysis of capitalism. You are not offering what I would call "insights".

Wait, when did this happen?

Depends where you go, doesn't it? World-systems theory and all that.

 

[BasketCase]

That's something which has not only been taken into account, but is pretty integral to the entire socialist analysis of capitalism.

No, it disproves the entire socialist analysis of capitalism. The old mantra about the rich stealing from the poor, particularly. The rich don't steal from the poor, they steal from each other. And the socialist analysis completely fails to notice that rich people donate extensively to both the Democrats and Republicans--and those two parties have very different policies regarding rich people.

The Insight: Different groups of rich people compete against other groups of rich people. Environmental legislation makes a huge profit for green industries and manufacturers of expensive hybrid cars. The ban on incandescent light bulbs makes a huge profit for manufacturers of flourescents--and also a huge profit for companies that supply really nasty dangerous chemicals such as mercury for the making of flourescent light bulbs. Carbon taxes make nuclear power plants more profitable--one more way environmental laws are backfiring. Banking regulations to prevent another Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac work to the profit of foreign banks who are not subject to the regulations (as I've said many times in other threads--businesses simply move to wherever the noose is loose).

Government is not in the pocket of "the rich". Different factions of rich people compete against each other.

 

[Ajidica]

No, it disproves the entire socialist analysis of capitalism. The old mantra about the rich stealing from the poor, particularly.

I can't steal from Mr. Monopoly and the Tramp at the same time? Anyhow, the 'rich steal from the poor' angle of capitalism critique has been done to death and there are other, far better critiques of it.