lessons of faux vs sperling
the great debate has ended
with both fools
back on thier stools
sittin' pretty
and
ready to fight another day ....
have we learned anything...?
no madame not a damn thing
========================================
more thoughts on faux later
but tillthen
grace tom palley:
Jeff Faux and Gene Sperling
are two titans of democratic economic policy
Last week (February 23, 2006)
they debated the core economic policy differences
that define and divide
old Democrats from new Democrats.
Jeff Faux is the founder
and former President
of the progressive Washington think-tank,
the Economic Policy Institute
. Gene Sperling was the head of President Clinton’s
National Economic Council from 1996 to 2000.
The two provide a marvelous window
on today’s Democratic Party.
Faux is an old labor Democrat,
Sperling a new Democrat.
Faux's core thesis :
America’s elite, drawn from both Republicans and Democrats,
has abandoned America and joined a new global political party
- the Party of Davos.
Globalization therefore represents
a new class war.
On one side is a new global uber-capitalist class.
On the other side are the rest of us,
which is workers everywhere –
not just the United States.
-- empty except for the davos bit
without realizing in your vision
the inevitable international conflicts
created by all these trans nat scampers
this at once is too big "uber caps
a picture and no picture at all since the biparts
are pro amerikan cap
and imperial boosters ------
"Ron Blackwell, Chief Economist at the AFL-CIO,
talks of how working families are boxed in
by economic policy.
. Imagine a square whose sides are
labeled
globalization,
less than full employment,
privatization
and government spending cuts,
and
labor market flexibility.
Standing inside this square
are working families
who are impacted from all four sides.
The old labor Democrat interpretation
of the box sees workers pressured
from all four sides.
Globalization is more about competition
than trade—
exerting massive pressure
on private sector workers
that drives down wages and benefits.
Globalization brings lower prices,
but it does so at the high cost of lower wages
and job insecurity.
--------- just check out real wage rates and the lower price effect is incorporated
facts are facts real value added pure job hour
keeps rising while wage rates keep floundering -----------
Public sector jobs and wages
are threatened by the privatization
and government spending cuts side
of the box
which puts them in competition
with private sector workers
------------- yes but you miss the conflict
deeper side
between lower taxes on private sector wages
that "may " result from shrinking the cost of gubmint
like the above point
you need to incorporate the off sets ----------
. Less than full employment
is where the Fed enters.
Because the Fed puts a floor
to the unemployment rate
in the name of price stability,
it contributes to weakening
workers’ bargaining position.
--------------- this is right on if a bit cursory
i'd like a whole article on this point -------------
Meanwhile, ‘labor market flexibility’
is code used by conservative business leaders
for eroding the minimum wage
and employee protections,
and attacking unions.
This shifts bargaining power
to business and lowers wages
for all workers,
not just union members.
---------- what else where is called reversal
of new deal
primary distribution trends --------------
New Democrats (Sperling) :
globalization benefits working families
by providing cheap imports
that raise the standard of living,
---------- see above ---------------
improve productivity
via heightened competition,
-----------what ???--------------
and provide jobs in the export sector
----------again the negative im /ex trade gap
shows the jobsters loser balance in that deal------------
programs like worker trade adjustment assistance
that can supposedly be paid
for from the gains of globalization
---------- but wasn't isn't and will never be ----------------
In the new Democrat economy,
working families benefit
from the Federal Reserve’s
less-than-full employment approach
because it brings low inflation
which brings down interest rates,
thereby spurring investment and growth.
--------- i thought he was going
to say lower mortgage rates and higher lot values
at least that has to be reckoned with
but ..."growth" ?????
i got one of those on my big toe ------------------
This is why new Democrats
were okay with Alan Greenspan,
Indeed, Alan Blinder –
another highly respected
new Democrat economic adviser –
calls Greenspan
“the greatest central banker ever.”
---just left that in cause i liked it ----------------
Sperling supports public spending
on education and childcare.
However, in the background lurks “Rubinomics”,
which means that budget constraints
and fiscal responsibility
can always put the kibosh on these plans.
-------------- again worth a whole post --------------
Finally, new Democrats are largely silent
on the labor market flexibility agenda,
and appear uncomfortable confronting it.
Sperling’s While he does support
the minimum wage,
says nothing about the right to organize unions
or strengthening the minimum wage
by indexing it to wages
so as to create a true floor
that can rise with growth.
This silence reflects
new Democrats’ discomfort with questions
of power as the labor question
has always been one of power
in capitalist economies
------------ here comes the bi partisan
wally boy rap ------------
In many ways, new Democrats are closer
to Republicans than to old Democrats.
--------- repeat -------------------------
From an old Democrat perspective,
new Democrats persistently seek
to deal with “effects”, and refuse
to deal with “causes”.
--------------- no say they'll nurrse nelly
but jiggle rattles
and perform a medicine dance only -----------------
new Democrat policy solutions
are simply not proportionate
to the scale of the problem
facing America’s working families.
------------------amen -----------------------
.
power pays the bills,
and new Democrats want the money
that the powerful currently give them.
Ergo, new Democrats refuse to challenge
the power structure,
and hence their band-aid approach
to working family economic woes.
-----------------------------------------
my response:
pinky Says:
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:26 pm
sir:
thank you for the sum up ...
t'was
bright accurate
but a trace britttle
i like your
labels and frames
(labor) dem vs new dem
i make it by mission
klass confliction dems vs krass contrivence dems
key point
the one that whithers
one’s ardor
if you are correct
and
“power pays the bills,
… Ergo, new Democrats refuse
to challenge the power structure, …”
and assuming the class fightin dems have bills too
who will pay their bills ????
surely not them damn “old “unions
in the afl-xxx
those f..ing cuffs ????
these so called
class struggle dems
in fighting the bi partisan traitors
of laputa capitalism
ie ” the davosians ”
are going to need
a stronger financial spine
El Sweeno and company will provide
I'D SAY
lets talk prayin for a mass eruption
until then guys like faux
will remain
nothin but
righteous hot air funnels
Posted by pinky at March 4, 2006 07:27 AM