dagblog - Comments for "Calling Progressive Economists into the Public Square"

When I first heard it, that

artappraiser — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:13:32 +0000

When I first heard it, that strongly reminded me of the following that was said on July 16, 1992, and of course it still does:

.....Tonight every one of you knows deep in your heart that we are too divided. It is time to heal America. (Applause)

And so we must say to every American: Look beyond the stereotypes that blind us. We need each other - all of us - we need each other. We don’t have a person to waste, and yet for too long politicians have told the most of us that are doing all right that what’s really wrong with America is the rest of us- them.

Them, the minorities. Them, the liberals. Them, the poor. Them, the homeless. Them, the people with disabilities. Them, the gays.

We’ve gotten to where we’ve nearly them'ed ourselves to death. (Applause) Them, and them, and them. (Applause)

But this is America. There is no them. There is only us. (Applause)

One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. (Applause)

That is our Pledge of Allegiance, and that’s what the New Covenant is all about. (Applause)

How do I know we can come together and make change happen? Because I have seen it in my own state. In Arkansas, we are working together, and we are making progress. No, there’s no Arkansas Miracle, but there are a lot of miraculous people. (Applause) And because of them, our schools are better, our wages are higher, our factories are busier, our water is cleaner and our budget is balanced. We’re moving ahead. (Applause)

I wish I could say the same thing about America under the incumbent President. He took the richest country in the world and brought it down. (Applause)

We took on of the poorest states in America and lifted it up. (Applause).....

Thanks for the quote.

Flavius — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:56:37 +0000

In reply to Very well said. For the

Thanks for the quote.

Very well said. For the

Elusive Trope — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:22:25 +0000

In reply to Waugh's Men at Arms starts

Very well said.

For the record, Obama said this in 2004

...But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Waugh's Men at Arms starts

Flavius — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:19:13 +0000

In reply to Calling Progressive Economists into the Public Square

Waugh's Men at Arms starts in September 1939. Hitler and Stalin have signed a non aggression pact freeing each of them to begin his own murderous aggression. But freeing Waugh's protagonist from a state of indecision. For the first time all the evil in the world seems to have come together .Life was hard and dangerous , but simple.

For a while.

Life isn't simple. All conservatives aren't unfeeling; all progressives, models of rectitude.The genius of Obama's breathtaking 2004 key note speech was its acknowledgement that 'even in the red states each of us has at least one gay friend and in the blue states we worship an awesome God.'(as I more or less remember).

If we want to get the vote of the good human beings , who happens to also be conservatives, you have to first force yourself to accept that they can be just as moved as you by a desperate homeless family but at the same time convinced of the Tragedy of the Commons: that people work infinitely harder for themselves than for the common good. And that an economic system based on the reality of human greed will out perform one based on 'from each according to their talents to each according to their needs.' And even that they may also feel that Inequality is not evil per se and in fact a truly equal society might look like Havana.

And we need their votes. Personally I'm a bleeding heart Keynesian. But I can read or listen to David Brooks and think ' I deeply disagree with all his political choices but he's probably a good human being'. Or accept that Mike Bloombeg's been a better mayor than David Dinkins even if I'd infinitely prefer Dinkins living next door.

And in any event if we don't want to be ruled by the Bushes and Romneys of the world we've got to get a share of the votes of the my deeply religious relatives who are suspicious of someone who seems to be staying too long on Welfare, and disapprove of gays- except the ones who are their personal friends- but make sure the neighbors' kids are safe and violently disapprove of the town in the mid west that let a house burn down because the owners hadn't paid the $75 fire department tax..

Life isn't simple. Realizing that's so makes you more persuasive politically. And is right.

It is not simply that

Elusive Trope — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:17:49 +0000

In reply to Calling Progressive Economists into the Public Square

It is not simply that right-wing economists are well funded and carefully positioned to disseminate their values in the guise of economic truth – though that is clearly part of the problem. It is also that the counter-voice of more progressive economists is not heard in the same volume and with the same confidence and authority; and is not heard because those counter-voices are not raised with a similar degree of determination and regularity.

I think one of the key factors for the progressive economists to be less forceful, so to say, is because their is a fundamental view that in any system there are winners and there are losers. The question that there is problem with the economy is not whether there is unemployed people seeking work, but at what number of unemployed is it problem. It is not that are poor people, but how many poor people and what is their living conditions.

The conservative economists can sit in their plush offices and push their point of view because they believe that the best system is that which provides the opportunity for economic success, and that those who are able to seize that opportunity are thus rewarded. There will always be those who do not seize that opportunity, and any attempt to create an economic system which attempts to achieve universal economic success will actually ensure no one achieves it.

The progressive economists generally buy into the winners and losers perspective - it is just that they acknowledge a much more nuanced and in-depth view of the barriers faced by individuals as they attempt to seize those opportunities. They see that society has a responsibility to do what it can to eliminate or minimize those barriers. Moreover, in those cases where the opportunities cannot be seized (or the individual chooses a path such as teaching that limits the opportunities), then society has a responsibility to increase the quality of living to a humane level (which in turns benefits the overall economy and actually increases the quality of living for the entire community).

The problem is it difficult to push the progressive economic agenda while holding the winners and losers perspective within the context of most media opportunities. Generally speaking, one has just a few minutes to state one case or a few paragraphs. It would be like someone asking you to reduce this blog to two paragraphs so the general audience can understand it. In such a spot, calling for a greater welfare state, while acknowledging that there will be winners and losers comes across to too many as a contradiction. For instance, for many it sounds like one is just throwing good money into a bad situation that is destined to always be a bad situation. Moreover from this point of view, society does not have a responsibility to provide every household the lifestyle of a 50K income, and taking taxes from those who do make that amount to create a bureaucracy of social services to seek something approaching that only ends up lessening the buying and saving power of those households who do make 50K year. The safety net is thus seen as not lifting those down below up, the lowering those above down.

People generally get that the banks and Wall Street screwed up, and a good number would have no problem making some of the executives take the perp walk. But extending that issue to the larger issue of the welfare state is not an easy one. It cannot be explained on a protest sign or a banner hanging from the building (and the explanation isn't helped with such messages as "eat the rich"). For most, within their paradigm of economics, as fuzzy and uninformed as it is, the notion that there will be rich and uber-rich people is a given, just as there will be those (in greater numbers than above) who are considered to be living in poverty. And even more significantly, whether it is thought explicitly in the consciousness or not, the notion that the poor are poor because they choose to be poor runs deep in the American psyche.

Progressive economists must face the challenge of detailing to some degree what is the responsibility - they must embrace the "it takes a village" mantra and detail the consequences and implications for government and citizens alike. There is a notion of looking at poverty in a much more detailed manner, which has taken stronger hold in Europe than the US (surprise surprise). - The general name is called social exclusion - it looks at poverty as not just a function of how much money one makes, but at the totality of the barriers one faces in attempting to achieve one's full potential.

One example is transportation - all things being equal, a person in poverty who has access to an excellent public transportation system is far better off than one who making the same amount of money lives where there is no public transportation. Getting to work, medical appointments, grocery stores, social service facilities, etc is vastly different, and can make the difference between, for instance, getting promoted at work (seizing an opportunity) and getting fired (losing an opportunity because one was late to work too often).

It does not make all people equal, nor does it claim society has the responsibility to make all people equal. The community should provide the opportunity to achieve an education to become a rocket scientist, but if that education is not achieved, it cannot be expected to provide success in this area of expertise. Moreover, someone who has developmental disabilities that preclude them from being able to grasp the necessary knowledge of rocket science cannot be expected to be offered success in this area. But such a person can be successful in other areas, and in life in general, if the barriers to that success is acknowledged and addressed by the society as a whole.

In closing, then, the progressive economists need a new way of talking about poverty and society, that acknowledges the winners and losers perspective, while putting forth a progressive agenda.