[Marxism] Analysis of the G20 Summit

["Michael Friedman" <mikedf@xxxxxxxx>]

.... and part of another comment by David Harvey, also interviewed on
Democracy Now this morning, on the G20:

------
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think is the?what is being proposed by the G20
leaders? And what needs to be done in this country?

DAVID HARVEY: I think Tony Benn was exactly right in the earlier segment,
and it?s a great pleasure to be here after him. I was always an admirer of
his.

What they?re trying to do is to reinvent the same system. And I think this
is a collective concern, and there?s a lot of squabbling on the details,
as it were. But the fundamental argument they are making is, how can we
actually reconstitute the same sort of capitalism we had and have had over
the last thirty years in a slightly more regulated, benevolent form, but
don?t challenge the fundamentals? And I think it?s time we challenge the
fundamentals.

AMY GOODMAN: What are those fundamentals?

DAVID HARVEY: The fundamentals have to do with the incredible increase in
consolidation, if you like, of class power. I mean, since the 1970s, we?ve
seen a tremendous increase in inequality, not just simply in this country,
but worldwide. And in effect, the assets of the world have been
accumulated more and more and more in few hands. And I think when you look
at the nature of the bailout programs, the stimulus programs and all the
rest of it, what it really does is to, in effect, try to keep those assets
intact while making the rest of us pay. And so, I think it?s time we
stopped that and kind of said, well, actually, we should actually be
getting more of the assets and, you know, much greater equality.

AMY GOODMAN: And how would we get more of the assets? How would there be
greater equality?

DAVID HARVEY: I think, for example, the nature of the bailout of the banks
and the sort of restructuring that is going on is, in effect, about saving
the banks and saving the bankers, while actually sticking it to the
people. I mean, we?re the ones who are going to have to pay for this in
the long run. So what I?m kind of arguing for is a political awareness
that that is happening.

In fact, it has been happening over the last thirty years, sort of step by
step. It?s been disguised in this kind of rhetoric about individual
liberty and freedom of markets and all those kinds of things. But if you
look backwards, you will see that this is not the first financial crisis
we?ve had. We?ve had many of them over the last thirty years, and they all
have the same character. We had our own savings and loan crisis back in
the 1980s. There was a Mexican debt crisis back in 1982, when, in effect,
Mexico was going to go bankrupt. And if they had gone bankrupt, then the
New York investment banks would have gone under. So what did they do? They
bailed out Mexico, therefore bailing out the New York investment bankers,
and then they made the Mexican people pay.

AMY GOODMAN: Why would the banks in New York have gone under?

DAVID HARVEY: Because they had lent the money to Mexico in the first
place. And if Mexico had just defaulted on its debt, what would the?you
know, what would the bankers have done? They would have lost a tremendous
amount.

AMY GOODMAN: If you were Timothy Geithner, if you were the Treasury
Secretary?

DAVID HARVEY: Yes, if I was Treasury Secretary.

AMY GOODMAN: ?what exactly would you be doing?

DAVID HARVEY: Oh, I would take a lot of that money, and I would put it
into some kind of a national reconstruction corporation. And I would say,
?Look, your first duty is to take care of the foreclosure crisis and the
people who have been foreclosed upon. So go into cities like Cleveland and
so on that have been devastated, and go into sort of areas in California
and so on and take care of the foreclosure crisis.?

AMY GOODMAN: How would you do that?

DAVID HARVEY: Well, I think one of the ways you could do that is to start
to buy out all of those houses that are about to be foreclosed on and put
them into some kind of, I don?t know, municipal housing association or
some collective form of that kind, and then allow people to remain in
those houses, even though they?re no longer necessarily owners. So the
ownership rights would shift.

I mean, we have a myth in this country that homeownership is the gospel,
as it were. But for a lot of people, homeownership is not a good idea. And
I think, actually, it?s not a good idea in general.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?

DAVID HARVEY: For two reasons. One is, it makes you actually very
vulnerable if you?re a heavily debt-encumbered homeowner. And actually,
the initial legislation was kind of interesting, the debate around it back
in the 1930s, when it kind of said debt-encumbered homeowners don?t go on
strike, and because it?s?you know, you?ve got to pay your mortgage. And
so, this becomes, as it were, a millstone around your neck. And that then
makes you very vulnerable to fluctuations in the market like we?re seeing
right now, particularly if you have variable rate mortgages, things of
that kind, and you can really easily get caught out. So, in effect, what
we?ve seen in the housing market is a tremendous plundering of the assets
of some of the most vulnerable people in the country. I mean, this has
been the biggest loss of asset wealth to the African American population
that there?s ever been.


[...]





-- 
Michael Friedman
Ph.D. in Biology
City University of New York

Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics
American Museum of Natural History
79th Street and Central Park West
New York, NY 10024
Office: 212-313-8721
Cell: 718-812-4246
Alternative e-mail: lycophidion@xxxxxxxxx


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu