Re: [Pen-l] Naomi Klein: Beware of Obama's Chicago School of Economics boys

[ravi <ravi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 14, 2008, at 7:57 AM, Dan Zale wrote:
> Very misleading. Goolsbee is in the Graduate School of Business at  
> UofC, not the Economics Department "Chicago Boy."

I hesitate to defend Naomi Klein, but here is what she wrote, that is  
relevant to the various criticisms offered thus far:

> Obama chose as his chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a  
> University of Chicago economist on the left side of a spectrum that  
> stops at the centre-right. Goolsbee, unlike his Friedmanite  
> colleagues, sees inequality as a problem. His primary solution,  
> however, is more education - a line you can also get from Alan  
> Greenspan. Goolsbee has been eager to link Obama to the Chicago  
> School. "The guy's got a healthy respect for markets," he told  
> Chicago magazine. "It's in the ethos of the [University of Chicago],  
> which is something different from saying he is laissez faire."

While Klein is playing a bit fast and loose with the terms, there is  
(IMHO) salvage-able content here... just like Dawkins' theories of  
selfish genes (the core of which is nothing new) re-legitimised a  
particular way of looking at and thinking about things, reversing a  
hard-won broader, nuanced understanding of systems, so too, it seems  
to me, the Friedman phenomenon has to be seen in the context of its  
epistemological and political (libertarian) impact. I can see no  
better an exemplification of this than in the evolution of Paul  
Krugman's views (expressed for general audiences)... from a sort of  
"hard-nosed realist" (my term) who sneers at soft science stuff from  
Galbraith (father) -- which seems to me an attitude reflecting the  
dominant one in his field -- to someone who today seems comfortable  
writing in holistic and moralistic terms (though Krugman recently  
defended Furman, in his blog, against those who criticise the latter  
for his WalMart dalliance).

Klein offers the contrast via Obama's choice of economists, that I  
believe helps: Goolsbee/Furman/Rubin vs James Galbraith. Her  
fundamental point seems to be this: at a time when the extinction of  
neo-liberalism (and the likes of Rubin) is a distinct possibility, why  
is Obama flirting with and giving prominence to its practitioners/ 
proponents, etc? I suppose he has to go out and say malodorous things  
like the quote Naomi Klein offers,

> Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market.

since goons like Bill O'Reilly currently hold Obama a Marxist [!!] and  
claim that the burden lies upon him to prove otherwise. So, you get on  
CNBC and say such things, or on AIPAC to hand over Jerusalem to  
Israel, etc. But does the public really care if you add someone to  
your team who says this (irrespective of Krugman's "vouching" for him):

> For Furman, however, Wal-Mart's critics are the real threat: the  
> "efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits" are  
> creating "collateral damage" that is "way too enormous and damaging  
> to working people and the economy ... for me to sit by idly and sing  
> Kum Ba Ya in the interests of progressive harmony".

What's Galbraith to be? The Colin Powell of the Obama team?

	--ravi

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l