Re: Republican Military Keynesianism Redux

["schulte-baeuminghaus" <cresscourt@xxxxxxxxx>]

John,

I congratulate you on your message below and particularly on what you
say is our responsibility: "It is the gang's task, and that of the
rest of PKT, to help society meet this difficulty."
It is one thing to engage in intellectual exercises about the way to
run a national economy or the world economy. It is quite another and
much more difficult thing to persuade others - particularly
governments and their advisers - to adopt policies that accord with
Henry's "justice and democracy" criteria and with the need to moderate
the maniacal rush to self-destruction by a world overwhelmed by
armaments.
We have seen how difficult it is to get agreement on environmental
issues - however grave and fundamental they may be. We have also seen
how weak the focus is on such a basic need as that for clean and
readily available water. (There is actually a commission on water but
who has ever heard of it?)
We know how difficult it is, within national economies, to get vital
projects of infrastructure - many of which would help the environment
as well as employment and productivity - even thought about, let alone
implemented. Foolish or let us be charitable and say misguided
policies apply public funds to keeping current commitments going,
within a "balanced" or "surplus" budget. Governments do not, except
randomly, adopt sensible policies to enlarge public investment and so
make it much easier, quite a short distance down the road, to meet
both current day-to-day expenditures and continuing improvements in
public infrastructure. Real public investment has become the loser and
that means that the whole economy and society has become the loser
over the past few decades. (For the most part, privatisation has not
helped real public investment but has only provided a mechanism by
means of which governments can abdicate their responsibilities.)
A crucial question is how a group like ours can influence the
influential people and so turn around the tide of our present
unpromising destiny?
I'm sure it can be done. I'm sure it has to be done if we're to avoid
catastrophe.
But we have to do it quickly. We have to work hard on the responsible
people and we have to do it together.
You might like to look at my Xin message of yesterday. That's the sort
of activity that has the look of quality about it.
A program for what Henry calls "justice and democracy."
Infrastructure investment that will bring greater productivity and
production to a large area and a large population.
A very clear consciousness that policy must be directed to improving
the lot of the poor - and of course lifting the levels of living
generally of that area so as to compare with levels in more developed
areas.
That's the sort of approach we want and the sort of programs that the
gang and others with similar ideas and ideals should, I suggest - and
I think I am agreeing with you - get themselves thoroughly committed
to and involved in.


James Cumes



----------
>From: "John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>
>To: "Post Keynesian Thought" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Cyberspace Society"
<Cyber-Soc@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Republican Military Keynesianism Redux
>Date: Sun, Dec 31, 2000, 4:24 pm
>

>        o  This thread was inspired by the gang of 8 (now 21)'s
>             musing on a Bush regime faced with an economy
>             burdened by -- (1) debt, (2) a high trade deficit,
>             (3) a vulnerable dollar, (4) a diminishing wealth effect
>             and still vulnerable share prices, (4) a trend to corporate
>             dominated global capitalist fundamentalism, (5) a weak
>             environmental commitment, and (6) strong opposition
>             to organized labor and egalitarian values, -- was ever
>             going to avoid a 1930 scenario, was ever going to
>             come to the aid of society to (1) "leave no child behind",
>             (2) "refuse to balance the budget on the backs of the
>             poor", (3) replace Clintonian drift and desire, (to do
>             too much with too little to remake the world in an
>             unwanted American image), with a Bush-team
>             retrenchment aimed at a perfect balance between
>             means and ends to hold on to American wealth and
>             power while the world improved -- relying on its
>             own good impulses and our own humility.
>
>         o  Gelles imagined redux to the time (1) Reagan gave
>             deficits a chance (hindered, as it was, by Volker),
>             (2) Nixon took the US off the gold standard (in
>             dealing with foreign central banks) and attempted
>             price control, and, (3) Republicans, with Gorbachev's
>             help, turned Soviet communism into a less imperial
>             force and a reaching for a more open and free form
>             of political economy, and turned Chinese communism
>             into a struggle to become rich first and a secure
>             international player afterward.
>
>             Such imaginings implied that Bush might do well --
>             and that what was learned in defeating Germany and
>             Japan might supercede what was not understood in
>             the 1930's.
>
>         o  James Cumes, a member of the gang, suggested
>             clean water Keynesianism as a project to do
>             enormous economic and political good. He is
>             certainly right about it. He is also right that the
>             arms merchant problem associated with
>             military Keynesianins is formidable. I would
>             amend my enthusiasm for American capability
>             in force projection and police protection to
>             include all of James Cumes' concerns that we
>             stop the murder of innocents as a byproduct
>             of false practice of financing military power.
>
>         o  Henry Liu recommends fundamental change to
>             bring justice and democracy to the fore in
>             the contest with terror and hate. I agree whole-
>             heartedly with this. Keynesian fiance may help.
>             Especially if it relies more on saving and less on
>             taxes.  Taxation puts enough anger in the hearts
>             of the "haves" to stir them to make war on change
>             that appears to want to turn them into "have-nots".
>
>             In my view, Keynesian finance will allow the
>             "haves" to have "more" and all the "have-nots" to
>             have enough:  not at the expense of raping the
>             planet -- the "more" can be green and pure art,
>             "enough" can be really enough and benign.
>
>         o  The critique of American policy and institutions
>             that is made by Chomsky and others (who see
>             doom ahead for global capitalism) ordinarily
>             condemns Stalinism in passing.  That's fine.
>             But what the critique lacks is a replacement
>             of money-power with something better on the
>             horizon.
>
>         o  The technophiles, like myself, do see
>             information systems on the horizon. These can team
>             up with money, and the spoken language, to advance
>             the justice and democracy Cumes, Liu and I dream
>             of.  Standing in the way of such progress is not
>             Bush and American smugness. It is the extreme
>             difficulty involved in organizing (1) production for
>             earth's population and (2) cooperation between its
>             producers.
>
>         o  It is the gang's task, and that of the rest of PKT, to
>             help society meet this difficulty. The French post-
>             autistic economics idea that algebraic models are
>             not the beginning and end of the study of political
>             economy offers hope for guidance.
>
>         o  A recognition by all of us, here, that historical
>             research and theory construction must contribute
>             to practical political ideas that can gain currency
>             would also offer hope that useful understanding
>             of "what we face and what to do" is possible.
>
>             John Gelles   www.1944.org
>
>