Re: new thread: PKT and ecology

[Stephen Block <stephenb@xxxxxxxx>]

 Timothy,

I share your sentiments, and believe they should be expressed baldly. But I
assumed that it was Keynesians who normally are the ones to draw attention
to underemployment, not anyone else. But even if that is not true, I think
you're wrong in drawing this dichotomy between ecology and progressive
economics. I teach a course on the social environment, but come up short
when I want to go into some detail in the area of sound economic-ecological
policy. This is not about tree-hugging, and it's not as if one has abandoned
humans in favour of trees.  Part of my concern, in fact, is that some
environmentalists may be convinced that jobs ought to be and need to be
sacrificed to aid the environment. Although in general, I find ecology
students pretty savvy and on the whole very progressive. They tend to see
through corporate tactics more clearly than most (including the ruse to
divide an rule on issues of jobs vs. the economy). But the point is, if
there is a threat to the environment, and if at the same time we wish to
maintain full levels of employment, not phoney and fictitious fictions of
full employment, how do we square PK theory with it? That is why I asked the
question. Technical answers are potentially quite important here!! It is
neither impossible nor improbable, nor does one concern necessarily
undermine the other. Well, it shouldn't at all.

We also do not want the population in general to develop any more of a
reactionary view of the social environment (than they already have) in
attempting to defend the physical environment. Industry has become very good
at strategically inserting that wedge into the discussion. I don't think we
should fall for the ruse by criticizing people who are environmentally
concerned, any more that we, say, should allow people, such as yourself, who
are concerned with social justice issues in relation to the justice system,
the unnecessary war on drugs, etc, to be condemned as a bleating (sic) heart
liberals. I also don't think it is necessary to abandon abstract economic
theory in favour of something "more relevant" or "concrete", because
Keynesianism, unfortunately, requires vigilance on many fronts at the same
time. One is in the area of competing in economic policy theory and another
is in the area of maintaining academic credibility, as losing as those
causes may seem today. The bigger the tent the better. It is unfortunate
that you see some PKers as selling out or abandoning the cause.

I think the climate today in the US is very much about proclaiming full
employment where, as you say,  none exists. It becomes an embarrassment,
which we should all be willing to endure, to contradict such claims. But it
ain't that easy because publicized tales of unemployment in the US have gone
the way of the Dodo, even while real wage levels have not risen in a couple
of decades.

So I think you are right to decry PKers if/when they fail to argue that the
claims of full employment are a bit of a ruse, but it does not follow that
we then chase any other discussions away if they do not _evidently_ bear on
full employment questions. Your example of the war on drugs is a case in
point. We can say, "what does this have to do with full employment? It's a
question of law and order and not corrupting our youth." Or we can also draw
attention to the fact, if we're looking for a Keynesian thread, that many of
the same people attacking the "welfare" state, attack "welfare" mothers on
crack, and "welfare" fathers who sell crack, etc. And while big tobacco is
content to see soft drugs remain underground, they likely prepare for the
day it is not. Etc., etc.

As we also "know", the US has no class issues left, eh? They have all been
resolved. So, all questions must be ones of race? And it becomes very easy
to start mixing up race and class issues. But the obvious point is that both
are important, just as full employment and the environment are both
important, even if we might wish to give one more weight than the other, in
general. On this one day, I gave the nod to the environment. But not a day
passes that I would wish to overlook the fact of underemployment, and its
effects.

I commend you on your involvement. But I see that same sense of
responsibility in my environmental students, many of whom seek more
understanding of progressive economics and are, by bent, suspicious and
dismissive of orthodoxy in matters of economy, even while they are
relatively unschooled in the area. They have pretty good sniffers, and
deserve some respect as well. That's why I try to find a way of linking
Keynesianism and ecology, because, from the outside, it is very easy to
assume that full employment requires growth and growth is bad news for the
environment. Only good theory contradicts that and in so doing in
strengthens arguments for full employment, if we eliminate the wedge issues
conservatives wish to insert, rather than undermining them.

Stephen Block
Vanier College
Montreal
514 744 7135
Efax: 954 212 5736




>
> it would be nice to see PKT adopt a more expansive view of ecology.  the
> environment should include more than the physical environment, also the
> social environment.  doesn't Keynesian economics have anything at all to say
> about the fact that 2 million Americans are now behind bars, many because of
> a lack of decent job opportunities and the utter fiction of a 4 percent
> unemployment rate.  instead there are PKTers who have accepted the fiction
> that the US has been at full employment for the past few years.  that's a
> stretch -- only when compared to the basket cases of the world, like Japan.
>
> it's a vicious cycle:  the economy underperforms and social programs (job
> training, education, public sector job programs) are underfunded.  the Drug
> War is applied in a racially disparate manner, locking up disproportionately
> large numbers of African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans.  many of
> those "felons" then lose the right to vote under state felony
> disenfranchisement laws.  as a result, Democrats lose close elections and
> anti-Keynesian policies are adopted by Republicans and "new Democrats."
>
> before PKTers go overboard waxing eloquent on ecology, maybe we should have
> something to say about the fictitous full employment economy, the booming
> prison population, yes even the Drug War and of course felony
> disenfranchisement.  the political and social environment has been neglected
> for too long by PKTers.  hug some victims of this bubble economy and the
> Drug War before hugging trees.
>
>
>
>
>
> Timothy A. Canova
> Assistant Professor of Law
> University of New Mexico School of Law
> 1117 Stanford Drive N.E.
> Albuquerque, New Mexico  87131
>
> Tel:  (505) 277-5654
> Fax:  (505) 277-0068
> e-mail:  canova@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----