Re: The Horowitz Affair, or Culture Wars Part II

["John Gelles" <johng@xxxxxxxxxx>]

        To those of you who do not read Post
        Keynesian Thought messages, I would
        add a similar consideration of left / right
        issues that appeared adjacent to James
        Cumes' powerful account of history,
        whose end is quoted below.

"Will something of the old left emerge from its
  paralysis to rescue us? Or will we have to rely
  on some shambolic party like One Nation to
  show us the way out of the wood -- or lead us
  into a deeper darkness from which there'll be
  no rescue except through catastrophe?"
                -- James Cumes

        James included Alan Harrison's comment
        that also highlights a left / right issue that
        many liberals consider dead.

"John Prescott, played a role as Blair's useful idiot
 in getting rid of Labour's commitment to the common
 ownership of the means of production, distribution
 and exchange."
                          -- Alan Harrison

        The comment / message I add focuses on
        unemployment and what to do about it.  If it
        did not exist, would there still be left and right?

        Of course, there would. If wages at the
        bottom amounted to wage-slavery, full
        employment would be a sham.

        Well if wages at the bottom meant real comfort,
        would there still be left and right?

        Now the stage is set for the message to PKT
        I started with:

----- Referenced Message -----
From: John Gelles <johng@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Post Keynesian Thought <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 3:31 AM

                       Subject: Full employment: How?

        "If any central banker sets his goal on full employment,
         ... he can achieve ... it.  There is no mystery in how to
         achieve it, only denial."
                    -- Henry C.K. Liu, Mar 29 on Pkt.

        "In his speech early this week, Greenspan stated that
         monetary policy can not permanently affect the rate
         of unemployment, thereby implicitly accepting the
         concept of a natural rate of unemployment.
        "No wonder he can't see 'full' employment as a worthy
         objective, when his conservative monetarist vision is
         clouded by the Friedmanic concept of  a 'natural rate
         of unemployment'."
                    -- Paul Davidson, same subject, Mar 30 on Pkt

        Both of our colleagues above suggest that the mystery
        of believing in and achieving full employment (without
        inviting unacceptable inflation) is solved. Yet they do
        not say how.

        Most on PKT appear to accept PSE (public service
        employment) to ensure the last man looking for work a
        job-- as "how".

        Most would also allow the central bank, simultaneously
        with PSE-zero-unemployment, to reduce aggregate
        demand via higher interest rates.

        Most also stop short of supply side action. But maybe
        not. If an appropriate agenda called for government
        lending and investment directed to supply side goals--
        to raise ouput of necessary goods and services-- these
        PKT'rs might say "yes".  Such supply side strategy
        has always governed  my agenda for full employment.

        Which leaves unanswered why Friedman, Greenspan
        and the majority of both the elites and the voters do
        not take us to full employment-- with  all the benefits
        jobs would bring -- all the power they would exert--
        to prevent formation of an underclass and excessive
        anxiety in the middle class. Why?

        In part because the money to pay for PSE and anti-
        inflationary supply side actions appears to opponents
        as coming out of their pockets.

        Yet we on PKT believe money is not neutral -- that
        money spent and lent to reach full employment would
        increase, not reduce, aggregate profits-- to be enjoyed
        by our opponents, more or less as they enjoy them
        now.

        We see full employment as also making our own and
        our opponent's lives better for safer streets, a smarter
        work force, and reduced anxiety over a  future change
        in jobs.

        I, for one, would be willing to entice support from
        these opponents for a full employment strategic plan
        by giving them a sweetner. Perhaps a tax break they're
        looking for? If money is not neutral, we can all afford
        the deal.

        Post Script to the message:
                How many of you react with, "hell no" to the
        above.  "That would leave disparity even worse.
        We would move the bottom up, but the top would
        be further away from ME.
                If we don't tax the bastards more, I will only
        have more to envy."
                These may be thoughts beneath the surface
        that compel us to keep our opponents enemies
        -- to screw the poor even more because we hate
        the rich.
                Well it's only a possibility. The supply side
        strategic plan, above, can also be rejected because
        we're sure the rich will never buy it.
                They stink and always will.
                Class war to the end.

        --------------- end message to PKT -----------

        James and Alan remember history well. The sad
        weakening of labor and the welfare state is ever
        with us. The new economy bubble is burst. The
        end of history featuring democratic capitalism is
        not at hand -- instead, market fundamentalism,
        with inadequate labor and environmental standards,
        threatens to keep us ignorant, diseased and at
        war. Who's to blame?

        "Harrigan -- no -- Horowitz, that's who."

            John Gelles