Subsidies, not a race to lowest cost, are needed.

["John Gelles" <johng@xxxxxxxxxx>]

[same msg, diff. subj. may have been lost in transit]


        Why Keynesian thought?  Why not "admit" the
        American economy works just fine as it is?  We
        Keynesians wanted less than five percent
        unemployment. We have it. We wanted less
        disparity. Now that dot.com guys are poor, we
        have it. What is it that Keynesian thought offers
        that other economic thought does not?

        We offer the employer of last resort. And we offer
        the lender of last resort. We resist sweat shop pay
        and conditions. We resist environmental degradation.
        We resist runaway deflation.

        We do all the above with cheap money, or with
        managed money, or both. We see that laissez faire
        policies have no natural employer, lender or green
        investor of last resort. They reel before deflation,
        contraction, downsizing, excess inventory, the
        bear in bear markets, speculators against flimsy
        fixed rates of exchange, and creditors rights in
        a world awash in debt.

        If we do have remedies for economic weakness
        stemming from all or any of the above, who or
        what is saying "NO" to Keynesian thought?

        Who stands to gain from the rapid build up of
        Chinese economic strength driven by export to
        rival empires? Who will gain in the long run from
        an absence of US productive capacity in
        manufacturing and energy supply that results
        from buying cheap imports as we export jobs?

        Do the gainers (corporations and their political
        partners) have a plan (or fortituous unplanned
        system) to recreate US industrial strength if it
        is needed for national security -- via a miracle-
        maker of last resort?

        Is someone measuring the acquisition of "new"
        industrial capacity in ultra-high-tech factories
        such that what we really export is the "old way"
        of creating "real" wealth as we convert our own
        plant to the "new" way?

        Many on our side think NOT!  We are sure no
        one is minding the store. Everyone but us is a fool.
        Wall Street is reaping (or hoping to again reap)
        profit in the short run -- as enemies grow strong,
        earth is poisoned, labor is repressed, and
        rational hope is replaced by frantic focus on
        illusory short term financial (but unreal) profit.

        If we are right, the American century is over,
        the middle class on its way out, and gangster
        capitalism, corruption and war will be are just
        deserts.

        If we are wrong, business as usual will muddle
        through -- as attention to micro details solves
        the macro problems others think don't exist.

        Interestingly, we are unable to agree on an
        agenda. Yet we fault others for refusal to
        plan for the big picture.

        We are quick to ask others to pay for a
        greener earth, higher pay, lower interest,
        better education, and less disparity in wealth
        and consumption.

        But we are slow to ask that these needs be
        subsidized by the national employer, lender,
        investor and spender of last resort -- our
        government (in whom "we" and not "they"
        believe) -- because we have our enemies too:
        those bastard corporations and their largest
        individual owners, to whom we want to hand
        the bill. If we can't do that, the hell with it.
        Let the sky fall down on us all.

                John Gelles

        P.S. The missing agenda to "subsidize" and plan
        for our needs sounds a lot like a command or
        socialist economy. It is not. It is a welfare state.
        Private property is prized. Private enterprise is
        everywhere. Government enterprise is too.
        And any and all taxes are proved to be
        necessary to prevent hyperinflation.