Yesterdays message opposing
Estab-
lishment-Economics' (EE)
statement
against current Bushnomics --
from the
Center For Full
Employment and
Price Stability
(CFEPS) -- merits a
few lines of followup:
1. The CFEPS opposition to EE
(if you
prefer, call it the neoliberal
consensus or
Thatchernomics) is
professional -- and,
together with the Levy
Institute at Bard,
and a few others,
gets heard by Congress
and many professional
economists within
the academic, banking, and
industrial
establishments.
Debt-free money types, both
legal
tender types and localists
(advocates for
money without national law to
make all
creditors accept it to
extinguish debt),
share the humanitarian goals
of these
anti-EE
professionals. But we do not
share much of their wider
audience.
We are in ever present danger of
dismissal for being amateurs. I believe
it incumbent on us to keep in touch with
them --
If you have to make a bet,
the odds are in favor
of some of
their reforms gaining
traction
ahead of any of
ours.
2. The message in opposition to
the
EE statement against
Bushnomics drew
interesting replies from the
PKT forum:
a. One
comment was that low interest
rates, as well as tax cuts, are important
to the goals of all the above
reformers.
We must say amen
to that.
b. Another comment suggests
that
Bushnomics objective is to
create deficits
large enough to kill future
governmental
spending to help the poor and protect the
environment. IF this is the Bush objective,
the comment says we should
not defend
Bushnomics just because it is
deficit-tolerant.
Among debt-free money
advocates there
are many who oppose Bush -- I
support
Bush -- but if Bushnomics turns out to
be a trojan horse for EE abuse
of the
poor and the environment
(which it has
been up to
today) I will withdraw my
support for Bush.
Why not now? Why
have faith that Bush will
change on this
fundamental question?
Because the
anti-nation builder Bush is
now the post-
911 nation-builder Bush. The problem
is
that Bush is not yet a debt-free money,
true Keynesian, or any similar
spender,
determined to leave no child behind.
Yet, at least, Bush has promised that
his adminsitration will leave
no child
behind.
c. Still another comment sees
the
"wildly pernicious implications for
the
distribution of income in the specific
details of the Bush" as reason
enough
to be
cautious before befriending any-
thing
smacking of Bushnomics. Here
I
understand the comment -- but as a
debt-free,
tax-free, indexed money
advocate,
I prefer to fight extreme
wealth
with a very high standard for
national support of a minimum
wage
and minimum standard of
living.
In the end, we may need to compel
great wealth to follow the Carnegie
example and give it to worthy
causes.
But, it may be that great support for
a very high minimum wage, and laws
to really end union-busting successes,
will allow us live in a tax
free world --
for people not stinking rich at least.
3.
Mathew Forstater has kindly
invited
all audiences for CFEPS
messages to
send them feedback. His reply
to our
message (that forwarded the
CFEPS
opposition to the EE
statement) was
most cordial.
4.
The CFEPS message discussed above
was in defense of a
modest bias toward
federal deficits now and
for as long as
economic growth stays
moderate. My
message yesterday supported
their
defense. Anyone who wants a
copy of
the CFEPS message should reply to me
and I'll send it.
John