Conservative Evangelicals and Tea Party classical liberals are sure that this is the endgame for them, and they are convinced that if they don't win this one, they are history: The country will take a direction that marginalizes them. Given that picture, they have no choice but to fight to the death.
As long as they can keep control one branch of government they can essentially shut the government down for as long as elections keep them in power or their coalition breaks.
Think Progress
Read This One Document If You Want To Understand Why Republicans Followed Ted Cruz Off A Cliff
Ian Millhiser
23 comments:
Tom, you're referring to Tea Party people as Classical Liberals?
Classical or Lockean liberals are limited government (low tax) propertarians who hold that individual liberty and private property are basic natural rights. Most of their assumptions and arguments can be traced to John Locke.
Neo-classical liberalism is the liberalism of the 20th century based on classical liberalism, generally combined with Austrian or Neoclassical economics.
Much of the Tea Party is on SS and Medicare, so they are classical liberals politically but Keynesians at heart economically (although they are unlikely to admit it or even realize it).
Are you familiar with Noam Chomsky's speech in the 1970 'Government In The Future' …?
It's one of my favorites. In it he argues that the proper decendents of Classical Liberals are not today's version of (American) Libertarians…. but rather Libertarian Socialists.
Here's the audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnfioOtrBro
Here's the transcript:
http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2006/11/noam-chomsky-lecture-from-1970-full.html
It's a fascintating presentation. Give at least the first have of the transcript a read where he discusses Classical Liberalism and Libertarian Socialist.
Tom,
Are these the people I am referring to as "libertarians"?
The people who would say "we're out of money!"?
The anti-authority people?
They may be "classical liberals" do you think? vice libertaians...
rsp,
Matt Franko,
If you're not already familair with it… I encourage you to read/listen to the presentation I linked to above. I'm curious your reaction to it.
Libertarian socialism is left-libertarianism or social anarchism aka anarcho-socialism, as opposed to right libertarianism which is anarcho-capitalism. They both based on classical liberalism and Locke can be read as leaning either left or right.
I don't particularly like the use of the term "socialism," since it as a pejorative connotation today. I prefer "communalism."
Libertarianism of the left and right agree on individual liberty as the basis for the good society, but they differ over the prioritization of natural rights. The left emphasizes human and civil rights, while the right emphasizes absolute self-autonomy and the right to accumulate private property.
Libertarians of the right are committed chiefly to negative freedom (freedom from) in Isaiah Berlin's sense and libertarians of the left to positive freedom (freedom to).
I would add to that the ancient Greek and Hegelian aspect of freedom for (self-actualization) and I view freedom as encompassing freedom from, freedom to, and freedom for. My view is more Aristotelian and Hegelian than most libertarians. Aristotle held that human freedom can only be developed in the context of a polis (state) under the rule of law rather than the rule of the stronger. Hegel developed Aristotle's idea of the polis and humans as naturally social animals in terms of the modern state, and saw history as the development of freedom as the historical development of the state in terms of which relate. Hegel would scoff that the idea of the withering away of the state. He would say that the state would continue to develop to manifest greater and greater individual freedom in organized community under law as the gradual unfolding of the potential of human nature.
Organized community under law is the definition of the state. Political freedom is self-determination, that is, self-governance by a people in the form that they themselves freely choose. What kind of laws and organization they choose to manifest and the leaders they choose will reflect the general level of collective consciousness.
Matt: "Are these the people I am referring to as "libertarians""
The meaning of a term is determined by its use in context. Dictionaries list a variety of meanings for a term and only the use in context can reveal which meant.
Libertarian has many, many uses. The most general use might the libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy in the Political Compass, for instance. I think that this is the meaning you are using.
Then there are four quadrants. Libertarians of the left and right, and authoritarians of the left and right. There are many manifestations of these basic orientations in the various quadrants.
It would not be correct to equate "libertarian" with "Libertarian" in the sense it is usually used in the US today. The latter is a small subset of the former.
Much of the Tea Party is on SS and Medicare, so they are classical liberals politically but Keynesians at heart economically (although they are unlikely to admit it or even realize it).
Right, the Tea Party issue is an identity problem at heart, not so much an economic position problem.
Just like conservatives will usually not oppose (at least not in reality) military keynesianism and State interventionism in other issues that they ideologically favour.
Each subset of the population will lend towards libertarianism in some things, and authoritarianism in others (usually using the means of the State).
The subsets of the population which are 'true libertarians' are very few in reality, and lack real political power. I bet that if the Tea Party and the current GOP got their way in certain issues, it would rapidly evolve into a keynesian party economically speaking, applying keynesianism in a way that would favour the established status quo.
What we are watching is a fight for the domination of the status quo and power structure, and the re-enactment of some old issues inherited from the times of the civil war IMO.
JK,
(boy does he sound young...)
I'm sure Chomsky and most others on the left are what I would term "good people" in that all they really want is whats best for humanity (as do I) ... but they often come across as naive to me... I look at the current Pope (leftist from Argentina) this way, great heart, though very naive.
(FD I am of the right/authoritarian on the political compass)
Tom introduced me to a "work breakdown structure" for humanity written up by Batra a while back where he divides humanity into 4 groups laborers, warriors, intelligensia, and acquirers...
I see much truth in this observation (Apostle Paul broke it down this way also to who he was talking to: evangelists, pastors, teachers, warriors) and have been using it for a while now as a context to "know" what kind of persons/groups of people I am talking about and it to me has often proven useful as far as helping me understand what I am observing...
I'd say Chomsky is intelligensia who doesnt really understand that there are also warriors, laborers and acquirers among us also and how to best deal with this...
The Pope Francis is a laborer (pastoral) in the same boat as far as his overall understanding...
It often looks to me as though these people think everybody else should be the same type person as they are... so you see Chomsky for disarmament and the Pope wants everybody poor and in a soup kitchen... perhaps the warriors on the right think everything revolves around the military... the Wall st acquirers think its all about them on everything, etc...
Everyone often seems blind to what other types are among us....
And then you have all of that going on and 99.999% of humanity has no real view of authority ("we're out of money!") and it becomes a real mess...
rsp,
Hi Tom, thanks, I'm trying to follow.
Following the reserve thing is difficult for me -- too many balls in the air for my brain :)
Simple question:
China has a dollar in it's reserve/checking account. It decides to invest in a Tsy. Their checking account is marked down, their reserve account is marked up.
Ok. Got it.
So, where is their dollar?
Is it in their savings/securities account?
Or is it in Tsy's account at The Fed?
When their Tsy matures, does a new dollar have to be created to pay them back?
Because Tsy has already paid a soldier by using China's dollar, so it's now gone?
October 16, 2013 at 3:23 AM Delete
Reserves are different than dollars, right?
they don't circulate outside of banks, right?
When China sells us crap, are they paid in dollars or reserves?
Are dollars or reserves in their reserve account at the fed?
@ Ignacio
Agree.
@ Matt
Good observation. We tend to generalize our own experience and see the world in terms of our own worldview. Scientific method and critical thinking have been devised to assist us in overcoming our cognitive-affective limitations and biases.
Reserves are different than dollars, right?
The dollar is the unit of account of the US currency also called the dollar. The yuan is the unit of account of Chinese currency and the Chinese currency is called the renminbi.
"Currency" can mean the currency as a whole or the physical currency, e.g., notes and coin.
The dollar includes all forms of the USD, while the dollar bill (Federal Reserve note) is the physical dollar aka "cash" or "dollar bill."
they don't circulate outside of banks, right?
Reserves are only used for settlement in the payments system. Only those with access to the payments system which is run by the Fed in the US have access to reserves.
When China sells us crap, are they paid in dollars or reserves?
A Chinese firm sells stuff to an American firm and is paid by a check made out in USD or by electronic payment. Commercial payments are never made in cash in any significant amount other than on the black market and none of that is ever recorded.
When those checks are cashed in the payments system the Chinese firms' bank accounts are marked up in USD reserves. The Chinese firm want to be paid in money can use in China, so it exchanges the USD reserves for yuan reserves in Chinese bank. The Chinese bank then uses exchanges the USD reserve it has received from the firm with the PBOC to get yuan. The USD reserves never leave the US payments system but get shifted around in various accounts, ending up in the PBOC account, which then converts them to tsys.
Are dollars or reserves in their reserve account at the fed?
All accounts at the Fed, reserve and tsys, are denominated in USD.
Matt Franko,
Let me try to summarize the point I think you're making… (?)….
Because Chomsky desires and believes he's capable of handling the responsibility that comes with truely cooperative freedom, he then projects those attributes onto the rest of us? Whereas you are saying that there are many people who not only don't desire the responsibility for truely cooperative freedom, but also that there are people that are not capable of handling it?
So,
China gets paid in dollars.
Then their reserve account is marked up using reserves.
So, now where is that dollar they were originally paid?
Also,
So, there reserve account now has reserves.
When the exchange their reserves for a Tsy Bond, where does the reserve go?
And thanks !!!!
P.S -- I get that our unit of account is dollars -- and we have coins, T bonds, reserves and dollars.
China gets paid in dollars.
That's a stylized statement. Chinese firms get paid for their exports to the US by American firms usually by electronic transfer to a bank that accepts USD either in the US or China.
The bank now has rb in USD and the firm a credit to a deposit account.
Then their reserve account is marked up using reserves.
Only members of the payments system have reserve accounts. Those rb are credited at the Fed in the payments system that is run in reserves denominated in USD. Reserves are considered US currency. So the reserves in the customers' banks as bank assets at the cb and this is reflected as a bank liability-customer asset in the customers' deposit accounts.
So, now where is that dollar they were originally paid?
The USD that the US firms pays for Chinese merchandise are either in the exporters dollar account in a bank or converted to yuan in the exporters bank account denominated in RMB.
The transfer is reflected in the changes in banks' reserve accounts that mirror the transaction in reserves.
Remember that the dollars in a deposit account are exist as entries on the bank's spreadsheet, and the dollars as reserves exist only as entries on the cb's spreadsheet, unless someone withdraws cash. Increasingly, all this is electronic, i.e., digital money.
So, there reserve account now has reserves.
Reserves corresponding to customer transaction show up in banks' reserve accounts. If the bank has excess reserve over reserve requirements the bank will either seek to lend them to other banks in need of reserves or else exchange them for tsys to get interest that way.
When the exchange their reserves for a Tsy Bond, where does the reserve go?
To the seller of the bonds' bank's reserve account, and it shows up in the seller's account as a credit.
You have to work through the debits and credits to the various accounts to understand this. Once you get that, the rest is intuitively obvious. If one doesn't understand that, confusion results.
But remember that this is simplified for understanding and the way the process actually operates is more complex. But understand the simple case first.
JK,
Its I'm sure more complicated than what we could effectively discus here but if I had to put it in a sound bite:
"He is part of the intelligensia. He does not respect the purpose of warriors and acquirers and he thinks he is acting on behalf of laborers but ends up doing so in an elitist and condescending way (redistribution). Also, he has no view of authority as he thinks "we're out of money".
He'd like to see a world of just his intelligensia (to do the "big thinking") and laborers (to do "the work") and that ignores half of humanity and is GOING NOWHERE.
That said he is at least someone who thinks about these things and can accurately observe injustices he just imo doesnt really understand them or how to successfully deal with them in this era...
I lump him in with most of Christendom as the cohort Apostle Paul is referring to here with his quote from Isaiah:
'Go to this people and say, "In hearing, you will be hearing, and may by no means be understanding, And observing, you will be observing, and may by no means be perceiving," Acts 28:26
So I agree he can 'observe' things, injustice, etc... and his 'observations' are valuable for us, but I just dont think he is capable of truly understanding them or come up with ways to deal with them/what to do about them...
You need to be given to know both what the problem is AND what to do about it... he has the former in spades but has ZERO of the latter....
rsp,
JK,
Check out Dan's latest over at Rugged Egalitarianism he looks at Krugman sort of the same way I see Chomsky here not exact but similar and Dan can write WAAAAAAAAAAAY better than I can....
http://ruggedegalitarianism.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/rugged-egalitarianism-hope-in-the-ruins/
These people just have no solutions.... they are not qualified for true intellectual leadership... you need BOTH.
rsp,
Does someone like Chomsky not have answers, or you're just not familiar with his answers?
I'm aware that he doesn't understand or talk about Modern Money, Functional Finance, etc, but that doesn't mean he's not sort of part of a group with some answers. I haven't really followed closely in a long time, but last I did he was supportive of Participatory Economics (democratize the workplace a.k.a ...a form of Marxism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
Well it's pretty naive to think that MMT can solve everything either.
Probably Chomsky has a deeper and more critical view (and maybe solutions) for political problems, whereas MMT has a deeper and more critical view of SOME economic problems. But both things are connected (if not the same), and partial solutions won't improve things in the long run, just patch up and kick the can IMO.
Ignacio,
His 'solution' looks to be to try to eliminate the warriors and the acquirers....GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
"Send them to the Gulag!" This has been tried before and didn't work out...
Like the right-wing people who are currently shilling for the acquirers (FIRE) and want to defund the laborers in the US Healthcare industry or "bring down the temple" or some zealous notion... this is the same as Chomsky's non-solution only from the point of view of a different interested group (acquirers)... and also is GOING NOWHERE...
All these people are good at is OBSERVING ... any solutions they come up with lead to chaos or continued political strife...
You cant separate the economic (house-law) from the 'political' as 'law' is made via the political process...
The MMT insights reveal certain aspects of a system of state currency that was designed by humans 1,000s of years ago to implement the policy actions/solutions in law that the governing institutions came up with...
Chomsky has NO insight into any of this and neither do the other morons on the right...
They can observe certain things and it stops right there for them... they don't have the maths to be able to understand how a system solution for implementation of law can be designed and implemented...
If you come across a person who thinks "We're out of money!" I'm sorry that person is disgraced and is a moron and is NOT QUALIFIED to take part in any further discussion on the matter...
rsp,
Ignacio: "'Probably Chomsky has a deeper and more critical view (and maybe solutions) for political problems, whereas MMT has a deeper and more critical view of SOME economic problems. But both things are connected (if not the same), and partial solutions won't improve things in the long run, just patch up and kick the can IMO."
As I and others have pointed out, basic to the MMT solution is through accommodating saving desire with the government fiscal balance. This just enables further redistribution of real and financial wealth to the top. It's an economic solution but not a political one and it doesn't address the class and power structure at all, let alone in the focused way that Chomsky does. Without addressing the class and power structure, the whole of macroeconomics as a so-called policy science is irrelevant to the fundamental issues since these issues are assumed away. This is hardly foreign to the UMKC school since Michael Hudson has pounded on this relentless for some time.
Post a Comment