Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Bill Mitchell – The Powell Memo Play in Australian higher education

The Powell Manifesto aka the – Attack on American Free Enterprise System – was a memo sent on August 23, 1971 to the US Chamber of Commerce by lawyer, Lewis Powell, who had been hired by the Chamber to craft a strategy to restore the dominant position of corporate America, which had felt diminished by the gains made by workers and citizens from social democratic policies. The dominant narrative in the late 1960s was focused on the so-called ‘profit squeeze’, which related to the redistribution of national income towards wages as a result of various government policies which increased workers’ protection, used taxation and spending as a redistributive vehicle, grew public services and infrastructure. Powell produced a path to reverse these gains by workers and citizens, in general, and ensure that corporate interests were dominant in public decision making. Conservative forces are still using it as a blueprint for their agendas. The recent decision by the Australian government to divert university students out of humanities and social science courses is a classic application of the blueprint.

I analysed the Powell Manifesto in this blog post – The right-wing counter attack – 1971 (March 24, 2016).After writing his famous memo, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. was subsequently nominated and confirmed as became a justice of the US Supreme Court. He served on the court from 1971 until he retired in 1987.
The Powell Memo is a neoliberal manifesto. Neoliberalism is the political theory holding that capitalism is the economic system of democracy and that capital should be favored by government over labor because capital accumulation is the basis for economic growth. "A rising tide lifts all boats," this also benefits labor more than favoring labor, which limits profits and therefore investment, and thereby stunts growth.
 
Bill Mitchell – billy blog
The Powell Memo Play in Australian higher education
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

18 comments:

Andrew Anderson said...

Neoliberalism is the political theory holding that capitalism is the economic system of democracy and that capital should be favored by government over labor because capital accumulation is the basis for economic growth. "A rising tide lifts all boats," this also benefits labor more than favoring labor, which limits profits and therefore investment, and thereby stunts growth.

The solution then includes ethical finance (including adequate and ethical (e.g. an equal Citizen's Dividend) fiat creation). That way, we have adequate capital without favoring either the rich or the poor or featherbedding labor.

Too bad that the MMT School is not yet promoting ethical finance...

Matt Franko said...

This is rich he trashes university STEM education at the land-grant institutions where everything is working just fine and then EVERY DAY goes out and rails against his fellow liberal educated morons who’ve been trained to dogmatically think “we’re out of money!”...

Hard to understand...

Calgacus said...

No, AA. MMT promotes ethical finance, because the MMTers try to understand what they are talking about. You neither try to understand ethical finance, nor promote it.

Matt Franko said...

"You neither try to understand ethical finance, nor promote it."

Well what if someone disagrees with you on this? kill them? what???

What is your solution to this disagreement?

Calgacus said...

My solution is to argue rationally. AA often doesn't. He makes numerous false claims about what MMT says. He claims to be a rather fundamental Christian, but when confronted by Jesus's own words, surely printed in red in his bible, that contradict his beliefs, he simply doesn't reply.

People who argue so badly, so hypocritically are good foils, good support for the causes they oppose. As long as someone points that out.

Matt Franko said...

He’s not being hypocritical he’s sticking to his thesis...

He would be hypocritical if he agreed with BOTH theses...

He’s just advocating for his Theory just as MMT people advocate for theirs...

Where does it say within you guys non scientific method that the other person has to exhibit understanding of the anti-thesis?

I don’t think it does...

Your method relies on continuous dialogue/argument...

Matt Franko said...

“when confronted by Jesus's own words, surely printed in red in his bible, that contradict his beliefs, he simply doesn't reply. “

Yo, you are supposed to only point out evidence that SUPPORTS your Theory...

It’s YOUR JOB as the proponent of an anti-Thesis to point out evidence that is perhaps contrary...

He’s not going to reason with HIMSELF...

THAT would be hypocritical ...

Andrew Anderson said...

but when confronted by Jesus's own words, surely printed in red in his bible, that contradict his beliefs, he simply doesn't reply. Calgacus

I have replied; e.g. per the Bible (e.g. Leviticus 25), wage-slavery is the EXCEPTION, not the rule for citizens. The MMT School would perpetuate wage-slavery as the norm for citizens and is thus anti-Bible and thus anti-Jesus too.

Also, per the Bible, usury is not to practiced against fellow citizens (e.g. Deuteronomy 23:19-20). However the MMT School, or at least Warren Mosler, a co-founder, would INCREASE* privileges for private banks rather than abolish them.

* e.g. unlimited, unsecured loans at ZERO percent interest.
* e.g. unlimited deposit guarantees FOR FREE rather than inherently risk-free accounts for all citizens at the CB or Treasury.

Matt Franko said...

Say it loud and say it proud AA... you go guy!!!!

Looks like your fellow morons don’t even know how their own methodology operates....

Show ‘em how it works AA!!!

Calgacus said...

AA: I have replied; e.g. per the Bible

Dodge, dodge, dodge. Can you even mention Matthew 20? Mention one of Jesus's words? Mention the New Testament? If you can, how can you oppose MMT's JG? Where does a supposed Christian get the right to pick and choose and censor? Hypocrite.

wage-slavery is the EXCEPTION, not the rule for citizens.
Irrelevant. I and Jesus said nothing about what is the rule and what is the exception. The argument is if there is money, then there must be "wage-slavery", then there must be a JG.
Do you agree, yes or no?

The MMT School would perpetuate wage-slavery as the norm for citizens

That's like saying doctors perpetuate diseases. Or that the Good Samaritan perpetuates highway robbery by aiding a victim.

Is there no end to gymnastics and contortions to blind oneself to one's own hypocrisy? Here's a hint on stopping hypocrisy, that I have had to follow myself, like anyone else. If it is painful to one's ego - it is probably the right thing.

Matt: He’s not being hypocritical he’s sticking to his thesis

No, Matt. AA says he follows the bible. But he doesn't if Jesus disagrees with his pet theses. So he implies that he, AA, is wiser than that dope Jesus. So he is remarkably hypocritical. He says that religion and Christianity is #1 for him. But in practice he spits on Jesus's words when they conflict with idolizing his own ideas, the golden calf he has made for himself.

Matt, your understanding of science v liberal arts methodology- and opposition to them, of the meaning of "dialectic" etc is not very good. Though of course there is an enormous amount of nonsense written about it. You clearly haven't studied anything that isn't nonsense. And aren't improving on whatever you have read.

Almost all discussion of methodology, anywhere, but particularly in economics are valueless, never come to grips with concepts or reality, but are basically instructions in how to sharpen pencils, that treat the real work as an afterthought. And are basically a waste of time to write or read. Though there are plenty of profs who got tenure for the same empty or lazy or fabricated meanderings, sadly, I don't think your discussion is any better than the norm.

Andrew Anderson said...

The argument is if there is money, then there must be "wage-slavery", then there must be a JG.
Do you agree, yes or no?
Calgacus

No, I don't agree since self-employment, including family owned farms and businesses and worker-owned co-opts, are not wage slavery though other injustices may be at work.

Plus, land reform and a Citizen's Dividend to replace all fiat creation for special interests such as the banks and the rich would increase the bargaining power of citizens with respect to potential employers to a decent level - elevating them more to the status of voluntary wage labor from the status of involuntary wage slaves.

Calgacus said...

Put it this way. A situation Jesus thought was important enough to merit a parable.

Suppose you are in authority, a rich man or the leader of a town. You have a vineyard. There are people in town who say they want to do some honest work for money. They aren't asking for a citizen's dividend, a handout. They don't want a business or farm - which you cannot create at will - I said you are a leader, not God; you cannot will land and buildings or infinite amounts of valuable money into existence in an instant.

All they want is a job for a day to get some money in their pockets. Do you say Yes to them or do you say No to them?

Thank you for your reply; I'll reply to the rest after this.

Andrew Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew Anderson said...

They aren't asking for a citizen's dividend, a handout. Calgacus

An equal Citizen's Dividend is NOT a handout but a replacement of all fiat creation for private interests such as for the banks and for the rich such as asset purchases from the private sector by the Central Bank and non-negative yields/interest on the inherently risk-free debt of monetary sovereigns, including bank reserves.

So a Citizen's Dividend is merely JUSTICE which the Bible REQUIRES while MERCY is highly recommended but still a matter of personal discretion (Micah 6:8).

So let the MMT School be concerned with justice and they'll be more worthy of respect rather than the scorn they currently merit.

Calgacus said...

A citizen's dividend is a handout by definition, what else. Money for nothing. (And chicks for free?) I acknowledge that it could serve the cause of justice on occasion. As I said, I would treat such matters later.

But you haven't answered my question. It's a really important question. It's a simple yes or no. I only mentioned citizen's dividends because I don't want that to be used to avoid the actual question.

Do you think there is more than one answer that a Christian could give? Do you think Christians should avoid answering such questions? That they are unimportant?

Calgacus said...

And even if there is a citizen's dividend and it does good or is just, so what? Say these people lost their citizen's dividend check.

How can the vineyard proprietor NOT hire them? And claim he acts morally or justly?

I really would appreciate a response. A yes or no. A quote from that part of the New Testament. Anything.

Peter Pan said...

As if calling a Citizen's Dividend a handout will stop us from claiming it... as a right of citizenship.

Our local vineyards hire as many foreign workers as they can get. Lazy Canadians don't want to do those jobs. Fuck those Canucks.

Calgacus said...

Was looking for a response from AA. For years now.

By definition, a citizen's dividend is a handout. Money for nothing.
The point is that basically a citizen's dividend is a stupid idea that just don't work. A right - but a meaningless one: It's like extolling a right to run on treadmills.

Citizen's dividends, UBI etc leave the upper class on top - even empower them MORE. Or they are so massive that they just explode the economy and so are soon terminated. That's why the upper class will accept them on occasion, but treat the JG as a stake through their heart. Because they understand economics and the real world, and supporters of UBI, Citizens' dividends etc don't.

And the upper class will rule and deserves to rule until people put away the things of childhood, wishful thinking like UBI, citizen's dividends etc.