Paul Craig Roberts is an economist — Georgia Institute of Technology (B.A., Economics) University of Virginia and (Ph.D., Economics) — that was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and one of the developers of Reaganomics. He has been a consistent critic of the Bush and Obama administrations for violations of rights, as well as for the proliferation of crony capitalism and corruption. At the close of interview he cites Michael Hudson's work on financial capitalism as a factor that is undermining the US economy.
While both Paul Craig Roberts and David Stockman are coming from the right in their criticism, there is agreement on the left among progressives on many points. Many of the issues that David Stockman brought up were anticipated by William K. Black, and Paul Craig Roberts is reading Michael Hudson. Something's up?
OpEdNews
Paul Craig Roberts Transcript; Part 1-- The Biggest Economic Disaster in History, Globalism, the Undoings of the West
Interview with Rob Kall
16 comments:
Sorry, but this is just more Ron Paul stuff.
Ron Paul? Really? Gosh, then I'm gonna be one of Ron Paul's biggest supporters.
Roberts struggles mightily to shoehorn his concerns about the destruction of the US manufacturing base into his libertarian framework, and the result is a total mess. Notice how he tries to argue that the process he calls "labor arbitrage" is not an aspect of free trade.
Of course it is! Labor is a factor of production, and the ability of businesses to purchase that factor outside the US is a paradigmatic instance of free trade at work. But while Roberts recognizes that something awful has happened to the American economy, he is a libertarian with an ingrained ideological commitment to free trade. So his attempt to denounce "labor arbitrage" while not criticizing free trade leads him into absurd cognitive dissonance.
Then the conversation turns into yet another libertarian dump on Roosevelt - despite the fact that the legacy of Roosevelt was decades of rising US hope and prosperity - an economic golden age for America.
Even the title of his book is misleading double-think. It sounds like he is going to be criticizing laissez faire, but as you read the interview, you see he is yet another in a long line of Austrians who think the only problem is "crony capitalism" relationships between government and business. So he thinks laissez faire has only "failed" in the sense that it has not yet been implemented.
There is no progressive road running through this kind of radical right thinking. During the Iraq War many confused progressives were seduced by the radical right on economic policy, because the radical rightists were the ones putting up the strongest fight against Bush's foreign policy. Progressives went to places like Antiwar.com where they swallowed large toxic gobs of Ron Paul, Rothbard and Hayek and other laissez faire, anti-government fanatics along with their anti-imperialistic foreign policy. If they got any left-wing economics at all, it was from anarchists like Chomsky.
Dan,
You have a really bad habit of misrepresenting the views of people you apparently dislike. First it was David Graeber, now it's Roberts. How the hell can Roberts even remotely be seen as a radical rightist? Because he disagrees with Dan Kervick's view of the world? You think by calling him an Austrian (which could not possibly be gleaned from this interview) that somehow makes your off the wall caricature true? You're putting words in his mouth that are clearly incongruent with this interview. Maybe he is what you claim, but it is a very big stretch to infer what you portray given this interview. Oh, and I'd vote him and for his stated ideas over those of the man you voted for and urged other to do so likewise, Barack Obama.
Paul Craig Roberts:
Economic counsel to former Congressman Jack Kemp.
Economic counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch.
Editorialist for the WSJ
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Reagan
Author of The Supply-Side Revolution.
Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute.
Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
That's the radical right.
Thanks Dan K, for sparing me from Paul Craig Roberts. I'm glad he's against crony capitalists, but you make a good case that he's one of those free market idiots...
He's evolved from his Reagan days, as this interview certainly demonstrates. And furthermore, Reagan conservatives are not the "radical right". Nice try. But sticking to the matter at hand--this interview-- Roberts can in no way be construed as a radical right winger. He might not have it right on a bond market collapse, but a lot of good and decent people on the left don't have it right either. So what? Is there an MMT litmus test on who's a right winger and who isn't? In other words does one have to be familiar with MMT do be considered a "pure liberal"? Newsflash: if there is, then 99% of so called leftists are right wingers too. lol.
DD,
What did Roberts say (in his words, not Dan's) that makes him what Dan claims. For just one example, Dan completely misrepresented what Roberts said about FDR. Roberts actually claimed FDR's actions were needed and necessary, which Dan obviously mis-characterized. And Roberts does not state that the only problem is crony capitalism. Far from it. But don't take my word for it. read it for yourself.
...and one more thing, Dan. You flat out are being dishonest. Roberts wasn't pinning for laissez faire free trade in this interview. To the contrary. If anything he was fronting for protectionism writ large, which is as far from the right as night is to day. Stop it already.
And furthermore, Reagan conservatives are not the "radical right". Nice try.
I guess I'm too old. I always saw the supply side movement and the Reagan revolution as a radical right wing agenda that seized control of the government and helped launch the very conservative era we are in. It turned out the supply-siders were too conservative even for Reagan.
And I definitely see Cato as representatives of the radical, libertarian right.
None of this has anything to do with MMT. There are people who understand MMT perfectly well who are not particularly progressive.
I remember Reagan used to tell the Japanese to stop at 1 million cars "voluntarily" as a form of "protectionism".
Kemp used to advocate for the gold standard.
Here is Roberts: " Roberts says a collapse of the U.S. dollar could happen at any moment. It could be triggered by any number of things such as war or a derivatives meltdown. When a former Assistant Treasury Secretary (under the Reagan Administration) and a PhD in economics sounds the alarm bell, people should take cover. Dr. Roberts says, “The cliff dive we are experiencing in housing isn’t over,” and precious metals prices are “being suppressed.” Roberts says, “Gold prices should be rising. Why? Because the debt is rising.” What is the reason why Dr. Roberts thinks the suppression game has gotten so intense? Dr. Roberts says, “The fact that they are driving the price down suggests to me the situation is getting more desperate.”
http://usawatchdog.com/one-on-one-with-paul-craig-roberts/
This guy is borderline conspiracy theorist and thinks the Fed is "debasing"... seems like he is a borderline metal-lover too.... wayyyy out of paradigm in any case...
He shows up at a lot of the libertarian venues...
rsp,
Dan like I said above, Roberts has largely moved on from his previous ideological underpinnings. Why can't you accept that reality? You do understand that CATO has little use for him now? He has been gone from there since the mid 1990's ya know.
As for Reagan conservatives, the vast majority of the rank and file were not ideologically driven. They certainly weren't doing cartwheels for his trickle down economics. There was a subset of bureaucrats who were supply side adherents, but they were never the majority report in conservative circles outside the beltway. Most conservatives, Reagan conservatives or otherwise, are not radical right nut-jobs, unless your viewing them from a radical left wing prism.
Matt, how about this interview? Skip the MMT shortcomings. What is so objectionable?
You do understand that all people are experiencing an act of becoming, and they evolve from where they were 30 years before? I'll bet you looked at the world a lot differently 30 years back. Dan did too. I did three.
Mal,
Agree with your assessment as far as his views may be evolving...
FD: I voted for Pat Buchanan back in the 90's (former Reagan staffer and protectionist/ anti-"Empire") I am sort of "protectionist" myself, as far as I see the CAD (with no fiscal adjustment in response) as damaging to domestic US employment and hence "bad".
But this guy looks like he "trades" in ideology that at least is a "tease" if not fully on board to the heavy Libertarian world... "gold" "debasing", "money printing" etc...
As far as his advocacy for "regulation" yes I am all for that but I (personally) do not see "fraud" or lax "regulation" as the major problem right now, it is A problem agree ...
I see the major problem right now as "fiscal ignorance" so to speak... many just cannot see the authority we have via our govt institutions to directly provide settlement balances as we (humans) see fit by fiat within our national borders...
They want to see some form of "mediation" between us via take your pick 'metals', 'debt', 'borrowing', etc... anything they can come up with except direct human authority... dark.
rsp,
Warren has done a very nice dissection of David Stockman's article.
"You do understand that all people are experiencing an act of becoming, and they evolve from where they were 30 years before? I'll bet you looked at the world a lot differently 30 years back. Dan did too. I did three."
Malmo - I agree. I was a Marxist in the 1970s and became a Ronal Reagan, Jack Kemp Supply Sider in the 1980s. In the mid-1990s I was introduced to Warren Mosler's writings which I have been absorbing ever since, and 2007 I embraced Ron Paul's message. Not that I am 100% in any camp... I take what works for me from all of these experiences especially where there is overlapping common ground. That's why I think Dan Kervick is being too black and white on the political spectrum and failing to see all the shades of color in between.
Post a Comment