The downscaling is said to fit with the empirical evidence, and in particular with the trends that seem to have set in since around 1980.
In other words, a sputtering economic performance over the past few decades is seen as proof that we now live in more constrained times, where limited growth puts a cap on our latitude in dealing with economic issues. People drawing this conclusion almost inevitably then jump into discussions of how this reduced latitude implies a more austere role for government, and – naturally – that everyday folks just will have to manage on less.
I have a slightly different perspective.
The onset of the downward shift coincides quite neatly with another great beginning. That of an era of economic policy focused on supply side initiatives, giveaways to the rich, and of corporate welfare. Is it simply a strange coincidence that the entire post-Reagan era is exactly that we are now describing as one of lower growth? Or is it that the right of center free market policies that have dominated policy making throughout the west since the early 1980′s, are to blame?The Radford Free Press
Stagnation
Peter Radford
As you've said before lack of bargaining power in the workplace for labor is a direct consequence of a lack of political equality in this realm. Until this issue is addressed economic dysfunction can't begin to be ameliorated.
ReplyDeleteWomen joined the workforce en-masse. Global supply chains and better communications expanded the labor force to pretty much everyone on the globe. How can you talk about inequality and not talk about the labor force?
ReplyDeleteThen again pretty much everyone spins the problem and solution of inequality to fit their politics and area of interest.
You have to try to remove the politics when you do your analysis....
ReplyDelete"You have to try to remove the politics when you do your analysis...."
ReplyDeleteThis assumes that there is an objective, overarching worldview, when there are competing worldviews. "Politics" is a set of norms that are used as criteria.
It's not a matter of trying to formulate a worldview that is free of norms and criteria, which itself functions as an overarching absolute criterion, since that is a logical impossibility, involving either circularity or infinite regress. Absolute criteria are not available to humans.
Rather, one should state one's ideological assumptions clearly to the degree that one can identify them. However, many assumptions are hidden and constitute biases.
There is no science of psychology or social "science" comparable to natural science, and even the natural science have logical weaknesses regarding criteria and hidden assumptions.
The most humans can hope for is agreement on some matters, recognizing and acknowledging that there are also differences, and agreeing to disagree over what cannot be agreed upon . This applies to putative facts as well as norms.
A fundamental challenge for a liberal society is creating one from money — E pluribus unum. The US has had sketchy results wrt this and fought a bloody civil war over it. Today the polarization is almost as acute, although violence hasn't broken out, at least on a large scale.
Or go for the gusto, double down on ideology to really make a point, loud and clear.
ReplyDeleteWell as step one Tom you have to realize we are not created equal... observe these divisions and then adjust for them.... and dont form factions/sects in our institutional arrangements along the same lines as these 'natural' divisions....
ReplyDeleteIts these factions/sects that comprise the 'politics' that I speak of here.. rsp
The paradox for liberalism is that from the POV of being human, but as individuals all uniquely and uniquely different.
ReplyDeleteThat all are equal as persons and this is now recognized in law. Hegel saw that as in a sense the end of history. The rest of human development would be based on that articulating that fundamental premise. This the basis for the rule of law rather than of men and of a rights-based society rather than one based on privilege, which is really dominance and submission/subservience.
But this doesn't square with the fundamental principle of conservatism that some are better than other and therefore deserve to rule the others. This is the basis of meritocracy and just deserts that underlies neoliberal capitalism is the supposed only alternative for liberal democracy.
Social and political liberals disagree with that but haven't been able to formulate a viable alternative to TINA, largely because social and political liberals buying into economic liberalism as TINA. So even the most progressive among them are unable to say how what they would like to see could actually work economic and financially.
But when one party to the debate claims TINA, then there is no compromise or negotiation.
Creating a liberal society in which social, political and economic liberalism are balanced and harmonized continues to be elusive.
First sentence should read, "The paradox for liberalism is that from the POV of being human, all are equal as persons, but as individuals all are unique and uniquely different."
ReplyDelete"This assumes that there is an objective, overarching worldview, when there are competing worldviews."
ReplyDeleteC'mon this is an assertion Tom .... "there are competing worldviews"... Where is that written in stone?
So are you saying that Batra's laborers, acquirers, inteligentsia, and warriors are supposed to be in "competition" with each other? This is the "natural order"?
Why not "cooperation" with each other?
so in a bee hive the drones are at war with the workers? I dont think so... in a bee hive the drones are trying to lord over the workers with a "drone oriented worldview"? and the workers are countering?
If we all think we are in constant competition then we will be... seems pretty simple to me...
Factions/sectarianism should be avoided.
Here is Augustus epitaph:
"In my nineteenth year, on my own initiative and at my own expense, I raised an army with which I set free the state, which was oppressed by the domination of a faction."
When one of these factions rears it ugly head, THAT'S who you are supposed to go to war against... not turn it into "the laborers vs the acquirers"...
We should not form any factions/sects, this is what produces the "competing worldviews"... it wasnt always like it is now ... in the 'good old days' looks like we (the nation/state) would go to war against them...
rsp,
The people that have looked for a universal POV with universally accepted criteria haven't found one.
ReplyDeleteBut supposing that were not the case, and everyone for all time was found to share the same POV. What would justify the norms of that POV as absolute, unchangeable, and representative of reality other than common agreement?
Matt Franko is the King of his universe. His thoughts and emotions are his subjects and he is no doubt a just and beneficial Ruler. However, until he discovers (if has not already occurred) what gives his universe LIFE he is absolutely alone (as are we all)! Alexander the Great ‘came into his universe empty-handed and left empty-handed’. It’s quite common and comical actually. Matt Franko’s universe is his ‘world-view’. There are around 7.6 billion of them on this planet and not two of them scrub up, the same. Matt Franko’s problems can be measured simply by applying a pair of large graduated calipers from one ear lobe to the other. That’s how big his problems are. When they manifest in the outside world they may seem a lot bigger, but that is how big they are. There is another ‘bigger’ problem encapsulated in all of Matt Franko’s problems (ditto Tom’s problems) – this is Matt Franko himself, the mysterious ‘I’, the self-acclaimed identity; the one whom Matt Franko ‘thinks’ he is (except for when his taking a bath or looking up at the stars at night - or walking serenely on the beach). When this ‘I’gets BIG, Matt’s problems whack him around quite a bit; when this ‘I’ gets small, Matt Franko slips between them quite easily. It just depends on how much pain Matt can take – or how much glory because the reverse happens when Matt Franko ‘shines’ (everything goes right for at least five minutes). I think the only hope in hell Matt Franko has before he gets kicked out of his universe is to try and find out who he really is. Why is he is manifest in his universe? And realise that what goes on in other universes is exactly the same as what goes on in his. But that is a different story …… on the outside it’s a spaghetti alphabet soup; on the inside there is just the King and his quest. Simple really …. but not considered newsworthy!
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer: The use of the label ‘Matt Franko or Tom’ is absolutely without reference to any King, appellation, place, person, or thing (especially on this grisly website); and is used lightly, respectfully, and sincerely, as a simple one-off experimental literary device to paint a little picture on the glass in the window, as I wondered by.
JR thanks for your nice words of concern here but I'm aok (believe me...)
ReplyDeleteTom,
"But this doesn't square with the fundamental principle of conservatism that some are better than other and therefore deserve to rule the others. "
This is textbook Darwinism 101, not Conservatism... "survival of the fittest, etc.."
"universal POV and they havent found one" > that's because their isnt one at this time.. hence no one can find one... this is 'the present wicked eon' (Gal 1:4) and 'man's day'... we have to make due, salvage the current situation we are in... and imo we (mankind) certainly possess the authority to do this (without harming anybody)...
there is a scripture often used at weddings something like "what God has joined let no man divide" well the corollary is probably also true 'what God has divided let no man seek to enjoin'...
There is another scripture "a house divided against itself cannot stand"... well a house divided certainly can stand (this is right from your tag-line 'Celebrate Diversity'), its the "against itself" that is the problem in this present wicked eon.. these factions/sects are "against the house" when they seek to elevate themselves above the others, and force their particular 'worldview' upon those outside of their particular faction/sect.. you see this all the time in Religions, Politics, etc.. its probably why the Founders didnt want political parties because they are by definition for themselves and 'against the house' if you will...
Sectarianism/Factions are bad news... we should seek not to form them imo...
rsp,
Apologies Matt in using the label 'Matt Franko = humanity' - am sure you are aok too. Am not fishing, or trying to save anyone in my comments ( we all have to do that step by step alone) - I just want to etch in the point that what happens on the outside in this world is only half (the least important half) of being alive. On the outside the tendency is towards separation (factions); on the inside the Self and selves know there is one. You can come to an 'arranged harmony' by some overriding force on the outside, or to a real harmony by feeling the energy within. Thanks!!
ReplyDelete