Bill Mitchell — The right-wing counter attack – 1971

The early 1970s brought into relief the internal contradictions of the capitalist system of production and distribution. This was never more evident than in Britain at the time. The trade unions, previously illegal had become more powerful and integrated as they defended the rights of their members. The very existence of the union movement exposed the conflictual nature of capitalism. The trade unions caused havoc in Britain in the early 1970s. But before we consider the role of the trade unions, it is important to understand what was happening on the capital side at the time. After the Monetarist ideas of Milton Friedman and his colleagues at the University of Chicago and beyond had seeped out of the academy into the policy and lobbying circles, it became obvious that capital would mount a major action against the unions and governments that gave them succour. Corporations and big money were far from passive. They didn’t buy the line that the Left has been lured into believing that the state had become increasingly powerless as capitalism became more global. Far from it. They got more organised than ever! The British Labour Party became lambs for the …

The Powell Manifesto – 1971 – a major turning point

On August 23, 1971, a US lawyer Lewis F. Powell, Jr published the now famous Attack on American Free Enterprise System, which he had prepared for the US Chamber of Commerce.

Good to see Bill focusing in on the history and politics, removing the illusion that economics is about the operation of "natural forces" in the market. The natural forces operating historically are foundationally economic in the Marxian view, But the dynamic is conflict among social, political and economic interests rather than competition in markets.

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
The right-wing counter attack – 1971
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Bill Mitchell — Neo-liberal myths constrain our understanding of poverty

I was on a panel last night discussing the causes of poverty in Australia. The panel was rather diverse with housing, welfare and other representatives. There was a crowd of around 400 I believe. The format was difficult given that the panel of six was assembled in line at a table so could not see each other easily. But the real problem was that the facilitator, a national journalist, who had the role of asking questions to the panellists, chose to assert the standard neo-liberal macroeconomic myths in response to statements I made with respect to the causes and solutions to poverty. I was confronted with as-if facts such as “they have to get the money from somewhere before they can spend” in response to questions about public debt eventually becoming too large and foreigners funding our national (currency-issuing) government. I thought a facilitator was not meant to have an agenda but in this case holding out these neo-liberal myths perpetuated the standard agenda which guarantees that poverty will continue to worsen. There is a lot of work to be done before people will identify these neo-liberal myths as non-knowledge and readily understand that national, currency-issuing governments such as in Australia have no financial constraints and they spend out of ‘thin air’. Once that knowledge is accepted a whole new world opens up that allows us to see the path to reducing poverty and inequality.

 "I thought a facilitator was not meant to have an agenda…" The person was not a facilitator but a gatekeeper. 

The correct question is whether the real resources are available for public purpose and if not, why not? 

No one has any difficulty with this regarding national security and projecting power, for example. Why is this different for creating a welfare state in which public purpose is viewed as the common good defined as a highly functional society with no dysfunctional aspects or sectors?

The simple answer is incorrect assumptions. The next question why these assumptions are wrong. Is it ignorance or narrow interest prevailing?

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Neo-liberal myths constrain our understanding of poverty
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Ezra Klein — Why Democrats and Republicans don’t understand each other

Identity politics versus interest politics.

On its face, this presents a puzzle: how can conservatism be the more popular ideology even as the Democrats are the more popular party?

Grossmann and Hopkins disagree. They see this not as a puzzle about American politics but as an explanation for why it works the way it does. They note that 73 percent of Republican voters say they're conservative but only 42 percent of Democratic voters say they're liberal. And they note that while voters tend to agree with Republicans on the philosophical questions in American politics (should government be smaller?) they tend to agree with Democrats on the policy questions in American politics (like should Social Security be smaller?).

73 percent of Republican voters say they're conservative but only 42 percent of Democratic voters say they're liberal

The Republican Party, in other words, has a very good reason to base itself around philosophical conservatism, while the Democratic Party has a very good reason to base itself around policy deliverables. And so the Republican Party bases itself around philosophical conservatism and the Democratic Party bases itself around policy deliverables.…

Republicans are uncompromising because compromise tends to expand the scope of government. Democrats are willing to make deep concessions because policy moves in a generally liberal direction. Republicans have a clearer message about government because their message about government is fundamentally popular. Democrats talk more about policy because what they have to say about policy is fundamentally popular.…

Democrats tend to project their preference for policymaking onto the Republican Party — and then respond with anger and confusion when Republicans don't seem interested in making a deal. Republicans tend to assume the Democratic Party is more ideological than it is, and so see various policy initiatives as part of an ideological effort to remake America along more socialistic lines.…

Still, there's much that this data does illuminate. I've often heard liberals wonder why there's no Democratic analogue to the Tea Party. I've often heard conservatives complain that their party doesn't spend enough time coming up with serious policy solutions for issues like health care. And, to be sure, there are some liberals trying to popularize Tea Party-like tactics and some conservatives trying to come up with sweeping new health reforms. But it's hard for these initiatives to succeed. There's a tendency to imagine the parties as mirror images of each other, and so to believe they can easily follow the other's strategies. But they can't. The parties are good at different things because they really are different.

Vox
Why Democrats and Republicans don’t understand each other

Ezra Klein

Ezra Klein — The depressing psychological theory that explains Washington

Ezra goes all in on George Lakoff without mentioning Lakorr, apparently not realizing that Lakoff has been saying this for years.

Oftentimes when we think we're engaged in reasoned policy discussion we're actually engaged in complex efforts to rationalize the direction in which our tribal affiliations are pushing us. Psychologists call this motivated reasoning. And they've shown its power in laboratory settings again and again and again….

In theory, the two parties represent distinct political philosophies, and those distinct political philosophies help shape their differing policy agendas. In recent years, there's been a lot of interesting work from psychologists arguing that the differences go even deeper than that: Democrats and Republicans intuitively respond to different underlying moral systems, and so their philosophies actually rest on something more fundamental than mere partisan affiliation.

The problem is that human beings are incredibly good at rationalizing their way to whatever conclusion their group wants them to reach. And most policies can be supported -- or opposed -- on many grounds. It's all about which parts people choose to emphasize.

The Washington Post — Wonkblog
The depressing psychological theory that explains Washington
Ezra Klein