For Worst Financial Analysis in Infotainment
POOR JOE SCAROBOROUGH. You had to almost feel sorry for the irascible infotainment host this morning.
The months and months of economic mumbo jumbo offered on “Morning Joe,” particularly by the host himself, which masquerades as financial analysis but is actually Paul Ryan austerity propaganda, blew up in his Starburck’s over the weekend. What’s the financial wingnut to do now? Tying himself in knots over voters in France, as well as Greece, turning out the austerity plans of Angela Merkel made him even crankier than usual on Monday (at least from the couple of clips I checked out online).
That Paul Krugman’s analysis continues to win out has got to be particularly galling for the guy.
What is true is that Mr. Hollande’s victory means the end of “Merkozy,” the Franco-German axis that has enforced the austerity regime of the past two years. This would be a “dangerous” development if that strategy were working, or even had a reasonable chance of working. But it isn’t and doesn’t; it’s time to move on. Europe’s voters, it turns out, are wiser than the Continent’s best and brightest.
What’s wrong with the prescription of spending cuts as the remedy for Europe’s ills? One answer is that the confidence fairy doesn’t exist — that is, claims that slashing government spending would somehow encourage consumers and businesses to spend more have been overwhelmingly refuted by the experience of the past two years. So spending cuts in a depressed economy just make the depression deeper.
Of course, Scarborough will remain in denial, which is best seen whenever his nemesis Donnie Deutsch slams Republican economics, something that drives Scarborough nuts, though I actually believe it’s more a mano-a-mano problem for the “Morning Joe” host whose ego can’t handle anyone being right but him; something that is seen daily through Scarborough exchanges and Buzzfeed recently reviewed as a “cacophony of arguing.”
The second most entertaining reaction came in a weird column today by Robert Reich, with a title that is not only contrived but obvious in its intent.
The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution
It seems set up as an offensive rebuttal of what may come from Republicans and to help the Obama administration, because we all know invoking “socialism” for any part of American public policy is the Democratic fear of fears.
But as Lawrence O’Donnell tries to remind people every chance he gets, America has been a mix of Democratic ideals and socialism going back to at least F.D.R., though Teddy R. and others made their contributions, too. Even the Tea Party likes their entitlements, so to have a renowned economic analyst like Reich, who is really playing the role of Democratic partisan here, make the case for “Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution” is down right amusing.
What Reich and his ilk are actually trying to do is stem off criticism from Republicans to meld Pres. Obama’s economic message, though I still maintain he doesn’t have one, with that of anti-austerity president-elect François Hollande, who’s been invited to the White House amid warnings from Obama on Afghanistan and the European financial crisis.
Anyone trying to associate Obama with socialism is not only ignorant of the latter, but knows absolutely nothing about the former.
As I’ve written previously, president-elect François Hollande’s idea to lower the retirement age for some workers to 60 is daft. However, thinking Pres. Obama is a socialist is simply partisan propaganda, because there remains a high probability that in his second term, if he gets one, the grand bargain on entitlements will indeed manifest in some form through the Democratic leader, which will be backed by most members of his party.
On the other side, there can be little doubt Mitt Romney would attempt entitlement “reform” as well, which if it comes in the form of the Paul Ryan plan would be a disaster for us all, though it no doubt would make certain infotainment hosts very happy.
As I’ve written previously, it may make sense in France’s current circumstances. Companies used to have early retirement policies when they needed to shed workers – this would be a similar thing at a government policy level. What’s more, it could be a recognition that some people, particularly those in manual labor, are likely to have shorter work lives thanks to what their jobs take out of them.
Re: Robert Reich, while that column of his comes across as partisan, he’s been on about that “productivity revolution” thing for a while. The data back his idea at least somewhat, though my take on it is that the productivity increases seen here have as much to do with employers having more power over their employees as anything. That’s something that anyone could have foreseen based on what happened in the late 1970s and 1980s regarding unions.
In fairness, I think makes more sense. The worst time to think about “fiscal responsibility” is during economic downturns, at least for governments. We should have learned that after the Great Depression, but apparently all the people who learned that lesson are now dead.
I hope I’ve closed that link.
Socialism vs Capitalism is a total McGuffin. Socialism is dead and buried. Even the parties in Europe that have the name in their title are really Social Welfare State enthusiasts. Not a singe Socialist Party in Europe even goes for the Socialism light of controlling the “commanding heights of the economy.” The National power grid, National Telephone, National coal companies have all been privatized. Governments in Europe are no longer into making widgets or digging holes in the ground or building, well, anything. The UK does have National Health but even that is shot-through with capitalist alternatives. The mixed economies of Europe are just a kinder gentler Capitalism; and even there it is not as kind or gentle as it was just a few short years ago.
Sorry for the tirade, but I hate this idiotic meme of Socialism vs Capitalism; it a false premise. It is a 20th century concept, and it is a moribund idea; of no use if you want to do serious analysis.
The only real discussion available is what kind of Capitalism we will have; not what alternatives to Capitalism we may create. The question is how do we protect the commons, and our human dignity from a transnational capitalism that only sees us as consumers, or end users; as cogs in a machine to be exploited for maximum gain.
Looks to me like the world stock markets are pretty nervous now that Hollande is in power. Or would it be because Putin’s back, but, really, I guess Putin never really left.
I suspect that they’re also nervous about the results of the Greek elections, which look to have made a more hard-core attitude on Greece’s part toward the EU a likelihood. If Greece decides to pull out of the EU (at least possible, though I don’t think it’s likely yet), then there’s going to be a lot of economic uncertainty in the coming days.
Portraying the French election as an anti-austerity vote might be premature. More like a anti-Sarkozy vote. One thing Hollande is known for is ‘bending with the wind’ so to make any big announcements is to early. So perhaps it just another ‘say whatever it takes to win’.
Some of things he mentioned are already being adjusted. For example hiring 60,000 new teachers. His aides have already said that ‘hiring’ will be a slow process, and based on fiscal matters.
His plan of raising taxes on people that make 1 million euros or more to 75%. That fine, but it applies to 3000 – 3500 people. A symbolic jesture only.
His reduction of retirement from 62-60 for ‘some people’? That applies to people that have been working and contributing to the pension fund for 42 years. So if at the age of 18 a person got a job and worked 42 years straight years they can retire. How many people does that apply to?
People should be dubious of all politicians, what they say, no matter where they are from.
Taylor, Alot of Republicans as well as Democrats were in love with Sarkozy. I would not be suprised if they has posters of him on their walls. He was the cool guy with the hott wife, from what they think anyway. I like his wife because of her talent, she is a great musician. But the word Socialist makes people in this country go nuts over, so I am sure every time President Obama meets with French President Hollande, the GOP heads are going to explode and call Obama a Socialists and there working together to make America Socialist. I have that funny feeling.
Au contraire, I am not so sure that encouraging earlier retirement with dignity is a foolish notion at all. One of the disadvantages imposed on younger workers is getting a chance to get into the workforce, and when older workers are forced by the insecurity of their personal financial situations to hold on like grim death to their employment, those opening slots for the young are reduced in their numbers.
Let’s posit a “Grand Societal Bargain” different in its essential nature from the non-solution of austerity that freezes this unhelpful, clandestine (or not) warfare between the generations. Rather, imagine a society that takes care of its members’ basic needs for healthcare, currently largely tied to one’s employment situation, which is a compelling reason for workers to hang on to whatever employment that they have. Which works out just fine and dandy for the 1%, who want you in fear, who want you chained to whatever working conditions they choose to inflict on you, but it does not promote entrepreneurial enterprise (who can afford to take a chance, particularly if you have kids), and makes it more difficult to move for the chance for better opportunities (well, assuming that you can sell your house if you are an “owner”), or even to change jobs within the same area.
And you say you want to encourage voluntary associations for societal good, a la Tocqueville? Let people off the wheel, and I’ll bet that this would explode. You say you want to encourage family life, the presence of grandparents in the lives of their grandchildren? The same, and familial bonds make it easier for the working adults to make their careers flourish without the guilt and exhaustion that the hyper-capitalist way we “enjoy” makes so prevalent.
Pooling of resources in critical areas is a give and take – give through taxes, receive through a decent, less uncertain and harried life. This is the argument for social democracy, or socialism, if you will.