My position is that a big part of the problem in France is a deep mood of pessimism and the impression by all that the country has no future and that it will have to unravel all that used to make it work and make it great - and that creates a lot of anxiety, as well as a sense of resignation - and also pain and anger that the damn Brits seems to have won.
Thus, what is needed is first and foremost to fight that prevailing view that all is wrong in the country and that it cannot hold its own in the world. It does not mean that all is perfect, but it means that solutions can be found without ditching everything done so far, and that we can still be proud of our country and its model.
Moreover, it means that the model can be defended for real, and not just, like our politicians do now, through a fighting rhetoric and then policies that more or stealthily do the opposite. People resent both the need for reform and the fact that they are done behind their back, without a real explanation.
The socialists' policies in 1997, meant to boost morale by focusing on government backed jobs for young people in the social sector worked - young people got real jobs that they could be proud of (helping in schools, libraries, parks), they had a non renewable 5 year contract that gave them a decent start in life, and it actually was very useful in said schools, libraries and other similar places. It gave a boost to employment, morale, and growth and did not cost that much (it cost a lot less than all the rebates companies are getting these days to employ people at the bottom of the pay scale) - and the country created a record number of jobs.
So when I say that the socialists' policy should be optimism, I am not joking. It is vital - and it could be enough. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
it seems to me, however, that the hopelessness and pessimism you deplore is embodied in the opposition to the CPE. It shows a complete lack of confidence in the French economy for a young person to believe that getting fired in the first two years is tantamount to economic ruin. Either (1)that is not true, or (2) the french economy really is a basket case.
i understand there are issues beyond employment, like getting a car loan, or getting an aparment, and presume the difficulty in getting either of those is tied to an inability of landlords or car lenders to get their money back.
but that is not an issue, for example, in the U.S. where getting an apartment or a car loan is extremely easy. i gather that is not true in france from the comments about the need for a "contract." so i think the matter has to be examined systemically.
But, going back to the point I tried (and perhaps failed) to make before when I asked "what is the left's policy to deal with unemployment" . . .
It seems to me that the right has a very powerful idea about how to re-generate growth and employment - "let 'the market' take care of it." Deregulate, shrink government, put more risk on workers and individuals to free business to increase profits, and so on. We all know this.
Debunking this idea is important, but in the spirit of "it takes an idea to beat an idea," I think we need something more than debunking to replace "free market" as the reigning solution to all economic problems.
To me, the idea of "social partnership," in which current burdens and future fruits of growth are shared equitably, is the way to go. All the "success stories" of Europe - Scandinavia, Ireland, the Netherlands, France under Jospin - seem to share similar characteristics: some business-friendly reforms and wage restraint, but also increased social protection for workers, whether in the form of tax cuts, wage subsidies, direct public job creation through increased spending, and so forth. Also, the protection and expansion of institutions that give workers voice in how firms are run and how economic policy is made: strong unions, German-style codetermination, participation in incomes policy, etc.
Maybe other people will have other ideas about what our "big idea" should be.
The difference between what de Villepin is doing and the social democratic approach is that the right offers no additional social protection to ease the risks that they plan to put on the shoulders of younger workers - the market is expected to take care of everything. I'm surprised that someone like Will Hutton, who is usually pretty astute, overlooks this key point.
But don't underestimate what the non-stop flood of media disinformation is doing: it is shaping people's view of the world, and in that way it is shifting the ground. It's impossible to concentrate on propositions without striking back at the flow of propaganda. Even on this thread on a left-of-centre blog, we can see evidence of the ravages the repetition of the same message can wreak: some people apparently think that, the more they read the same thing in the media, the truer it must be.
If you're really fired up, I'd ask that you write a diary with an economically sound alternative vision, but that's a lot to ask and really sounds like I want you to do all the work.
So, point me at a couple of starting points and I'll try applying my layman's touch to it.
It's all about taking common economic practice (or conventional wisdom) and asking why, and then why to that, and so on, until we reach a collection of basic, simple assumptions which can be intuitively challenged. Alternatives to these challenged assumptions should also be intuitive, and form the core of the message (or maybe the Lakoffian frame towards which we should try to steer any discussion of economic policy).
Any thoughts? tens of millions of people stand to see their lives ruined because the bureaucrats at the ECB don't understand introductory economics -- Dean Baker
So, I think it's a great idea!
So, what's going on with the UK meetup? Supposedly we have over 50 UK members. tens of millions of people stand to see their lives ruined because the bureaucrats at the ECB don't understand introductory economics -- Dean Baker
I'll write another diary on it (meetup that is, not my psychological issues) tomorrow night and try and push things forward a bit.
I'll try to put together some sort of discussion diary along these lines.
one of the sinking feelings I have long had about the mercantilist system and its offspring, modern economics, is the disturbing possibility that the whole idea is fundamentally flawed, and that therefore no amount of tinkering with the model (a la Marx) will suffice to "fix it" in the sense of any optimisation of human happiness. and if human happiness is "not the point" then we may as well go back to building pyramids for Pharaoh...
dissident views which have influenced my thinking over the years include those of "feral economists" like Cobb and Waring, "outdated" economists like Galbraith, snook-cockers like Czech and Keen, and lateral thinkers and social critics like Illich, Postman, Prieur, Jensen, Abbey, Callenbach, McKibben, Ritzer (Whitman, Thoreau, Vian, Goldman...), paleo/anthro/social historians like Diamond, Ponting, Braudel... plus speculative futurists of various flavours from Delaney through the cyberpunks, and paisano/indigeno movements worldwide. I think the very breadth of sources needed to anchor a sweeping critique of contemporary assumptions makes a very high threshold for the endeavour, especially since one of the central assumptions of the structure to be critiqued is specialisation and credentialling. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
Let me just point out just three of my favorites, by a journalist, an economic historian, and a sociologist, respectively:
The Economic Illusion: False Choices Between Prosperity and Social Justice by Robert Kuttner
The economic illusion is the belief that social justice is bad for economic growth. . . . prosperity and social justice can be reconciled . . . they can be mutually reinforcing. . . . often social justice produces positive-sum economic gains. . . . All of these issues are deeply political. . . . The range of equality/efficiency bargains that present themselves and the design of social institutions to carry them out reflect balances of political power. Few if any of the choices are merely technical . . .
Growing Public: Social Spending and Ecoonmic Growth since the 18th Century by Peter Lindert
Lindert argues that, contrary to the intuition of many economists and the ideology of many politicians, social spending has contributed to, rather than inhibited, economic growth.
Postindustrial Possibilities: A Critique of Economic Discourse by Fred Block
. . . Block takes as his point of departure the tired concepts of neo-classical economics which, while still dominant, fall short as tools for comprehending contemporary economic forces. . . . . such as the market, labor, and capital. One of its primary foci is a shift toward improved product quality and greater priority for various non-commodity satisfactions such as leisure, interesting work, economic security and a safe and clean environment. It also promotes a recognition that greater economic efficiency rests not on infusions of capital but on cooperative labor relations and on institutional reform.
There is a "varieties of capitalism" literature in political science and sociology (not so much in economics, unfortunately) that takes seriously differences in institutions across countries. Here are some good introductory references:
Some others I particularly like on aspects of the European social model include:
Employment Policy
Some kind of joint political statement, maybe?
Here's something along these lines: Alternative Economic Policy for Europe with a list of signatories here.
But the next step is getting the message out.
I suggest you, me, and my shorts move the discussion to your diary
Social Protection versus Economic Flexibility: Is There a Trade-Off?
Some of the book's conclusions:
That'll teach me to ask.
Definitely going to have to be a group effort at the moment, I reckon.
Oh well, time to start reading and thinking...
