I see no other way to change this, from where I stand, than ferociously and repeatedly pointing out how that stance is partial, ideological and wrong. We cannot afford not to make oursleves heard over their loudpseaker.
If you have a better way to sink them into irrelevance, pray tell us! In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Cf. why Chomsky continues to read and criticise the NYT (where appropriate - he doesn't damn everything in it, just as he doesn't even with the WSJ - which he says has some good reporting, though the editorials are "cartoons").
Are you sending this to them ? Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Noam Chomsky: ... The New York Times happened to have an article by its economic correspondent in its magazine section [in August] about Obama's economic programs. He talked about Reagan as the model of passionate commitment to free markets and reduction of the role of the state, and so on. Where are these people? Reagan was the most protectionist president in post war American history. In fact, more protectionist than all others combined. He virtually doubled protective barriers. He brought in the Pentagon to develop the "factory of the future" to teach backward American management how to catch up on the Japanese lead in production. SEMATECH ["Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology"] was formed. If it was not for Reagan's protectionism and calling in of state power, we would not have a steel industry, or an automobile industry, or a semi-conductor industry or whatever they protected. They reindustrialized America by protectionism and state intervention. All of this is washed away by propaganda as though it never happened. It is very interesting to look at a place like MIT which was right in the center of these developments. My department -- you are teaching a course in the Military Industrial Complex -- my department is an example of it. ... The electronics lab, along with the closely connected Lincoln Labs, was just developing the basis of the modern high tech economy. In those days, the computer was the size of this set of offices and vacuum tubes were blowing all over the place [with] computer printouts, paper running everywhere. By the time they finally got computers down to the size of a marketable mainframe, some of the directors of the project pulled out and formed DEC [Digital Equipment Corporation], the first main frame producer. IBM was in there at government expense learning how to move from punch cards to electronic computers. By the early l960s IBM was capable of producing its own computers, but no one could buy them. They were too expensive. So they were bought by the National Security Agency. Bell Labs did develop transistors. That is about the only example you can think of a significant part of the high tech system which came out of private enterprise. But that is a joke too! Bell Labs were able to run a great laboratory because they had a monopoly, so they could use monopoly pricing powers to set up a great laboratory. They worked on technology. Their transistor producer was Western Electric, who could not sell them on the market; they were too expensive. So the government bought about 100 percent of advanced transistors. Finally, of course, all of this gets to the point where you can market them privately. It was not until the l980s after 30 years of development essentially in the state sector that these things became marketable commodities and Bill Gates could get rich. http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N51/chomsky.html
Where are these people? Reagan was the most protectionist president in post war American history. In fact, more protectionist than all others combined. He virtually doubled protective barriers. He brought in the Pentagon to develop the "factory of the future" to teach backward American management how to catch up on the Japanese lead in production. SEMATECH ["Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology"] was formed.
If it was not for Reagan's protectionism and calling in of state power, we would not have a steel industry, or an automobile industry, or a semi-conductor industry or whatever they protected. They reindustrialized America by protectionism and state intervention.
All of this is washed away by propaganda as though it never happened. It is very interesting to look at a place like MIT which was right in the center of these developments. My department -- you are teaching a course in the Military Industrial Complex -- my department is an example of it.
... The electronics lab, along with the closely connected Lincoln Labs, was just developing the basis of the modern high tech economy. In those days, the computer was the size of this set of offices and vacuum tubes were blowing all over the place [with] computer printouts, paper running everywhere.
By the time they finally got computers down to the size of a marketable mainframe, some of the directors of the project pulled out and formed DEC [Digital Equipment Corporation], the first main frame producer.
IBM was in there at government expense learning how to move from punch cards to electronic computers. By the early l960s IBM was capable of producing its own computers, but no one could buy them. They were too expensive. So they were bought by the National Security Agency.
Bell Labs did develop transistors. That is about the only example you can think of a significant part of the high tech system which came out of private enterprise. But that is a joke too!
Bell Labs were able to run a great laboratory because they had a monopoly, so they could use monopoly pricing powers to set up a great laboratory. They worked on technology. Their transistor producer was Western Electric, who could not sell them on the market; they were too expensive. So the government bought about 100 percent of advanced transistors.
Finally, of course, all of this gets to the point where you can market them privately. It was not until the l980s after 30 years of development essentially in the state sector that these things became marketable commodities and Bill Gates could get rich.
http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N51/chomsky.html
I've read little from The Economist - only once from cover-to-cover, last May. I've read occasionally from the WSJ over the last 50 years. Maybe I'm so far left that their take is irrelevant to me, but it all strikes me as so many cigarette or automobile commercials.
An ex-Pentagon technocrat, Chuck Spinney, wrote an interesting article this week; his analysis of Obama's victory involved an "M&M" strategy: Motherhood and Mismatch. Basically, he wrote that Obama took a Motherhood issue, such as healthcare, established a position, and let McCain flail away in opposition. McCain's attacks then created the contrast that the electorate needed in order to recognize the differences. Point being that maybe we should simply establish and publicize our positions and let events drive WSJ to attack us.
It may be the case that such institutions will never 'debase' themselves to a similar extent as McCain did, but I feel that direct responses to their positions are almost a waste of time. They may not live in impregnable fortresses, but they certainly have strong defenses and substantial resources. paul spencer
(And even worse, as influence from capital is probably higher order than a linear function.)
I am certain the Economist will support this new market. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Subsidies are more popular but both theory and practice argue against them. Subsidising clean energy requires politicians to decide on the best way of delivering it, and their judgment is likely to be worse than the market's. America's huge ethanol subsidies, for instance, have led to overinvestment in the businesses, which is now experiencing a sharp bust, and have helped drive up the price of food, with painful consequences for the world's poor. Germany's generous solar subsidies covered the roofs of one of the world's most sunless countries with solar cells, thus pushing up the price of silicon and reducing the cost-effectiveness of solar power in countries where it actually makes sense. Both subsidies promoted the wrong technologies; both wasted taxpayers' money.
So green industrial policy is smart industrial policy. As long as you don't invest in dead ends, like biofuels or (eventually, I think) fuel cells.
The economist denies this for ideological reasons only. It believes the state should not be in the business of allocating resources. Instead, it thinks it should be the exclusive province of the banks.
(the 'market' being another word for banks under financial capitalism)
We've seen how well that works.
To support your point about Germany, which is going to reduce subsidies:
While the news surrounding the subsidy changes have sent stocks see-sawing, they haven't created large shifts and in many cases have increased share market values. The drop in subsidies, in my mind, is a clear indicator that the industry is now at a point where their success is guaranteed and no longer needs the help of the government to be profitable. This is evinced by the fact that following the announcements of cuts, Bosch said it will be investing over 500 million € for a controlling share of Ersol, a major solar manufacturer, and might even put in nearly double that for full control. Clearly an industry in crisis would not even contemplate such a move. http://ecolectic.org/?p=187
http://ecolectic.org/?p=187
Responsibility and long term planning have never been a part of that, because they cramp their ability to pile up the cash and party.
The problem with a Green Strategy is that opportunities for making a big stinking pile of cash are more limited than they would be in other areas - which is not to say that they're not available, but no one is going to get as much of an adrenaline rush from building a windfarm as from building a planet-spanning derivatives empire which could implode at any moment.
Green energy is measured, intelligent, sensible and mature, which makes it utterly the wrong choice if you're one of the Econo's consumers of financial crack.
So, most people now know - painfully, was the whole "set the markets free" ideology, but some pretty smart people managed to convince a great many not entirely stupid others that this was correct almost to the brink of disaster. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
European Tribune - Comments - The Economist is against a "Green New Deal"
Subsidising clean energy requires politicians to decide on the best way of delivering it, and their judgment is likely to be worse than the market's.
Here the precise topic is green investment, elsewhere it is transport or other infrastructure investments mooted as a fiscal response to the large recession that is incoming.
Everywhere, the chant is the same "politicians make bad choices, leave it to the market," "public investment crowds private enterprise out of the economy" and various other similar tropes.
This is their spin, this is the new party line on keeping their economic mythology alive. It's not primarily about rejecting green investment, it's all about rejecting any kind of "New Deal."
The greatest sadness for our political society is that barriers to entry and incumbent advantage in the media markets are so powerful. Hence, despite eagerly pushing the policies that have created the crash that surrounds us, Cowen, Phelps, the FT, The Economist and all the rest get a big platform to tell us that there is no solution, that the economy is like the weather and we should not try to save ourselves, but kneel and pray, perhaps before a frieze of Friedman and Hayek, pray for tax cuts and deliverance.
This presentation
Introducing the PetroTrust
went down really well in Teheran and of course envisages the use of legal frameworks other than "the Corporation" which is in fact what makes the Private sector "Private".
I got to see all sorts of interesting people, including ministers, two heads of national corporations and the Chairman of the Majlis Energy Commission, and was asked to do an outline proposal for a how a global market in gas (an Iran, Qatar, Russia "Gas OPEC" meeting took place the day after I left) could look - which I have done, but it's on hold 'til I sort out a couple of commercial issues with them.
The market I have in mind is a market operating on a "Not for Loss" basis, with producers/consumers primary and traders secondary.
It incorporates a proposal for "unitisation" of gas using Units redeemable in gas. Such unitisation would replace the need for secured debt finance and create an entirely new global market. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Metatone:
seems they don't have such a virulent attitude to nuclear and oil getting a leg-up, or do they?
but kneel and pray, perhaps before a frieze of Friedman and Hayek, pray for tax cuts and deliverance.
LOL! ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
They're not likely to be happy about this.
this is their nightmare, having to watch people smash the manacles that kept them enslaved to the 'big boys', keeping them fat, while little people suffer. ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
That's fine. The farther back they have to wind up moving the goalposts, the better off we'll find ourselves. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
