Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I agree the future is the Green Left. However, the next electoral cycle is EPP monopoly and in Spain the PP just made it known that they oppose the EU's target of 30% carbon emission reductions and want to tone it down to just 20% "because the current economic conditions don't allow for more". Austerity will kill all.

Like the long term is green and the short term is blue, the medium term may well be brown:

In should be first stated that, although most economists are now agreed that full employment may be achieved by government spending, this was by no means the case even in the recent past.  Among the opposers of this doctrine there were (and still are) prominent so-called 'economic experts' closely connected with banking and industry.  This suggests that there is a political background in the opposition to the full employment doctrine, even though the arguments advanced are economic.  That is not to say that people who advance them do not believe in their economics, poor though this is.  But obstinate ignorance is usually a manifestation of underlying political motives.

There are, however, even more direct indications that a first-class political issue is at stake here.  In the great depression in the 1930s, big business consistently opposed experiments for increasing employment by government spending in all countries, except Nazi Germany.  This was to be clearly seen in the USA (opposition to the New Deal), in France (the Blum experiment), and in Germany before Hitler.  The attitude is not easy to explain.  Clearly, higher output and employment benefit not only workers but entrepreneurs as well, because the latter's profits rise.  And the policy of full employment outlined above does not encroach upon profits because it does not involve any additional taxation.  The entrepreneurs in the slump are longing for a boom; why do they not gladly accept the synthetic boom which the government is able to offer them?  It is this difficult and fascinating question with which we intend to deal in this article.

...

The dislike of government spending policy as such is overcome under fascism by the fact that the state machinery is under the direct control of a partnership of big business with fascism.  The necessity for the myth of 'sound finance', which served to prevent the government from offsetting a confidence crisis by spending, is removed.  In a democracy, one does not know what the next government will be like.  Under fascism there is no next government.

(Political Aspects of Full Employment by Michal Kalecki, 1943)

Economics is politics by other means
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 21st, 2011 at 09:00:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Capitalists oppose Government spending because that helps everyone.  They are only interested in their own success, and paradoxically, that becomes much easier when everyone else is struggling. If you want cheap docile workers, promote policies which promote unemployment. If you want to increase market share, make it harder for your competitors and for new entrants to start up. Even a fool can run a successful business when there is no credit available for others to set up.

Established businesses have a relative competitive advantage when times are hard. The interests of individual capitalists are frequently at variance with the interests of capitalism as a whole. Capitalist praise competition and kill competitors. The US teaparty agenda is being driven by a few individual politically engaged capitalists. Buying a politician is remarkably cheap if that's part of your business model. In Europe it is the big banks.

Without a strong state capitalism has no means of addressing its collective best interests and ends up destroying itself.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Sep 21st, 2011 at 09:28:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
I agree the future is the Green Left. However, the next electoral cycle is EPP monopoly and in Spain the PP just made it known that they oppose the EU's target of 30% carbon emission reductions and want to tone it down to just 20% "because the current economic conditions don't allow for more". Austerity will kill all.

Sweden has reduced more then its share, and the state has CO2 emission certificates to spare. In order to prepare for a coming economic downturn, these will be sold. Cause having less CO2 is not economic prudent or something.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Sep 21st, 2011 at 10:16:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Clearly, higher output and employment benefit not only workers but entrepreneurs as well, because the latter's profits rise."

Prove it. I don't think it's clear at all. Specify your underlying axioms. I think one of them is rational profiteers.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Wed Sep 21st, 2011 at 09:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

The Sciences of the Artificial

by Cat - May 30
15 comments

City Agriculture - May 23, 2024

by gmoke - May 23
3 comments

Occasional Series