Clever Capitalists

Friday, March 04, 2011

Across the land workers are finally upset enough to show up at state capitals but what do they really hope to achieve? Pundits on the left, hoping to provide historical context, tell us labors trouble all started with Reagan and PATCO, some tell us the remedy lies in the tax code, others believe Obama let us down by not supporting EFCA and by bailing out the banks.

But isn't all this commentary a bit disingenuous? After all, unions gave up the idea of worker power right after WWII when they agreed with Capital and Government that they were willing to accept the liberal-democratic-capitalist arrangement as long as the pay and benefits remained sweet. Now that Capital backs out , taking investment and jobs overseas, labor has no power to intervene. They have been reduced to putting their energy into Democrats! Their demise is their own fault and it won't be reversed in a couple of weeks of demonstrations for "rights". They should be striking and demonstrating their power.

As for taxing the rich, all well and good, it's certainly been done before; BUT it never lasts very long. Even the welfare states of Europe with their long-time consensus are being dismantled in the name of "austerity". The rich are generous until they decide not to be. Wouldn't it just be better to build a classless society so there are no rich?

Those who suggest Bush-Obama should not have bailed out the banks ( and increased debt) should also admit they were prepared for total collapse of the entire global economic system. In other words chaos from which might have rose democratic revolution or, at least as likely, dystopian violence. Because that is how close to the precipice capitalism was. I actually was prepared to see that happen but I'm not sure liberal or conservative critics of Obama were.

As for EFCA, the card check provision was bad legislation. Forcing people in the minority to be in unions is bad policy. You should be able to convince people to join of their own free will and happily pay dues because it is good for them. Dues money should not go to political parties or politicians. To save unionism, unions must adapt to the new conditions. Labor justice must be globalized.

Comment On This Blog Post

Collapse or bail-out?

By Stern, Jerome at Mar 27, 2011 10:49 AM

While I much prefer your perspective to that of most liberals and, I should add, quite a lot of socialists (who, to me, strangely) think one shouldn't advocate socialism, I don't accept that only alternative to bailing out the banks, and largely on their terms, was economic collapse. First, the bail-out saved the banks but not the real-world economy because the banks didn't resume lending to it. Second, we don't need the investment banks at all, indeed must of their activities are actually harmful to the real-world economy. Third, all that needed to be saved was the depositors' money which the govt had a legal duty to do. Yes, we need some form of system for providing credit to citizens and businesses, but that is something the state could organise just as well. In fact, it was admitted at the time of the crash that the Fed had the power to directly purchase commercial 'paper', ie commercial bonds, but chose not do so. What the govt could have done was take the retail banks into govt receivorship let the shareholders lose their money, etc.

Panitch also argues, wrongly, that real-world capitalism requires the derivatives market in its current form to function properly. The only useful derivatives are the simple ones such as straight-forward futures contracts which have a hedging function: these are the so-called vanilla options. Investment banks and hedge funds aren't much interested in them. They want to speculate, not hedge. the banks prefer exotic over-the-counter derivatives which are more profitable to them and more dangerous.

The rich, of course, were mostly never generous, but after the depression and WWII, they got scared that unless western workers were allowed some degree of comfort and security there could well be revolution and the rich would lose it all. The only way ordinary people can recover their security is to renew that threat to the rich strongly enough to make the rich willing to be 'generous' again. But I'm inclined to agree with the remark attributed to the British disciple of Keynes, Joan Robinson, that a movement strong enough to reform capitalism, would be strong enough to overthrow it.

Reply this comment