Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

On the Geithner Bailout Plan – Liberal Vs. Conservative Views

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 09:53 PM
Original message
On the Geithner Bailout Plan – Liberal Vs. Conservative Views
I am not an economist. But I think that I know enough about economics to know the difference between liberal and conservative economics. And in this case, I think that’s just about all we need to know – given the great divide between the liberal and conservative views of the Geithner bailout plan.

There is a purported difference between liberal and conservative economics. And then there’s the real difference between them.


The purported difference between liberal and conservative economics

The purported difference between liberal and conservative economists is that conservative economists believe strictly in a laissez-faire, free-market approach, whereas liberal economists believe that sometimes, for the good of a nation’s people, government intervention is needed in order to make up for the failure of so-called “free-markets” to ensure an outcome that benefits people and is fair.

The problem with the conservative approach is that free markets don’t always work to ensure good and fair outcomes. “Free markets” sounds just fine in theory. But in the real world, they often fail. There are many reasons for this, and I won’t go into all of them (I couldn’t if I wanted to), but I’ll just mention two that ought to be obvious to anyone who thinks about it.

First, in order for free markets to work, people need enough information to choose between the alternatives offered to them. Simply put, without sufficient information, there is no basis on which to make the decisions needed for “free-market” solutions. Medical care is a great example of that. In deciding between a alternative approaches to alleviate our illnesses or symptoms, most of us are almost totally dependent upon our physician to explain to us the pros and cons of the various alternatives.

A second issue concerns what economists call “externalities”. The interactions between a corporation and the potential consumers who buy the corporation’s products affect much more than just the corporation and the potential consumers. Corporate activities often pollute our air, water and soil, contribute to global warming, and harm our planet in a multitude of ways, thus harming millions of people who don’t benefit in the slightest from the corporation’s activities. How on earth is the “invisible hand” of the so-called free market supposed to prevent that from happening?

In short, laissez-faire economics is akin to economic anarchy – a situation that allows those with wealth and power to leverage that wealth and power to create more of the same. It is the equivalent of a grade school teacher who refuses to intervene to prevent a school bully from perpetrating violence against smaller children in the class, or police who refuse to take action against domestic violence perpetrated against women.

But conservative economists aren’t stupid. It’s hard to believe that many of them really believe the nonsense about laissez-faire economics, that the “free-market” will solve all our economic problems. If it did, why would we need economists? The myth that the “free-market” will solve all our problems is just an excuse to recommend that government do nothing to help those who need it most. The recent bank crisis proved what they really think of free markets. When the big guys are in trouble, then all of a sudden government help isn’t such a bad idea after all. The hell with free markets.


What conservative economists are really all about

The true defining characteristic of a conservative economist is the inclination to help out the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. They are against government increasing the minimum wage or providing health insurance to people who need those things. Many of them are even against government mandated worker safety or environmental protection regulations. They tout economic indicators like the GDP as if they were the gospel, without worrying whether the benefits of increased economic activity are shared amongst the population. They worry about the unemployment rate getting too low, because that might cause inflation (or, more important, cut into corporate profits), so they recommend raising interest rates to bring employment back down. They recommend tax breaks exclusively for the benefit of the wealthy. And when powerful banking firms encounter a crisis of their own making, then hey, let the American taxpayers bail them out.

Of course, they can’t publicly admit to their preference for policies that favor the wealthy over everyone else. Few people would take them seriously if they admitted that. So, what are they to do when it becomes obvious that their “free-market” solutions are benefitting only the wealthy? No problem. They tell us to be patient – the benefits will soon “trickle down” to everyone else. Ha ha.

It seems to me that this whole bank bailout thing is just another twist to the trickle down economics myth. With millions of Americans in dire economic straits, what do the conservatives want to do? Rather than provide the required economic help to those in most need, they have a better idea. Give the money to the banks, and the banks will begin lending and thereby solve the problem. And who are the ones giving the money to the banks, in the hope that the investment will eventually trickle back down to us? The American taxpayer, of course.


What liberal economists have to say about the Geithner Bank Bailout Plan

If conservative economists are characterized by their propensity to recommend solutions that benefit the wealthy, liberal economists focus much more on measures that will help everyone. They see no value in a rising GDP if it doesn’t provide benefits to Americans as a whole, rather than just to the wealthy.

Their assessment of the Geithner bank bailout plan reflects that philosophy. What all of their assessments have in common is that they weigh the advantages to the banks against the dangers to the American people:

Paul Krugman
One of Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman’s major interests is universal health care for the American people. Here is what he had to say on the subject in his book, “Conscience of a Liberal

The principal reason to reform American health care is simply that it would improve the quality of life for most Americans…

There is, however, another important reason for health care reform. It’s the same reasons movement conservatives were so anxious to kill Clinton’s plan. That plan’s success, said William Kristol, “would signal the rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy” – by which he really meant that universal health care would give new life to the New Deal idea that society should help its less fortunate members. Indeed it would – and that’s a big argument in its favor…

Getting universal care should be the key domestic priority for modern liberals. Once they succeed there, they can turn to the broader, more difficult task of reining in American inequality.

This is what Krugman had to say about Geithner’s bank bailout plan:

The Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt… This isn't really about letting markets work. It's just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets.

In other words, this is a gift from the American taxpayers to the banks.

Krugman says Geithner’s plan is very similar to Hank Paulson’s abandoned "cash for trash" plan, and he says that it won’t work. Well, that makes sense to me. How could the economic condition of the average American be improved by handing over trillions of dollars to banks? And worse yet, Krugman adds:

If this plan fails – as it almost surely will – it's unlikely that he'll (Obama) be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place.

Joseph Stiglitz
Joseph Stiglitz is well known for his research on externalities – showing how they work to make the so-called free market worthless as a solution to many of our economic problems:

Whenever there are “externalities” – where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay or for which they are not compensated – markets will not work well. But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets – that is always. The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government. Both are needed…

What Stiglitz had to say about the Geithner bailout plan is very similar to what Krugman said. He uses different words than Krugman, but the basic principle is the same:

The U.S. government plan to rid banks of toxic assets will rob American taxpayers by exposing them to too much risk and is unlikely to work as long as the economy remains weak…. The U.S. government is basically using the taxpayer to guarantee against downside risk on the value of these assets, while giving the upside, or potential profits, to private investors… Quite frankly, this amounts to robbery of the American people. I don't think it's going to work…

Robert Reich
Robert Reich was President Clinton’s first Secretary of Labor. His liberal economic outlook can be seen by his tax and fiscal policy recommendations:

Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit – a wage supplement for lower-income people, and finance it with a higher marginal income tax on the top five percent. For the longer term, invest in education for lower income communities…

Like Krugman, Reich also sees much similarity in the Geithner and Paulson plans (though he does say that Geithner’s plan is better). He explains how, through the actions of the Federal Reserve, Geithner’s plan could stick it to the American taxpayer for trillions:

In truth, the plan assumes trillions more from the Fed, based on the Fed's seemingly infinite capacity to backstop almost anyone putting up almost any collateral. The idea is to lure private investors into buying up the banks' toxic assets, by having the Fed limit their downside risks. If private investors pay too much, the Fed picks up the tab….

If the trillions of dollars the Fed has already committed and the trillions more it's about to commit can't be recouped, the federal debt explodes and you and I and other taxpayers are left holding the bag….

Reich notes the very poor track record of Wall Street thus far, and complains about the lack of transparency in Geithner’s plan:

The Fed is subject to almost no political oversight… They hide much of the true costs and risks to taxpayers of repairing the banking system. Those risks and costs should be put on the people who made risky bets on the banks in the first place – namely bank shareholders and creditors. Shareholders of the most troubled banks should be wiped out entirely. Bank creditors – except depositors – should take major hits. And top executives who were responsible should be canned. But Geithner and Bernanke don't want to take these steps… They think it's safer to put the costs and risks on taxpayers – especially in ways they can't see.

James Galbraith
James Galbraith, the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, wrote a book, “The Predator State”, in which he explains how conservatives in government have joined with the corporate world to screw the American people:

The Republican Party… became the instrument of corporate control. The administration… of George W. Bush became little more than an alliance of representatives from the regulated sectors seeking to bring the regulatory system entirely to heel. And to this group was added… those who saw the economic activities of government not in ideological terms but merely as opportunities for private profit on a continental scale… This is the predator state… It is a coalition… that seeks to control the state partly in order to prevent the assertion of public purpose…

Galbraith calls the Geithner plan “extremely dangerous, and he says that no smart economist thinks that it will work.

He explains that Wall Street (with Geithner’s help) is trying to sell the American people a bunch of myths in order to win our acquiescence for their plans. Specifically, he says that the underlying problem is NOT that the banks aren’t lending much money, but that the American people are loaded with debt. Even if massive handouts to the banks get them to increase lending (which seems unlikely), that wouldn’t erase the massive debts of the American people. In fact, it would add to it, since the American people will ultimately have to pay for the bank bailouts.

And Galbraith doesn’t mince words in castigating Geithner’s plan:

The plan is yet another massive, ineffective gift to banks and Wall Street. Taxpayers, of course, will take the hit… The banks don't want to take their share of those losses because doing so will wipe them out. So they, and Geithner, are doing everything they can to pawn the losses off on the taxpayer…. In Geithner's plan, this debt won't disappear. It will just be passed from banks to taxpayers, where it will sit until the government finally admits that a major portion of it will never be paid back.

Galbraith poses a better solution to the problem:

Of course there's an alternative: FDIC receivership of insolvent banks. Aside from being legally proscribed, the upside of FDIC receivership is the banks are restructured and reorganized for potential sale… Crucially, FDIC receivership also means new management teams for insolvent banks; and new leaders will have no incentive to cover up the fraudulent or predatory lending practices of their predecessors.


A few words about criticizing the plans of the Obama administration

There are many well meaning Democrats who strenuously object to criticisms of Obama administration policies such as those depicted in this post. They tell us that we need to “give President Obama a chance”.

I reject that idea on several accounts. This has little to do with what we think of President Obama personally. I have little doubt that all four economists quoted in this post voted for Obama – and they probably supported him in other ways as well.

But citizens of a democracy have not only a right, but an obligation to criticize their government when they believe that it is moving in the wrong direction or making mistakes. And that applies especially to journalists.

I do not believe that criticizing President Obama from the left is at all likely to wound his administration or our country. To the contrary. He gets, and will continue to get, no matter what he does, plenty of criticism from the right. If we sit silently by and refuse to counteract that criticism with our own criticism, that will just mean that President Obama will feel all the more pressure to move towards the right. Furthermore, balancing out the criticisms from the right by criticizing from the left makes President Obama appear somewhat moderate, rather than as the Marxist that the right wingers would have us believe him to be. In that way our criticism not only helps to negate the right wing spin, but at the same time pressures the Obama administration to move in a direction that we believe will be much better for our country.

And finally, if these liberal economists are correct – and I certainly trust them over the much more conservative economists who got us into this mess – then continuing on the Geithner path will probably do our nation severe and irreversible harm. Our only defense against that is to make our voices heard. Our country doesn’t have the luxury of waiting until the next election to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. What about liberal versus liberal on the plan? Or does that simply not exist for you?
Anyone who disagrees with Krugman is thereby not liberal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. good grief
I think you need to actually read the OP. You could not have possibly done that and make this comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
27. I'm not aware of any liberal economists who support Geithner's plan
If you are, then tell me about them, and then we can discuss your question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
33. if you are arguing in favor of Geithner's plan, you are arguing that conservative economics work
you are in favor of allowing those who KNOWINGLY created and bought and sold and insured junk to CONTINUE profitmaking and offering up taxpayer dollars to boot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
Great post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. K & R. Very well researched and well written.
I know a LOT of people don't want to see this information presented, but that makes it all the more important.

And don't worry about people attacking the style of your post over the substance (you know, being overly sensitive about semantics rather than addressing the consensus of respected *progressive* economists).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
35. Thank you -- It is so frustrating to see trillions of our dollars thrown away to
people who don't need it when so many people need it so badly. After giving away all this money, how much will be available for such things as Obama's health care plan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluethruandthru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #35
52. Great post..and it's unfortunate that Obama is so willing
to go along with Geithner's plan but he digs in his heels against universal, single-payer health care. Those of us who really need help get pushed aside again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. very well done
This is one of the best posts I have read on this subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
29. Thank you very much.
I hope that the Obama administration comes to address the issue in your sig before too long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
6. to resist....
....the Geithner/Obama approach is not to align oneself with the fascists, but to challenge the need to support this demonstrably failed system at all costs and to maintain corporate power as the sole engine of our economy....

....much is being said and done by both parties just to maintain the illusion of capitalism....yet the American people intuitively know that the greedsters in and out of our government are privatizing the profits and socializing the losses on the taxpayers' tab....they understand capitalism has failed us....

....if it's more expedient or cost effective to perform a socialist remedy to our economic problems why are we punishing ourselves to maintain an outdated economic illusion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
44. The PTB has made "socialist" the worst of pejorative terms since the beginning of industrialization
in our country in the late 19th Century. It has suited the purpose of those who made their massive fortunes on the back of the American working people.

They've been very successful at it, but that success may be coming to an end. As you say, the American
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
7. This is nonsense
it's like talking 'conservative' physics vs. 'liberal' physics.

Physics is physics. And economics is economics. If your understanding of economics differs according to your politics, you are a pundit not an economist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Oh bullshit
What would you call Milton Friedman? Or Alan Greenspan?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. You might want to look up the origins of the term "soft science"
Economics is very political, since it is a human endeavor. Physics, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. no you're wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. you're wrong. economics, unlike physics, is not a 'hard science'. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. Error in first sentence: "conservative economists believe strictly in a laissez-faire, free-market"
No, this isn't entirely true. Conservative economists are divided in two camps: one being laissez-faire, and the other being corporatist. While one group feels the unfettered free-market will produce the most good, the other feels that the most good only comes strictly from the bloodline of the upper elite. The second camp believes that the government must actively make the upper elite blood in the country--the owners, and controllers of all wealth--happy, such that they reinvest and make our economy great. This model sees our economy as a one way structure of extortion. The government must do everything it can to enable these people and provide incentives to them to treat us well. This model sees this investor class as our potential benevolent overlords, only if we do enough for them. By doing so, magically they will trickle financial love down to us. We must do everything to prevent them from "Going Galt". This is a philosophical cess-pool, in which the worshipers of Ayn Rand lie.

The liberals differ because while they believe that money can be used to stimulate the economy, it should be injected at the lowest level to actually stimulate production. By doing so, that creates a profit incentive for investors to join in the fray. But their emphasis is on stimulating labor instead of hoping that the investor class benevolently puts forth private capital to do so.

Anyway you slice it, Geither's plan most certainly isn't the first (free market) or the last (Keynesian) approach. It actually is founded upon the conservative cess-pool that worships and bows down to the investor class.

I didn't get past your first sentence yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Did you catch the word "purported" in that sentence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Well, there are at least two distinct prevalent school of economics among conservatives
Not one school posing as another. You are sort of setting up a simple dichotomy between the liberal view and the conservative view, but its much more complicated and can be confusing. And to further the problem, a lot of politicians are not economist and are merely repeating talking points their Dad and favorite president said (so they really have no fucking clue anyway, and are often just going to do whatever suites their interests).

There are some liberals that have free market views, and some conservatives that have an affinity for Keynes, and not Friedman. Then there is an Ayn Rand worshiping prick Democrat like Geithner trying to pull the wool over our eyes, pretending that we are *that* stupid. If people just understood the philosophically origins of this plan, they would be up in arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I would say that if someone recommends economic policies that favor the wealthy,
whether that be by direct intervention or by strict adherence to "free market" principles, then that person's economic views are conservative.

Such a person may be a liberal in other ways, but his/her economic views are conservative.

And if you're going to quote me any more, please at least read the whole sentence and get the quote right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. "then that person's economic views are conservative"
Edited on Wed Mar-25-09 11:41 PM by Oregone
Hey, if you want to bundle up two distinct economic philosophies and give them the same classification, I guess thats your own business. What I see as a major problem is that people do know understand and recognize corporatism, due to this tendency, and hence, have no tools to fight against it. Most "conservative" Republican people are very much against this action, but they vote for people that do it because they are simply ignorant to the concept (they think they are actually voting for small government, free market politicians instead).

Conservative is the last thing I would call corporatists BTW. They believe in bigger government handouts than liberals, just to the investor class. They are radicals practicing a form of social/economic engineering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No.23 Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #14
25. You raise a very poignant observaton there.
"Conservative is the last thing I would call corporatists BTW. They believe in bigger government handouts than liberals, just to the investor class. They are radicals practicing a form of social/economic engineering."

Corporatist Republicans have certainly hoodwinked some conservative Republicans to hitch their wagons to the corporatist band wagon.

But, at the same token, so have the corporatist Democrats with their liberal counterparts.

The conservative versus liberal game is possibly just a smoke-screen... to keep the attention away from the corporatists, who cross party lines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. So, you believe that so-called free market economists
who claim that the free market will solve all our economic problems (Milton Friedman being the prototype) really believe that crap? You don't think that they just use that as a smokescreen for their corporatism?

My use of the term "conservative" to describe these people is not limited the economics sphere. "Conservative" is simply the term that today's corporatists use to describe themselves. I agree that "conservative" is a vague term that can have different meanings. I talk about that in another post:

'Conservative' is a misnomer. This movement is not really conservative at all. It would much better be described as the Fear-Greed Movement.

To call this movement conservative is to stand logic on its head. That is precisely the modus operandi of this movement – call everything by its opposite, in order to disguise their true intentions. They make a law designed to give corporate polluters free reign, and they call it the “Clear skies Act”. They invade and destroy a country, kill 5% of its people, and torture large numbers of them, all in the interest of bringing “democracy and freedom” to that country. And they call their efforts to prevent the American people from bringing lawsuits against corporations that screw them “tort reform”.

This movement is not 'conservative' at all, in any traditional sense of the term. I am conservative in many respects... I have always preferred saving my money to spending it on things that I don’t need. I am careful to limit my car driving miles because I’m worried about polluting our planet... Yet, in large part because I believe in these things, in today’s world I am considered very much the polar opposite of a conservative. Such is the Orwellian framework built by today’s so-called “Conservative” Movement.



Nevertheless, I generally use the term 'conservative' to describe these people because that's the term that they use to describe themselves, and that's the term by which they're known.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. Yeah, some of them really "believe" that crap.
And its just a belief in that. Its very much like Confucianism. Everyone does something according to an arbitrary protocol, and "magically", beyond all counter-examples, history and logic, the market endows the most good for the most people. There is definitely a free-market revival amongst young people attracted to the overall concept of libertarianism. Yes, I recall in college there were as many people studying Friedman economic books and libertarian political ideas as those who would spend their time reading the bible.

Now I certainly see free-market ideas used as a smoke screen to hide corporatism (as you mention), but there are most certainly irrational free-market believers who really think that a magic free market will solve as many problems as magic mormon underwear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. Well, I don't believe that any more than a small minority of economists believe it.
These are intelligent people, and they know how to assess evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #34
49. Intelligent people?
Who was the politician who said something like, "You don't have to pass an IQ test to get elected"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. I was talking about economists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. Ah yeah...
Got you on that one. Unfortunately, they aren't always the ones calling the shots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No.23 Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #26
36. Corporatism, does not equal free market capitalism.
What I believe is that we should be careful about conflating corporatism and free market capitalism. They may not be one and the same.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/128988.html

Although I can see why some corporatists would want us to believe that they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. I agree they're not exactly the same
But I also believe that free market capitalism that is taken to an extreme, which typifies so much of the Republican Party today (and even some Democrats), is mostly used as a smoke screen for corporative ends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No.23 Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. It's nice to agree with...
someone who is very capable of making poignant observations.

Perhaps, it will rub off on me.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. the OP covers both
And does a good job of explaining them. You do need to get past the first sentence.

I don't know of I would call "give me all your money" a "philosophy," though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. By and large by the response...
They seem to continue to use the same classification for two very unique schools of thoughts ("conservative"). I just think we need to be very clear about this, as a means to educate people behind the forces driving the economy (its not just Good vs Bad, but rather Good vs Bad vs Utter Shit). There is definitely not a single homogeneous group of conservatives. Instead, its a confused group of bastard children generated from corporatists raping free-market capitalists, who were then told by evangelicals that they couldn't get abortions.

And yes, it is a definite philosophy, which assumes that the drivers of industry, the elite, who inheireted their wealth (and genetics), are an extroirdinary breed of humans who lead nations to greatness and are responsible for all the good in the country. It assumes that the rich are rich for a reason (partially their genetics at that), and the ownerless are helpless without them to guide and employ them. Essentially, the ownerless, who are more than mere victims of the misfortune of being born to poor parents, are lesser beings and a subclass of humans. Following it perpetrates a pure form of extortion, which they feel they are right to exercise and have all the power to leverage. If the people do not constantly give in to their every whim, they are able/justified to withdraw all their help from society and let it wither. We must make concessions so they can lead us out of the forest and up the mountain. We are too poor, ignorant, unintelligent, etc, to do it ourselves.

It is, very much, a philosophy from the gutter. Believe it or not, pull all the layers away, and Geithner's plan is based upon these core principles. Not only does Geithner's plan mitigate the losses of the bank owners at the expense of the people, but it additionally subsidizes (bribes) purchases by private investors, for no other reason than to make them happy. It assumes that if investors are happy, they will "fix" this problem and help the people, as only they can. They *know* this plan will cost a lot (much more than buying the assets outright), but the price for the service of the investor class is worth it to Geithner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #22
43. I don't know
I don't believe that Reaganomics is a "philosophy," and I don't believe in "elites" behind the scene pulling the strings.

The "philosophy" was always a sales and marketing effort by industry. That is actually documented, and i will post it here if you like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
64. as promised
Edited on Fri Mar-27-09 02:29 PM by Two Americas
I said that I do not believe that there is a "philosophy" behind the right wing political movement and "conservative economics" and that this claim is well documented. Here is the documentation, for any who are interested. As I said "give us all your money" is not a political philosophy.

Mr. Anonymous and the Not-So-Spontaneous Birth of the Libertarian "Movement"



By anaxarchos on September 28, 2007

Disclaimer: This is not a conspiracy story, though it has all the elements of one. Anonymous shadowy figures, international "societies", complete political "ideologies" created for convenience alone, social institutions corrupted through the mere distribution of cash (science, politics, universities, governments and even the Nobel Prize), and a global strategy designed to "rule the world" - no doubt about it, this one is better than a novel. But, don't get carried away. There are no secret ceremonies or lizard people in this tale. Nor is it a story about groups named after Italian light fixtures or German beer. It is instead the story of how "everyday conspiracies" work.

Karl Marx wrote that the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of its ruling class. Looking backward, it is hard to dispute this observation, but how does it actually work? That is what our story is about. It starts with the businessman below and his simple frustration at the success of Marxism as an idea, first among his own workers and then amongst the American establishment whose wide-spread adoption of the appropriately conciliatory "New-Dealism" was entirely in response. In an economic system in which everything is reduced to a commodity, a man of means should be able to simply buy a counter-idea, shouldn't he? So it turns out...


Mr. Anonymous



William Volker, alias "Mr. Anonymous," alias the "First Citizen" of Kansas City, Missouri, "was an extremely modest, enormously wealthy home-furnishings tycoon. He became the unrecognized donor of thousands of gifts, large and small."

Volker was born on April 1, 1859 into a prosperous household in Hanover, Germany. At age 12, Volker's family immigrated to Chicago. At 17 he went to work for a picture frame manufacturer. With the death of his employer in 1882, Volker bought out the company and moved the enterprise to Kansas City. From there, his "little window shade business" grew into a national giant.

In 1911, 52 year old William Volker married. Returning from his honeymoon, he announced he had put one million dollars in his wife's name and, he said, intended to give the rest of his enormous fortune away. Over the next 36 years, he donated millions of dollars, much of it anonymously. When Volker died at age 88 on November 4, 1947, many schools, parks, and public spaces were named for the furnishings tycoon.

So why pick on this guy?



The answer is that the overwhelming priority of Volker's "philanthropy" was focused, not on public spaces but on reactionary ideology. Dismayed by the rise of Socialism in America and doubly dismayed by what he saw as the evolution of government and political thinking towards accommodation and a "new liberalism", eventually personified by the widespread adoption of the economic views of John Maynard Keynes and the New Deal policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Volker set out to create a new and much more reactionary "mainstream" ideology based loosely around his own ideas of "laissez-faire" capitalism (i.e. a largely unregulated economy) and social Darwinism (the pseudo-scientific notion that in society, unhindered competition would allow the "cream to rise to the top").

In truth, Volker was no great scholar or thinker. The ideology he set out to create was built upside down, starting only with a set of foggy conclusions for which he had a predisposition. From these conclusions, it was the task of Volker's considerable fortune to find a set of justifications, then an enabling ideology or "theory" that gave it all perspective and unity and, eventually, a true philosophical platform from which to launch the whole. But if this task was analogous to building the Great Pyramid, starting from the top, Volker was undaunted. He may not have had a brain but he had money... and he had a personal connection to one of the most reactionary sections of that most reactionary of organizations - the National Association of Manufacturers. Volker's "associates", who would all participate closely, included Jasper Crane of DuPont, B. E. Hutchinson of Chrysler, Henry Weaver of General Electric, Pierre Goodrich of B.F. Goodrich, and Richard Earhart of White Star Oil (which through many mergers and aquistions would eventually become Mobil Oil). Moreover, Volker had "influence" at the leading scholarly institution in his home town: The University of Chicago, founded by none other than John D. Rockefeller and created with a certain ideological "bent".

In 1932 Volker established the William Volker Fund and, with that, started on the road to becoming perhaps the most significant anonymous asshole of our times. In every way, William S. Volker was the true "father" of Libertarianism and Modern Conservatism.

For the first dozen years, the fund largely floundered. There is some evidence that Volker may have flirted with Fascism. That ideology though, which attracted such celebrities as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, was thought to have a limited future in America. In the face of Keynesian economics, widespread social spending, and the CIO, what was really required was a return to pre-New Deal economic policy and an anti-communist/anti-union social policy.

Eureka!



The breakthrough came in 1944, when Volker's nephew, Harold Luhnow, took over, first the business and then the Fund. In the same year, Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom was published. The book was a product of the "Austrian School" of economists, originating at the University of Vienna and first coming to modest prominence at the end of the 19th century in its attacks on Marxist and Socialist economics. Hayek's book was an almost mystical (and hysterical) defense of laissez-faire capitalism and the "free market". According to Hayek, market prices created a "spontaneous order, or what is referred to as 'that which is the result of human action but not of human design'. Thus, Hayek put the price mechanism on the same level as, for example, language." In turn, any attempt at regulation would inevitably lead to "totalitarianism" and in this, both Marxist and New Deal "socialism" were essentially similar. The theory was perfect . Volker and Luhnow had found their ideology. The cash began to flow.

In short order, the Volker Fund and its larger network arranged for the re-publication of Hayek's book by the University of Chicago (a recurring and important connection) despite the fact that it had been almost universally rejected by the Economics establishment. A year later, the book was published in serial form by the ultra-reactionary Readers Digest not withstanding the fact that it was supposed to be a "scholarly text", ordinarily inappropriate for the readership of the Digest, and despite the fact that it had also had been panned by literary critics. In 1950, the Fund arranged for Hayek to secure a position at the University of Chicago and when the University only granted an unpaid position, they arranged for the Earhart Foundation to pay him a salary. Hayek was only the first of a veritable flood of emigre, "scholars".

Recruiting the Homeless



Hayek's teacher in Vienna had been one Ludwig von Mises who, in turn, had been the student of Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk (who had gained fame for his attack on Marxist Economics) and who, in his turn, had been the student of Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian school. Each of these had published several books that were virulent attacks on Socialism and defended "pure capitalism". It was all very good. Von Mises book was called Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis and it too had been received with yawns when it was published in English in 1936.

While von Mises really had "taught" at the University of Vienna, his was an unpaid position. The University had turned him down on four separate occasions for a paid position. Not surprisingly, in 1940 the nearly destitute von Mises had emigrated to the United States. In 1945, an unpaid "visting professorship" was obtained for him at NYU while his salary was paid by "businessmen such as Lawrence Fertig". Fertig was an associate of the Volker Fund and a friend of Henry Hazlitt, the Fund's friendliest journalist. In all, they would fund von Mises for 25 years and von Mises never would need a "real job".

In fact, this was typical of the Fund's "bait and switch" tactic for developing resumes. In the United States, von Mises was the "famed economics professor from the University of Vienna". In Europe, he would become the "famous American economist from NYU".

Local Reinforcements



The economist Milton Friedman, during his fifteen minutes of fame, took the opportunity of the publication of his opus, Capitalism and Freedom to decry the shabby treatment that the likes of Hayek and Mises had received from the Economics "establishment". On his own similar reception, he wrote in the 1982 preface of his book:

"Those of us who were deeply concerned about the danger to freedom and prosperity from the growth of government, from the triumph of welfare-state and Keynesian ideas, were a small beleaguered minority regarded as eccentrics by the great majority of our fellow intellectuals.

Even seven years later, when this book was first published, its views were so far out of the mainstream that it was not reviewed by any major national publication--not by the New York Times or the Herald Tribune (then still being published in New York) or the Chicago Tribune, or by Time or Newsweek or even the Saturday Review--though it was reviewed by the London Economist and by the major professional journals. And this for a book directed at the general public, written by a professor at a major U.S. university, and destined to sell more than 400,000 copies in the next eighteen years."

It is attractive to believe that Friedman was really this foolish and that his expertise in the "politics of fame" was similar to his expertise in Monetary Policy. In fact, his separate acknowledgements of the importance of the Volker Fund belie this possibility. In truth, the Fund and its progeny identified Friedman early on, shepherded his career at the University of Chicago, subsidized him through a paid lecture series (which eventually were combined into Capitalism and Freedom), paid his way to Mont Pelerin, arranged for the serialization of his book by Reader's Digest, and bought a signifcant number of the books that Friedman was so proud of "selling".

Friedman was only one of dozens of such local "scholars" who were suddenly "discovered" through the efforts of the Fund.

The Fund also now began to recruit friendly young "future-scholars" and subsidize their development. Not only was the cause thus advanced, but a modest intelligence network became a part of the "Libertarian Movement". One such early recruit was Murray Rothbard, later to become famous as the "father" of "Left Libertarianism", "Libertarian anarchism", and "anarco-capitalism". Later much castigated for his "sellout to the Right-wing Republicans", Rothbard had, from the first, been intimately wrapped up in Anti-Communism, McCarthyism, the "Old Right", and the right-wing ideology of the Volker Fund. It was through the Fund that he became an associate of Ayn Rand and a student of Mises.

"Rothbard began his consulting work for the Volker Fund in 1951. This relationship lasted until 1962, when the VF was dissolved. A major part of Rothbard's work for the VF consisted of reading and evaluating books, journal articles, and other materials. On the basis of written reports by Rothbard and another reader - Rose Wilder Lane - the VF's directors would decide whether to undertake massive distribution of particular works to public libraries.

The VF also asked Rothbard to submit reports on particular questions, such as how to rank sundry economists in terms of friendliness to the free market, surveys of the literature on monopoly, Soviet wage structures, etc., etc. Rothbard's memos number several hundred, covering works in economics, history, philosophy, and political science. The memos, which range in length from one page to seventy pages, provide a window into the scholarship of the period - and Rothbard's views on that scholarship. They thereby shed much light on Rothbard's emerging worldview and his systematic defense of liberty."

They also shed "much light" on how the Fund decided which "scholars" to promote, and which to attack. Rothbard later called his work with the Volker Fund, "the best job I've ever had in my life".

Multiplying Like Rabbits



In support of the imported scholars and the new ideology, the Volker Fund also pioneered a process which would become the hallmark of the "Libertarian Movement". The Fund started to spin-off organizations by the boatload, each intended, not just to serve specific purposes but to give the appearance of many "independent" efforts spawned by a "mass" appeal. The list of "begats" is too numerous to chronicle but the first set are illuminating.

Among the very first "front organizations" of the Volker Fund was the "National Book Foundation". While the Foundation's affiliation to the Volker Fund was not hidden, it was circumspect enough to suggest, even to most "Libertarians", that it was independent. The fund began modestly enough by distributing free copies Eugene Boehm-Bawerk's works to thousands of libraries and universities across the country. As the Volker efforts geared up, the Foundation began to distribute millions of books from dozens of authors, all coming from the Fund's stables. Many educational "incentives" were initiated such as "teach a course on Hayek, get 10 (or 100) textbooks for free"...

The Foundation for Economic Education was spun out in 1946, under the leadership of Leonard Read, a leading figure in the Chambers of Commerce. The grand-daddy of all libertarian "think-tanks", the FEE initiated the original Mont Pelerin Society meetings. Its own publication, The Freeman, became the founding journal of "Libertarianism". The rent was paid by Volker.

The Institute for Humane Studies was created by Floyd "Baldy" Harper, the "ace recruiter" of the Volker Fund, in 1961. The IHS identified and subsidized "bright young students" and "promising scholars" friendly to the new "Libertarian" doctrine. Not only did the IHS fund thousands of "students", but it spawned dozens of similar organizations throughout the world. After the Volker Fund was finally closed, subsidies for the IHS shifted to some of the most reactionary organizations in America: The Scaife Foundation, Koch Family Foundations, The Bradley Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation.

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute was founded in 1953 to combat what they would eventually call "political correctness" and "'left-bias" in colleges and universities. The organization now consists of 50,000 college students and faculty and through its lavish subsidies, sponsors dozens of programs representing the entire spectrum of right-wing "Libertarian" causes. The first president of the ISI was a young William F. Buckley Jr.

The Earhart Foundation was created by and named for Richard Earhart of White Star Oil, one of Volker's original collaborators in the National Assosciation of Manufacturers. This foundation was used to subsidize various emigres and not only financed Hayek but also Eric Voegelin, yet another "Austrian". Through Voeglin, the Earhardt Foundation became connected with the infamous Leo Strauss and, since then, various "projects" of not just a "libertarian" but of a "neo-conservative" perspective have been beneficiaries of the Foundation. In addition, The Earhart Foundation helped to pioneer still another use of the newly-emergent Libertarian think-tanks. As the network of these think-tanks grew, they undertook not only to promote ideology but also specific points of policy, particularly in support of private corporations. The culmination of the Foundation's efforts in this direction came with the founding of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984. The Institute was initially a foremost proponent of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), heavily promoted by the Defense Industry, and later became the leading non-industry critic of "Climate Change". The CEO of the Institute is currently a registered lobbysist for ExxonMobil.

Through the list of organizations, above, the Volker Fund's near-biblical "begats" encompass nearly every single prominent individual and organization of the "Libertarian" and "New Conservative" movements of today.

The Not-So-Secret Society



In 1947, 39 scholars, mostly economists, with some historians and philosophers, were invited by Professor Friedrich Hayek to meet at Mont Pelerin, Switzerland, and discuss the state, and possible fate of classical liberalism and to combat the "state ascendancy and Marxist or Keynesian planning sweeping the globe". Invitees included Henry Simons (who would later train Milton Friedman, a future president of the society, at the University of Chicago); the American former-Fabian socialist Walter Lippmann; Viennese Aristotelian Society leader Karl Popper; fellow Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises; Sir John Clapham, a senior official of the Bank of England who from 1940-6 was the president of the British Royal Society; Otto von Habsburg, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne; and Max von Thurn und Taxis, Bavaria-based head of the 400-year-old Venetian Thurn und Taxis family.


If the above rings of "Bohemian Grove" and similar fodder for conspiracies, it is because informal "retreats" at out-of-the-way resorts are one of the favorite methods by which the wealthy of many countries formulate a common international policy. What distinguishes the Mont Pelerin Society, however, is that it did not consist primarily of the wealthy. Instead, it was comprised of a majority of marginal, thread-bare "scholars", united only by their common hatred of "socialism" and Keynesianism (which were one and the same for most of them) and sprinkled with only a handful of rich patrons and journalists. In fact the Mount Pelerin Society was organized as much by the Volker Fund as by Hayek himself and the Foundation paid the way for all 10 of the American "participants".

Once in Switzerland, the "scholars" agreed on their hatred of "socialism" but on little else except to meet yearly to "facilitate an exchange of ideas between like-minded scholars in the hope of strengthening the principles and practice of a free society and to study the workings, virtues, and defects of market-oriented economic systems."

From this not-so-secret-but-thoroughly-right-wing society's more than humble beginnings, the phoenix of laissez-faire capitalism would rise, propelled skyward by unlimited funds. Over a dozen of the scholars who could not previously get a job, a review, or a book deal would go on to win the "Nobel Prize in Economics" (this "epic" story will be told separately). More importantly, the Mont Pelerin Society would itself beget 500 foundations and organizations in nearly 80 countries... again with strategic contributions from Mr. Anonymous. Once transformed into an "international movement", there was no end to what was possible. One example tells the story.

Initiated at Mont Pelerin and copying the FEE, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was created in London in 1955. Serving as a conduit for both cash and "ideas", the IEA set about the task of "rejuvenating" the dead and decaying British Tories. By 1985, the "Iron Lady", Margaret Thatcher, would positively gush on the occasion of the Institute's 30th Anniversary: "You created the atmosphere which made our victory possible... May I say how thankful we are to those who joined your great endeavor. They were the few, but they were right, and they saved Britain." With that, the IEA begat the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which in turn created a network of over 50 "think-tanks" in more than 30 countries.

And what were the scale of these efforts? John Blundell, the head of the IEA, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation, and Atlas in 1990, would identify a rare failure in the Society's efforts. Shaking his head at the abortive attempt to subsidize academic "Chairs of Free Enterprise" in dozens of countries throughout the world, Blundell complained about wasting, "hundreds of millions, perhaps one billion dollars". This was just one initiative among many.

Oceans of Cash



Aaron Director was a lawyer and Ukrainian emigre whose sister had married Milton Friedman prior to the Second World War. That then became the connection which led to the Volker Fund's subsidy of Director and his association with the University of Chicago. He was one of the fund's "imports", alongside Von Mises. Director's collaborator at the University was Edward Levi who would eventually go on to become the President of the University and then Attorney General of the United States. Together, Director and Levi were instrumental in the development of the Chicago School of Economics, or the conquest by the Economics department of the School of Business and the Law School.

The Law School? What does law have to do with economics? The answer was everything according to Director, who developed a theory of "Law and Economics" (called, without tongue-in-cheek, the L&E "Movement'), stressing free-enterprise principles and the primacy of property law as well as measuring legal rulings with longer-term economic criteria. "He founded the Journal of Law & Economics in 1958... that helped to unite the fields of law and economics with far-reaching influence." The journal was, of course, funded in large part by what had now become a substantial network of Volker affiliates. Despite the fact that he himself wrote virtually nothing throughout his career, "Director influenced a generation of jurists, including Robert Bork, Richard Posner, Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist."

One part of what made such a thing possible was not just new territories in which to sell the tired old "economic" ideas, but also new benefactors who spread the message far and wide. In this case, perhaps the most important new "convert" was the munitions magnate, John M. Olin and his Foundation:

"...John M. Olin was disturbed by a building takeover at his alma mater, Cornell University. At the age of 80, he decided that he must pour his time and resources into preserving the free market system that had allowed him to acquire his own wealth. The Foundation is most notable for its early support and funding of the law and economics movement, a discipline that applies incentive-based thinking and cost-benefit analysis to the field of legal theory. Olin believed that law schools have a disproportionately large impact on society given their size and to this end decided to focus the majority of his funding there."

Between 1969 and 2005, when the Foundation disbanded, the John M. Olin Foundation disbursed no less than $370 Million, "primarily to conservative think tanks, media outlets, and law programs at influential universities. The Foundation is most notable for its early support and funding of the law and economics movement."

But that was not the only thing that the Olin foundation promoted. Through its contacts at the University of Chicago, the Olin Fund ran into political sciences professor Leo Strauss:

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism ("Epilogue").<2> The first was a "brutal" nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. These ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace it by force with a supreme authority under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.<4> The second type -- the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies -- was a kind of value-free aimlessness and hedonism, which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.<5> In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to revive classical political philosophy as a source by which political action could be judged.


Well, it was not exactly the same thing but it was close enough... and, with its further evolution, "neo-liberalism" would abandon the "classical liberals" in favor of medieval scholars, thus coming much closer to a "synergy". Meanwhile, for both, "classical political philosophy" was, of course, synonymous with political reaction. The unmentioned irony was that the critique of Straussianism, that it was "crudely anti-democratic, obsessed with secret meanings and in love with white lies told by powerful men to keep the rabble in line" applied neatly as a summation of the "classical liberalism" or "Libertarian" movement as a whole. In addition to its Libertarian mission, The Olin Foundation became a founder and one of the principal funding sources for the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Extending their reach, the inheritors of Mr. Anonymous' legacy, also set about creating umbrella organizations for Libertarian funding sources dedicated to funding the "counter-intelligentsia." These extended from newly created, shadowy and "anonymous" Foundations to the famous think-tanks (such as Cato, Hoover, and Hudson) to the infamous (such as the Scaife Foundation). As the network has grown, the financing of "scholars" has been supplemented by the adoption of campaigns, not just in the name of "Capitalism", "Freedom", and "Liberty" in general, but on behalf of individual capitalists in particular. Today there is virtually no public campaign, against anti-tobacco legislation, against environmental legislation, rejecting climate change theory, on behalf of HMOs and private health care, against pharmaceutical regulation and so on - outside of industry and trade associations - that does not originate within the network created or touched by Mr. Anonymous. Today the size of the cash flow is not counted in millions or hundreds of millions or in billions, but in tens of billions, and perhaps even more.

But, what about "ideas"?



In our search for cash and connections without parallel, it might be argued that we have missed the "great ideas" of Libertarianism. The simple explanation is that there are none. Beyond a pro forma agreement on the evils of Marxism, Keynesianism, and "big government" and a thoroughly mystical, near religious belief in capitalism and "free-markets", reduced to paper-thin slogans such as "Personal Freedom" and "Individual Liberty", there is no other point of consensus. Pressed beyond such platitudes, the "theoreticians" of this "movement" have always descended into the most bitter disagreements about the most substantial of issues. Such might easily be suspected of an "ideology" that embraces a political spectrum which includes right-wing Republicans, and neo conservatives and neo liberals and neo-Fascist Ayn Randians, and "classical Liberals" and Libertarian Party members, and "anarchists".

The economic historian, Jamie Peck, in setting out to write a history of the theories of the Austrian School, was dismayed to find that he could not find an "Aha moment" in that history, nor could he see substantial points of agreement between any of the authors (beyond the obvious), nor could he detect a coherent point-of-view that remained constant amongst any one of them for long. "There was nothing spontaneous about neo-liberalism; it was speculatively planned, it was opportunistically built, and it has been repeatedly reconstructed", wrote Peck.

We will deal with this subject in accompanying material, but for the moment it should be said that even the above misses the point. Beyond congenital disagreements, the embrace of Libertarian Economics as political slogan from the beginning meant that the "science" (and it is only as "economic science" that the ideology has ever had even nominal roots) was still-born, no matter how miserable its stock in trade may have turned out to be. Hayek said as much at the time of his "Nobel Prize". He complained that Serfdom. had ended his "career" as an "economist" and implied that it began his life as an "ideologist". No matter what illusions he may have harbored as to his own "destiny", the comment passes down to us as the complaints of a paid shill of the real Libertarian "science" - the science of propoganda, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Volker Fund - with Hayek only counting as just another whiney paid-professional, complaining about his job-title.

There is no evidence that the much larger irony ever occurred to Hayek:

Tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of millions of books, hundreds of journals, dozens of universities, tens of thousands of people and thousands of professorships, and so on in a network touching virtually everyone in the "Western Democracies" - all of it centrally planned, all of it subsidized, none of it capable of existing by itself in the commercial marketplace or in the "marketplace of ideas" and all of it failing dozens of times until hooked into the river of cash produced by the the simple subsidies of the rich designed to derail the "free" evolution of ideas as they were actually proceeding... is there any such example in all of human history of a "movement" so far at odds with its own self-proclaimed "principles"? No problem, though, for William S. Volker, for whom "belief" was always optional. Mr. Anonymous got exactly what he paid for.

For anyone who would attempt to understand class societies, the unmediated slogans of those same societies are the worst possible places to begin. For feudal societies, slogans such as "Chivalry", "Honor", "Fealty", "Chastity", "Virtue" and the like, underlay a social fabric that was monstrous, arbitrary, and treacherous. In most cases the slogans hid social truths which were the exact opposite of their rhetorical claims. The cruelty of the joke was not fully apparent until the end times of feudalism itself or, perhaps, even after.

In our own times, the slogans which have replaced these are those of "Freedom", "Liberty", "Democracy", "Enterprise", "Individuality", and so on. It is impossible to know the meaning of these as given and even more unlikely that one may make of them as one may wish. In the present society, they are like virgin forests that one may stumble upon while walking. No matter how pristine and unfettered such may appear, in our contemporary social system that forest is inevitably someone's private property and is thus absolutely resistant to any other appropriation.

So too, it is the same with "Freedom" and "Liberty". No matter how one may "choose" to think of them, in truth they have only one source and one meaning.

The current stakeholder for those terms is the anonymous asshole above, William Volker. He mined the ore, refined the technique, processed the product, and merchandised the result; finally sending the finished commodity out on rivers of cash, no less so than Henry Ford did with his automobiles. As with all other industrial Barons of his time, that he knew nothing of the actual ideas, processes, and practices meant nothing at all. He bought them, he paid for them, he owned them, and in the process, he spawned the liberty industry, a multi-billion dollar monopoly which today owns "the marketplace of ideas". So too, just as with Ford, the complete legacy of his "works" becomes apparent only now.

Notes and a Postscript:

As far as a postscript goes, we end as we began - with yet more fodder for conspiracy theorists. The William S. Volker Fund closed up shop in 1974, secure in the fact that it's "mission" had been taken up by others. The last millions in the Fund were passed on to the ultra-conservative Hoover Institution. What were not passed on were the files of the Volker Fund, which mysteriously disappeared. The entire paper trail documenting where the money had come from, how it was spent and who was "touched" by it, all of this disappeared with a "poof". Three decades after he died, Volker seems to have guaranteed his anonymity in perpetuity and to this day nothing but the vague outlines of this story are known. And so it goes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
16. K&R! interesting and thoughtful post, as always; thank you!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
18. Nicely done.
You really laid it all out in a very clear and concise manner. I hope you don't mind if I link to this post elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #18
40. Thank you -- That would be great if you spread it around
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
19. K & R. I would pull Dean Baker into this mix as well.
Edited on Thu Mar-26-09 01:13 AM by chill_wind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
51. Thank you - Do you know if he's commented on Geithner's bailout plan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Yes-- all along the way and Bush/Paulson's too. Here's March 23
Edited on Thu Mar-26-09 09:25 PM by chill_wind


The last-ditch effort to save Wall Street will hurt taxpayers and still require another big bailout down the line

*
o Dean Baker
o guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 March 2009 19.00 GMT

Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner's latest bank bailout plan is another Rube Goldberg contraption intended to funnel taxpayer dollars to bankrupt banks, without being overly transparent about the process. The main mechanism is a government guarantee that would allow investors to buy junk with a 12-to-1 leverage ratio, where they only risk the downside on their own investment, not the borrowed money.

Ostensibly, this is supposed to reveal the "true" price for junk assets, as investors compete at auctions to buy assets under the new rules. But this story doesn't pass the laugh test. All we will really learn is what price investors are willing to pay for these junk assets when they are given a large subsidy from the government to buy them. In reality, this plan is a way to use taxpayer dollars to get investors to pay far more than these assets are worth in order to give more money to bankrupt banks.

full text - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/mar/23/timothy-geithner-toxic-asset-plan

and onsite: The Geithner Plan: Billions More for Failed Banks

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-geithner-plan:-billions-more-for-failed-banks/

(Stiglitz is on his advisory board)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No.23 Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
21. What Paulson and Geithner have in common is...
they both want to take our tax monies and give it to the boys at the top... with the expectation that the benefits from doing so will trickle down to us at the bottom.

And you thought that trickle down economics was strictly a conservative thingie, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. But where they differ...
Is Paulson (originally) actually, after shoveling out the money, wanted the people to own the assets, and mitigate loss on bad assets with profits from the good ones.

Geithner, on the other hand, wants the government to absorb almost all loss (and touch almost none of the profit), and do so in order to provide and additional bribe to the investor class. His plan assumes that if the banks AND the private investors get reach-arounds and blow jobs, their brilliance and benevolence will figure out how to plant a dime in a Detroit garden that will grow into a million dollar money tree. Its a bit more faulty, in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No.23 Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Paulson's and Geithner's differing versions of trickle-down financing...
Edited on Thu Mar-26-09 03:17 AM by No.23
reminds me of something that Ralph Nader once said (and which many folk enjoy misquoting).

"there isn't enough of a difference between the Democratic party and the Republican Party" (versus the ever popular "there isn't a difference").

Oh, sure, Paulson and Geithner certainly have some differences in how they prefer to implement trickle-down financing.

But is it enough of a difference?

I don't believe it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
28. OMG this just has me giggling like I'm losing my mind:
<snip>

Like Krugman, Reich also sees much similarity in the Geithner and Paulson plans (though he does say that Geithner’s plan is better). He explains how, through the actions of the Federal Reserve, Geithner’s plan could stick it to the American taxpayer for trillions:

<snip>

Oh shit, 'COULD stick it...'

That horse has left the barn, that ship has sailed, (insert trite but accruate old saw here).

Could stick us. That's great.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #28
39. He's talking about trillions MORE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
30. Thanks so much - it is beyond surreal that we have a 'liberal' board defending this plan

I was so naive.

I thought it was only Republicans who blindly followed a leader. This election has opened my eyes.

Obama's economic plan is horrendous. And, it won't work. And, ultimately, it will rebound HARD on Obama. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but that is now impossible. He is a corporatist. He is vested in reviving a unethical, unfair, corrupt, and broken system. He had the opportunity to rally the American people and go in a new direction.

He did nothing of the kind.

I guess the system will have to shatter in a zillion pieces for real reform to happen. It's coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Yeah, Im sorta coming up with the same thoughts
After this plan, Ive pretty much lost all faith in Obama being the man he portrayed himself to be at times. Yes, he does good on some social issues (stem cell research to name one), but the overall model he is approaching this with is as disgusting as destructive. And despite all valid defenses of him, I only clearly respond, Obama is not *that* stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #30
41. I just don't know what to make out of all this
I especially don't know what to make of Obama -- with regard to this bailout in particular.


Is he naive? (He doesn't seem so)

Has he been threatened? (That may be my number one guess)

Is he a corporatist at bottom? (He doesn't seem so)

Is he planning something beneath the surface that no one could imagine? (Hard to see what that could be)

Or are all these liberal economists wrong? (I doubt that very much)

Or is it a combination of several of these things to varying degrees?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
42. look what happens when a well meaning lefty questions authority
and finds an excellent article to defend the ability to dissent. 34 Recs yet banished from the greatest page. That is the first time I have seen this happen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5326922
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. That's surprising to me
I've had a handful of posts taken off the GP, but with more justification than yours, I think. I don't understand why that happened. Could have it been some of the follow-up conversations on the thread? (I didn't look at them all).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. perhaps
but it does not really surprise me. I am glad to see this on the Greatest! Very worthy and well done.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FailureToCommunicate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Well done.
Edited on Thu Mar-26-09 03:34 PM by FailureToCommunicate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larry Ogg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #45
61. Your OP’s get moved when
The Authoritarian sheep dogs start squealing like pigs about how you are violating the information mangers right to censor or manipulate the facts so as opinions remain favorable towards the authoritarian leaders; or when you violate the rules of partisan party paradigm group think.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #42
54. What the-- Did you get an explanation from the banisher?
I'd love to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. nope
any communication I get I only get yelled at for being a radical, non conformist. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. Have we compiled an approved reading discussion list for DU yet?
Edited on Fri Mar-27-09 08:00 AM by chill_wind
I wish the thought police would just get one together. I'm sure the new list would be a lot shorter than the ever-growing shit list. Such a lean list of pre-approved discussion fare would simplify and sanitize the membership interaction here immensely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8295552
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FailureToCommunicate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
48. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
56. "You can only recommend. . ." So, here's the kick. Thank you, Time for change, for
this well-stated assessment.

I would like to point out that one liberal economist, Nouriel Roubini, did give a thumbs up to Geithner's plan BUT with lots of caveats and some visions of potential disaster if it fails. See the link if interested: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_give_credit_to_timothy_geithners_new_tox.html

I got the link from HuffPo.

Why is it so hard for some of us Democrats to admit that our President and Congress are controlled by the moneyed elites? The evidence is right here in front of us on full display, but I guess it's easier to believe that a good man like President Obama could not be beholden to more powerful individuals and groups.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. Thank you bertman -- I can see why it's difficult for people
After 8 years of the most disastrous presidency in our history, we were all so much looking forward to someone to lead us out of this mess. To then turn around and see fault in our new president is difficult indeed. I have to admit that it is difficult for me as well.

But still, as you say, we need to be able to see what is right there in front of us, and we need to be able to dig a little too. If we can't do that, then we're doomed to repeat the worst parts of our history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anaxarchos Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
57. A few comments...

1) We are describing Political Economy here. That is what it was called. Not only is it a Social Science (i.e. "Soft Science") but it was born of an intimate interaction between politics and economics. Modern liberalism is born of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and others. Bentham WAS an economist (the "father of utilitarianism"), as was J.S. Mill's father, James Mill. J.S. Mill was mentored by David Ricardo, second only to Adam Smith in his importance as a "classical" economist. Not only is it proper to talk of "liberal economics" but it is virtually impossible to separate them ("liberal economics" from "liberalism"). The existence of "conservative economics" (in truth, there have been many) is much more debatable.

2) "Liberal" in the context of economics is in no way the equivalent of "left-wing". This is the real "traditional liberals", a label which the Libertarians attempted to usurp. The Liberal Economists were not "Left", except on some social issues on which they ranged from open-minded to eccentric. In turn, Keynes was well to the right of the classicals in many of his opinions. He was "left" only in comparison to the Marshallites who dominated economics when he began to write (yes, it's an Oxford/Cambridge thang).

3) Krugman, Stiglitz, and Galbraith are "neo-Keynesians", which puts them to the right of Keynes himself (who, in turn, wasn't "left"). Read their biographies sometime. Krugman was on Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank. This ain't Move-On or KOS.

The real split is between some fairly "conservative economists" (your "liberals") and a very small group of pro-business technicians, corporate tools, and discredited right-wingers. Real "liberal" (or "left" by today's definition - maybe "left liberal") economists aren't even in this "debate", let alone gen-u-ine "leftists".

That is how far the spectrum has "shifted" to the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. Thank you! "That is how far the spectrum has 'shifted' to the right."
Bears repeating. And we are seeing it right here in our own midst at times to a degree many of us never thought we would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. Thank you for that information
I don't know enough about economics to categorize economists are finely as you did. I used a very broad definition of liberal economist:

"Liberal economists believe that sometimes, for the good of a nation’s people, government intervention is needed in order to make up for the failure of so-called “free-markets” to ensure an outcome that benefits people and is fair."

That may not be leftist, but at least it is a good start in the right direction. It does seem that today's split, as you say, is between them and the "conservative economists", which seem to be no more than corporate tools -- wittingly or unwittingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terisan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
65. Thank you for this analysis. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 25th 2024, 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC