Populism, Racism, Conspiracism, Marxism

Peter Kilander peterk at enteract.com
Sat Nov 20 23:09:48 PST 1999



>Max, what is democratic money? A completely dependent, as opposed to a
>completely independent Fed? Or something else entirely?
>
>If you've already answered this, feel free to send me to the archives,
>although date and subject line clues would be appreciated.
>
>Michael

Yoshie started a thread on it back on the 13th: http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/9911/0777.html

Sawicky said: "Democratic money boils down to two things: a monetary policy dedicated to tight, near-inflationary labor markets; and the regulation of credit allocation to prevent discrimination, and to promote investment in under-served areas and to under- financed populations. That's the populist 'money' thing in a nutshell."

and

Doug sez in response to above: [clip]
>* Democratic money boils down to two things: a monetary policy
> dedicated to tight, near-inflationary labor markets;

"Then you're talking about changing the balance of class forces between K and L. It's cowardly and devious to talk about low interest rates and not talk about the real social consequences you're after. Central bankers understand this very well, even if their critics don't, or pretend not to (like Jamie Galbraith's odd critique of the Fed as being "stupid," which it certainly isn't).

The "near" modifier is interesting. Why not inflationary? Does the inflation, or the proximity to inflation, have anything to do with the altered balance of class forces?


> and the
> regulation of credit allocation to prevent discrimination, and
> to promote investment in under-served areas and to under-
> financed populations.

The problems with "under-served areas" are that public investment is too low and with "underserved populations," that their market incomes are too low. Lending becomes a substitute for what should be a strategy of expropriation. [end clip]

Let me add that Clinton recently watered down the Community Reinvestment Act which regulates "credit allocation to prevent discrimination, and [promotes] investment in under-served areas and to under-financed populations." Along with Clinton's "welfare reform" this demostrates how easily reforms can be taken away. Social democratic reforms and loose money are good, obviously, in that they ease the pressure on the working class and poor, but in the long term the goal should be to significantly alter the balance of power between K and L which entails making some radical reforms, both political and economic.

Peter K.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list