The Language of Betrayal

Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org
Mon Nov 27 19:45:21 PST 2000


----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Sawicky" <sawicky at epinet.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>

NN: And you wonder why I find the LBO denigration of the progressive movements so irritating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-If someone says X is an -important factor in the economic boom, and -I see no evidence for such a statement, -pointing this out does mean I am -"denigrating" X.

Max, fine, you think progressive movement are swell and fine, but are just abject failures at accomplishing any of their stated goals. And the goals they accomplish - such as the EITC, labor policy improvements, minimum wage raises, etc. - had nothing to do with improving the wages of low-income workers.

And that was what this whole thread was about. To reprint Brad's original comment and Seth's attack that I responded to:


> From: Brad DeLong[SMTP:delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU]
>
> Yes. But look on the bright side! 4% unemployment. A bunch of
> after-tax money transferred to the working poor via the EITC. The
> first sustained growth in low-end real wages in a generation. And at
> least a halting of the rise in income inequality if not a reversal in
> relative inequality trends.

-Three out of four of these are mostly Alan Greenspan's doing.

You, Seth and Doug argue that none of the improvements for low-income workers were significantly impacted by progressive groups or progressive policy changes.

How is that not a denigration of the efforts of the progressive groups who fought for those policy changes?

-- Nathan Newman



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list