The Language of Betrayal

[Seth Ackerman]

> ----------
> From: 	Nathan Newman[SMTP:nathan at newman.org]
> Reply To: 	lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Sent: 	Monday, November 27, 2000 10:45 PM
> To: 	lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: 	Re: The Language of Betrayal
> 
> ----- 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
> 
Nathan, I think you're the one who's abandoning progressive political goals.
It used to be that people on the left believed in fighting for full
employment and thought monetary policy was a conerstone of that fight.
Remember Humphrey- Hawkins or the New Deal takeover of the Fed?

But the Clintonoids have totally surrendered to the bankers on monetary
plicy. Clinton has been the most pro-Fed president since WWII. He hasn't
once publicly challenged Greenspan's policies -- even when they deserved it,
i.e., the 1994 rate hikes -- for fear of losing Wall Street's confidence.

But in the mid-1990's, Greenspan decided to abandon the most regressive,
anti-working-class policy the government had -- the use of monetary policy
to keep unemployment high and wages low. And you dismiss it because it was
done by a Republican, so you and the Clintonoids can't take credit for it.

David-Bacon, the minimum wage, a decent NLRB -- those are all great.
Congratulations. But they wouldn't accomplish much in an economy with 7%
unemployment. 

Seth