[lbo-talk] Economic determinism

Marv Gandall marvgandall at videotron.ca
Tue Sep 22 15:27:13 PDT 2009


Charles writes:


> Job One The only way Obama can pull his presidency back from the brink
> By John B. Judis New Republic September 22, 2009
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: It's the economy stupid ? (smile)
>
> We are close to the next year governor races of course. Not that O
> will be reelected, but we _are_ a long way from the next Pres
> election.
>
> Finally, isn't a bit of a myth that the President can turn the economy
> around. The government doesn't run this economy, which doesn't make
> the article's point untrue, just that O is at the mercy of the
> "Invisible Hand" , no ?
============================== Why couldn't the administration have let some of the big banks, insurers, and auto companies fail - I'm not persuaded Armegeddon would have resulted - and redirected the stimulus towards a massive program of investment and job creation in infrastructure and emerging industries? It's not so much the "invisible hand" of the market as the very visible resistance of the market to government ownership and spending which deterred the administration from going in this direction.

Of course, the relationship of forces between reformers and Capital is an "objective condition" which needs to be taken into account in developing policy, but I think the incoming administration was well placed after the election to use the Presidency and Congress to alter that relationship somewhat and to push through some of the reforms it promised during the campaign. Unlike the New Deal, however, it was too timid or too clever for it's own good to exploit the opportunity, and there was no mass movement to propel it forward. Now the political right and the capitalists have seized the initiative, and the administration is caught in an electoral trap of it's own making.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list