[WS:] This raises more questions than answers. Why did not the bourgeoisie made that decision in the 1930s? Or more precisely, why was the FDR administration successful in implementing a large scale fiscal policy, why is such a policy considered a "political non-starter?" That question is not being answered by Krugman & Wells either.
I would like to reiterate my "organic expert consensus" hypothesis as a possible explanation. The bourgeoisie, just like the working class, is neither united, nor has a uniform concept of what its interests are. They are interested in making money and maintaining their strategic position (as the working class does), but they cannot possibly know the impact of every policy development or proposed solution when things do not go as expected. Instead, they rely on the “organic expert class” (thank you Gramsci) – people who, in the words of John Kenneth Galbraith, provide the needed conclusions to those in the position to pay for them.
The role of economic policy experts expanded greatly with the FDR administration. However, the prevailing view among experts brought on board by FDR (despite conservative opposition) was along the Keynesian and social policy lines. And since these policies validated themselves in practice, i.e. saved capitalism from its own excesses, they gained legitimacy and became a new consensus of the expertocracy.
That consensus started to erode in the 1970s. This created the opening for a new breed of experts, those preaching neo-liberalism. The neo-liberal ideology was feeding off the anti-statist sentiments of the new yuppie class and also “legitimation crisis” (Habermas) preached by the left. This new neo-liberalism slowly dominated not just economics departments, but also law and political science departments, thus creating new cadres of policy experts with a neo-liberal bent. And of course this new neoliberal school of thinking gained legitimacy during Reagan and Clinton administration – thus becoming the “new consensus” that replaced the old Keynesian/social policy guard. This consensus spread internationally with the Americanization of the academe in Europe and Asia.
>From this point of view, it is not as much “bourgeoisie deciding” but
rather the organic expert class serving the state and the capital
deciding what is “politically feasible.” I am pretty sure that
politicians, especially Democrats, go pretty much with what various
policy experts tell them – they may modify that but not defy it. I
think that right wing Republicans, with their knee jerk
anti-intellectualism, may rely more on their own political instincts
than the mainstream Democrats – which I think makes them more
successful in electioneering – but in the end it is policy wonks and
expertocracy that feed the “acceptable” solutions to the ruling class
and politicians.
In a way, it is like a multiple choice test. Experts formulate the problem and provide a rather limited number of possible answers for the test takers to choose from. If the correct answer is not among those supplied by the “organic expert class” – it is not “politically feasible.”
Wojtek
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2010, at 11:00 AM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>
>> It's not the printing that's the problem, it's what the fabricated money will be used for that's the problem.
>>
>> They will not be using it to create jobs, fix roads, etc.
>
> As a friend of mine recently put it, the bourgeoisie has decided that they want capital-friendly monetary stimulus, and not more working-class-friendly fiscal stimulus.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>