> On Feb 3, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:
>
> I'm inclined here to take Kalecki's discussion of what he called political business cycles as a starting point.
> In his famous 1943 article, "Political Aspects of Full Employment" (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/kalecki220510.html), he wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
> In that article Kalecki did not explore the roles that different political parties might play in this process. In the US, both the Democrats and the GOP have, at different times, been willing to use macroeconomic policies to promote economic expansion, and both parties have been willing to use maractoeconomic policy to slow down the economy too, but it seems to me that over the long-term, the Democrats have been more inclined to use such policy tools to promote economic expansion than the Republicans. And the GOP has been more inclined to promote restraint.
Yes, and manifestly because of their respective social bases. The Democrats are supported by the urban masses, their activists drawn from the ranks of organized workers, blacks, Hispanics, and other national minorities, liberal intellectuals, feminists, gays, environmentalists, etc. While the DP, like the Republican Party, is funded and controlled by corporate interests, it is subject to pressure from its supporters to engage in public spending and to regulate the economy in their interests. Less so today than when the masses were more politically conscious and active in the 30's, but still a factor nonetheless.
On the other hand, as we know, the GOP is based on mainly white small propertyholders, , unorganized workers, and social conservatives outside the big cities. They favour cuts in public spending directed at "alien" others, especially non-whites, and a corresponding reduction in their taxes. They act either out of self-interest or ignorance of where their interests lie or some combination of both.