« Why Justice Entails Empathy | MBH's Blog | Health Care: Left-Libertarianism vs. Right-Libertarianism »
How the Right's Message is Self-Defeating
Eric Cantor expresses the Right's strategy: this economy belongs to Barack Obama.
Our knee-jerk response is wrong. We want to say, "No, Bush screwed up the economy," or "No, the banks screwed up the economy."
This reaction is a trap.
Here's the truth. An economy does not belong to anyone. An economy is the sum total of people interacting and exchanging.
To mis-understand that, is to mis-understand a free-market. So, our reaction ought to be: Eric Cantor does not know what a free-market is.
Eric Cantor is a symbol for the far Right. Let's unify in our critique of this movement.
(1) The Right champions free-markets.
(2) Free-markets are the sum total of people interacting and exchanging.
(3) The Right believes a single person can own a free-market.
Therefore, (4) The Right cannot conceptualize a free-market.
Our knee-jerk response is wrong. We want to say, "No, Bush screwed up the economy," or "No, the banks screwed up the economy."
This reaction is a trap.
Here's the truth. An economy does not belong to anyone. An economy is the sum total of people interacting and exchanging.
To mis-understand that, is to mis-understand a free-market. So, our reaction ought to be: Eric Cantor does not know what a free-market is.
Eric Cantor is a symbol for the far Right. Let's unify in our critique of this movement.
(1) The Right champions free-markets.
(2) Free-markets are the sum total of people interacting and exchanging.
(3) The Right believes a single person can own a free-market.
Therefore, (4) The Right cannot conceptualize a free-market.
Advertisement
I'm glad you agree that we can't just pin the current recession and credit crisis on Bush.
November 3, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I do pin most of the current recession and credit crisis on Bush.
November 4, 2009 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know you do, and that's unfortunate that you don't see the bigger picture. My comment, however, was directed at the person who wrote the blog. When people hate Bush so strongly I don't think they can look at something objectively. They can't say that many people were primary causes of the problems. And maybe people's policies and actions, including Bush and Obama, helped the economy recover. The economy is bigger than just one person.
November 4, 2009 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Bill, but Douche extended the free-market-capitalism idea to it's fullest, which is idiocy. He mirrored Hoover's economic policies, and got the same results. Epic fail for the Douche administration.
We do see the bigger picture. Completely free markets, without regulation are doomed to boom and bust cycles, there's no way around it, and any economy that is avoiding these huge boom-and-bust cycles has already figured that out.
The economies that have regulated their markets effectively have avoided this to the extent that they aren't involved in our economy. This is why much of Europe and Canada aren't as badly off as we are.
You're a dope, Bill. Read more, educate yourself, and try an argument that holds some water.
November 4, 2009 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which economies are you referring to? Iceland collapsed, Ireland is in trouble, England, Holland, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, all are in trouble. Eastern Europe, Central Europe are facing major currency problems. Look at long term growth rates and long term unemployment rates and tell me which 'managed' economy performs better than ours. The Soviet Union tried to plan and manage their economy, with disastrous results. Our problems are usually traced to government policies, not the lack of them.
November 4, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Credit Default Swaps? Mortgage tranches? Phony triple A ratings? Huge bonuses for short term income for taking long term risks? Taking out life insurance on your workers and opposing health insurance for them?
November 4, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I'm not basing my opinion on hatred for Bush, MCB. It stems from countless hours reading stuff like the Bulletins, Briefs and Guidance publications issued by the OCC and the US Treasury, including the PWG for Financial Markets garbage.
Perhaps the best example starts with the Feb. 2007 AGREEMENT AMONG PWG AND U.S. AGENCY PRINCIPALS ON PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES REGARDING PRIVATE POOLS OF CAPITAL.
Under the section heading entitled: Systemic Risk Principles is this gem:
continued ....
November 4, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then in the 3Q of 2007, the OCC releases it's Quarterly Report on Bank Derivatives Activities, which describes why we all should not worry about derivatives:
Yet, it turns out that both those things could not be true because a mere few months after the Don't Worry, Be Happy report and one year after the PWG agreement was finalized, we get this out of the OCC:
Comptroller Dugan Outlines Steps In Response to Losses by Banks and Investors Holding Tranches of Securities Considered Safe.
No kidding? And just for good measure, he also said:
Apparently, they didn't discipline and regulate themselves very well and can' be relied on. And the people that were making sure there was compliance had no fucking clue what they were dealing with. But no matter, don't rely on credit agencies (or market discipline, he should have added).
November 4, 2009 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I don't understand your point. You started talking about "private pools" and then went to derivatives and ended with CDO's.
CDO's were definitely a problem, but they aren't really related to private pools or the types of derivatives discussed in the OCC's report.
November 4, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does "private pools of capital" (ie Venture Capital, Private Equity and Hedge Funds) have to do with the credit crisis?
The problem was with the big banks, the mortgage lenders, the securitizers, Congress, Fannie & Freddie, etc, etc.
November 4, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's because you can't conceptualize a free market.
November 4, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent blog, MBH.
November 4, 2009 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gracias!
November 4, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see you back, MBH!
I partly agree. A president - or even Congress - only affects the broader economy so much. I don't think Bush was primarily responsible for the mess before 09, but he did make things worse than they might have been. And the question now is whether Obama is doing the right things to improve the economy. THe right thinks he's gotten the government too involved in the free market (stimulus, bailout, hcr, etc ), the left not enough.
So where I'd disagree is on this simplistic scale of more vs less free markets. And where the right is incoherent is the Bush administration policies of massive subsidies to the banks. The biggest government intervention in the markets - in the history of the US - was done by the GOP. So, who's the socialist now...?
November 4, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Minor quibble, but socialism is not giving money from gov. taxes to the rich, nor is waging war for corporate interests which are in turn wealthy interests.
November 4, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I know you were just expressing sarcasm but I wanted to say what I said anyway...
November 4, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that more vs. less free-markets is the wrong framing. Like Thera is saying, freedom has natural limitations. So, maybe it would be more apt to reference more vs. less accurately aligned freedoms within their own natural limitations. And so when we talk about a 'free-market' we really mean: optimal distribution of power amongst people.
November 4, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right does want to own the word "freedom" however. And that word is thrown around by them as if "freedom" is a limitless quality. Well it's not! Your freedom and mine limit each other. In a society which accords some the "freedom" to trample on others or a market which as termed "free" when it's not, then "freedom" becomes just a slogan, a means of oppression really.
I am fed up with misplaced propaganda in the service of so-called "freedoms" - when a society can really only function on the basis of Justice balancing the need for individual freedom with communal virtues such as brotherhood and equality and so on.
Thanks for addressing this issue. And I look forward to an even more nuanced discussion of this.
I may not have done it perfectly but I did a blog on this a while back. (one reason I rarely blog anymore is because, truly, I've said what I needed to)
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/02/is-freedom-possible-without-ju.php
November 4, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
well said!
November 4, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yez, I can stomp on people because it is a free country is not the hallmark of a free society.
November 4, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
As per usual, you're so right. The concept freedom is rooted in the concept equality of power. The Right up-roots freedom. Not only do they mis-use the word, they strip it of its meaning.
Your blog -- which I can't believe I missed -- reminds me of Wittgenstein's private language argument. Questions like "how do I know I'm not dreaming?" are nonsense because the language itself is rooted in communal exchange. If all language presupposes communal exchange, then to ask ego-centered questions is to -- grammatically speaking -- ignore the Subject.
The ab-use of freedom is the most frequent of these mistakes.
And yeah, you've said all that needs to be said. But your sense is so weighty! I strongly believe that you can always paint more and more on any canvas. And the activity of your brush is so inspiring! Always!
November 4, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very kind words, MBH. But I suspect that others can also paint on those same canvasses. I'll chime in when I can. But please, steal any of my ideas - they are open source! :-)
Sometimes I think I was on a private journey, though writing blogs - in a process of trying to understand politics and values and community-building. Currently I'm thinking more about how the right has captured Christianity in particular and turned it inside out. Same kind of thing, but even worse in some ways. (But that's not the kind of thing I can pursue at TPM. And in a sense I've already worked that out in my head some time ago.)
I will write if I have something to say and/or I feel what I have to say is not being said anywhere else. I "gave myself" to an intense process - and did my best to write about issues that were close to my heart. I'm proud of the record of that process. But right now I really have very little to say. At least in public forums like this one.
Peace be with you. Follow whatever path you feel drawn to.
November 4, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink