Just to prove I don’t plan to dog Hillary at every turn, I’ll stick up for her remark on the un-centrality of business firms in creating jobs. Republicans would like to turn it into another “you didn’t build that” moment, which worked so well for President Mitt Romney. With no customers — consumption spending by individuals or governments — business firms would have no . . . business. With nothing to buy, of course, we would all be hunters and gatherers, like in The Walking Dead. So this is unavoidably a two-sided proposition. Remember supply and demand?
The ulterior motive of the GOP’s exhortations is to reduce taxes on capital and the rich, ostensibly to increase employment. Ergo “supply-side economics.” What is nearly beyond dispute is that presently the volume of customers continues to be held back in the wake of the Great Recession and in the midst of the Sucktastic Recovery. The most relevant remedy is more Federal, state, and local government spending, financed by more Federal debt. Unfortunately this is politically out of bounds, but not just because of Republicans.
When Democrats crow about reduced deficits under Obama, they are really endorsing a policy of job-killing fiscal restraint. Talking about the need for more jobs and a cupful of public investment is not adequate inoculation against generalized deficit delirium (GDD). If you propitiate GDD you foreclose future fiscal activism, in the event that it ever becomes politically possible.
The Republicans have a sneakier, more politically effective approach. They oppose deficits in principle but enable them in practice, since tax cuts and defense spending don’t count as factors that increase deficits. The opposition garners approval from idiotic, uncritical journalists, and the enabling wins them the affection of their constituents.
Under this political dynamic, fiscal activism becomes available to the Republicans, but off-limits to Democrats. Democrats surrender the liberal economic agenda, and poor white folks get herded into the GOP. Ain’t life grand?
For the long version of this sermon, see Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein.
I have to start by saying I fully expect Hillary Clinton (HRC) to win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, and when she runs, I fully expect to vote for her. In spite of this, I would bet cash money that somebody reacting to this post will say, “Bleagh, you must want Ted Cruz to be president.”
The subject of this post is the futile attempted take-down of my friend Doug Henwood’s Harpers article (subscription required) by Gene Lyons, in The National Memo. I don’t know Lyons. I recommend his saucy web site, for which some friends write.
First some remarks about Henwood. If you’ve followed this site you know my “Anybody but Hillary” theme. My point in a nutshell is I want to see some competition for the nomination that includes meaningful conversation about the purpose of the Democratic Party. So anybody willing to challenge HRC and interrupt the coronation is welcome. HRC is politics as usual, and politics as usual is killing us. If you are a serious progressive you have to want to open up this process, and I don’t mean to provide some kind of toothless sparring partner.
The value of the article for me is to elaborate how completely ordinary a political hack HRC has become. Like her college boyfriend, she had some potential to turn out differently, acknowledged in the article, but here we are. The article is certainly polemical. It doesn’t pretend to be otherwise. It’s not scholarship, it doesn’t pretend to be dispassionate. Politics ain’t beanbag, as the cliché goes. I see no obligation on Henwood’s part to be fair. Are politicians fair to their adversaries? Of course they aren’t. Accuracy is another matter. We do like accuracy here.
I concur with the article’s premise, which I take to be not that HRC is some secret right-winger, but that she is an empty suit. Her currency is the hackneyed rhetoric of modern national politics. She has no vision. Obama has a poetic command of this rhetoric. HRC is less adept. In both cases the substance is either lacking, or what substance there is cannot be defended.
Two reservations about the piece. Dick Morris is overused, even as Henwood is explicit about his lack of credibility. I would have preferred to see less of such a congenitally dishonest person as a source. The article does not depend on Morris for facts crucial to the argument. He’s there as a kind of amusing gremlin. Second, the ending comes kind of abruptly. I was expecting more, along the lines of what stopping HRC means to Henwood. How does it unfold. I’ve said what it means for me.
The Lyons (GL) article begins with four paragraphs that attempt to trap Henwood in a context absent any references to his article. The context he attempts to erect is the banal one that we tend to be too focused on elections as horse races, and isn’t this going to be boring. Of course, Henwood’s whole purpose is to disrupt the horse race.
Then GL offers an inane objection to use of the word ‘dynasty’ in reference to the Clintons, since they are merely a dynasty in embryo. Though at this point there is nothing nascent about their money.
This from GL is crucial in a couple of ways:
That this cavil (that the Clintons are prolifically self-seeking — MBS) would apply to virtually all American politicians seems not to have occurred to Henwood, whose loathing of the couple transcends such mundane considerations. To him, the whole case for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy “boils down to this: She has experience, she’s a woman, and it’s her turn. It’s hard to find any substantive political argument in her favor.” (To which GL replies, “Maybe so, maybe not.” Well! Which side are you on, Gene?)
That the Clintons are ordinary and self-seeking is precisely one of my take-aways from the article. GL’s dismissal bespeaks cynicism about politics, which is another way of stating the case for the HRC candidacy. The cynicism of liberals is her banner.
So far we’re still batting opinions back and forth. GL wants to get into facts. He notes his own background covering Whitewater, for Harpers in fact, noting that his work was fully vetted for accuracy. Then some more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger regrets about the collapse of standards at that very same magazine. In the quest for accuracy, GL says “Clearly, no such effort (fact-checking — MBS) went into Henwood’s essay.” This is kind of delicious, if you think about it. Does GL have some information about how Harpers dealt with Henwood’s article? If he does, he doesn’t let on.
So what specifics are in question? This should be GL’s strongest suit, since he covered Whitewater in detail, wrote a book about it with Joe Conason, but his debunking of Henwood in this particular realm is strikingly weak. And I don’t know crap about Whitewater. I can barely remember last month. Henwood doesn’t spend much time on the affair himself.
After more throat-clearing about recycled Republican talking points and allusions to Henwood’s lack of fealty to the truth, GL points to purported errors about Whitewater, asserting Henwood is wrong but not saying why. There are some quotes from the McDougal trial with unfathomable relevance to what Henwood wrote. He asserts the Clintons were victims more than perps, but that is the sense I get in the Harpers article as well. The vast bulk of facts put forward by Henwood go unchallenged by GL.
For instance, and I am not going to rehash the crappy things Bill did as governor, and I am not going to blame HRC for adapting to the Arkansas political environment:
HRC, while working for the Rose law firm, argued a case opposing a populist measure to reduce electricity rates.
HRC served on the board of Walmart.
HRC utterly mismanaged the Clinton health care initiative, out of overweening arrogance and political immaturity.
HRC supported and later defended the atrocity that was the 1996 welfare reform bill.
So HRC, not very liberal, not very honorable, not very competent.
But: She has experience, she’s a woman, and it’s her turn. It’s hard to find any substantive political argument in her favor.” In response to which, quoting Gene Lyons of The National Memo, “Maybe so . . . “!!
Continuing the previous post with the rest of the states . . . (see explanatory remarks below)
I am starting to bore myself with this list, so I’m going to skip over states with nothing interesting to say, states that are more or less close to the middle.
Michigan. Gov. Rick Snyder (R) is running. Very good numbers, no two ways about it. Too bad he doesn’t keep his promises. Verdict: Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord (Proverbs 12:22).
Nevada. Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) is running. State had one of the worst housing bubbles, now it’s had one of the best labor market recoveries in the country. Fair and balanced! Verdict: let it ride.
New Mexico. Gov Susanna Martinez (R) is running. Stats are below average, though not all that far below. Verdict: zzz-zzzz.
New York. Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is running. I was advised by his adviser Vinnie Scungilli to be careful and avoid ethnic slurs, to which I readily agreed. Then he had Baccala bring over some tasty gabagool and moozadell for sandwiches. So, New York. Not much reduction in the unemployment rate. Less sucky fall in LFPR, compared to national averages. Just average employment growth. Verdict: NY needs a revival of the Democratic wing of the state Democratic Party.
South Carolina. Gov. Nikki Haley (R) is running. SC has one of the better labor market records during her tenure. High(er) employment growth, big reduction in the unemployment rate. Verdict: she’s awful; find some other reason to vote against her.
Texas. Governor Oops (R) is not running. State has the second fastest employment growth in the country, after Florida. It’s good to have fossil fuels to extract, until you get thirsty for clean water. Verdict: stop regulating the lady-parts.
Tennessee. Governor Bill Haslam (R) is running. Another of the five states with absolute declines in employment. Not good. Verdict: send him and Shumlin (see below) down the river in a canoe.
Vermont. Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) is running. One of the five states with absolute reductions in employment. Also not good. Verdict: see canoe, above.
Wisconsin. Gov. Scott Walker (R). Grrrrr. Only 23rd in unemployment rate reduction, 7th in LFPR reduction (less sucky than average), 18th in employment growth. Verdict: may wind up in jail, so consider state rules of succession.
Wyoming. Gov. Matt Mead (R) is running. Well above-average stats in LFPR and especially employment growth. Verdict: ride it home.
Herewith a jaundiced review, replete with hackneyed regional stereotypes and miscellaneous libels, of how the labor market has done since the Great Recession in states with goobernatorial elections. Do I think governors create jobs? Not really. But they like to pretend they do. Of course, if one looks at actual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, voters might be disabused of such notions.
If you can prove you are part of the vast left-wing conspiracy, I can email you the spreadsheets with the source data. If you aren’t, ahem, well fuck you, you’ll have to use this, or (especially if you’re MSNBC) pay me. $5K should do it.
I have traced changes in the states with elections since the end of the recession (June, 2009) or the start of the term of the incumbent seeking reelection, whichever is more recent. Most incumbents took office in 2011.
A few facts about the U.S. as a whole. The recovery has been long but very slow. There has been limited progress over a long period. Keep in mind when I say a state has done well, it’s compared to the mediocre national averages. It’s the least-ugly dog competition.
The national labor force participation rate (LFPR, which is those employed or seeking work as a share of the civilian non-institutionalized population over age 16) has gone down since 2009 (longer, in fact, but that’s another story) by 2.9 percentage points. That’s a lot, as these things go. The employment-population ratio (EPOP) is down .4 pps. We would expect it to up after a recession. Some of this is due to aging of the population, but the LFPR has also declined for ‘prime-age’ workers (24-55). To be fair we should compare changes in states to the associated (contemporaneous) national averages, to see if they suck even more.
So here we go:
Alabama, home of the sucktastic “we-all-did-what-we-could-do” Lynyrd Skynyrd. Gov. Robert Bentley (R) is running for reelection. He can brag that the state unemployment rate has gone down by two percentage points. But oh wait! The LFPR is also down, 3.1 percentage points (‘pps’). So is the employment-population ratio. In fact, unlike the nation as a whole, total employment growth since Mr. Bentley graced the state with his presence is actually negative, one of only five states with that dubious achievement. Verdict: Hey Bentley, the king is gone and so are you!
Alaska. Gov. Sean Parnell (R), successor to you-know-who, is running. Among the worst labor market stats in the U.S. 38th in reductions in the unemployment rate, LFPR down, EPOP down, 36th in annual employment growth. Verdict: Parnell, go back to moose hunting.
Arizona. Gov. Jan Brewer is not running. Unemployment rate is down 2.8 pps, but once again the LFPR is down much more — 4.7 pps. This is another of the five states with absolute declines in employment. Verdict: a vote for the status quo is loco.
Arkansas. The incumbent Democrat Mike Beebe is not running. Another of the fab five states with absolute employment declines. In other respects resembles Alaska and Arizona. Verdict: send Bill Clinton down there to stimulate the hospitality industry.
California. My man Gov. Jerry Brown (D) up for re-election against Neal Cash-n-carry from Goldman Sachs. What else do you need to know. 4th most rapid annual employment growth in the U.S. Decline in unemployment, a whopping 4.7 pps, second in the nation. I could go on. Now go forth and “Protect the Earth, serve the people, and explore the universe.”
Colorado. Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), another good employment record. Beats the national averages across the board, third in annual employment growth. It must be the weed. Verdict: Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.
Connecticut. Gov. Dan Malloy (D) running. Numbers close to the national averages, so no worse than average, not much better. Verdict: try harder, Gov.
Florida. Gov. Rick Scott (R), a.k.a. Lex Luthor (h/t Atrios, who hath forsaken me, sob). This one hurts. One of the best labor market performances in the U.S. Fair and balanced! First in annual employment growth. Verdict: he’s still a crook who is doing awful things; go with Cool Charlie.
Georgia. Gov. Nathan Deal (R) is running again. Record is not great, not awful. Not much to brag about. A little bit better employment growth than average. Verdict: meh.
Hawaii. Incumbent Democrat governor is not running. State beats national numbers solidly. Verdict: don’t change dolphins in mid-channel.
Idaho. Gov. Butch Don’t-think-of-Animal-House Otter (R) is running. Pretty good numbers, actually. Tenth in employment growth. Verdict: watch out for the Aryan Brotherhood.
Illinois. Gov. Pat Quinn, in one of the worst-run states in the country. Hasn’t recovered from Gov. Goodhair. Best part of the story is the increase in EPOP of 1.1 pps. Otherwise not much to brag about. Verdict: it could be worse, it could be Rahm.
Iowa. Gov. Terry Branstad (R). Good numbers. Least decline in LFPR, solid better-than-average employment growth of 1% (remember, it’s all relative). Verdict: concentrate on beating that lady who delights in mutilating our animal friends.
Kansas. Gov. Brownback (R) is running, for his life evidently, his secretary of state having failed to assassinate his opponent. Pretty mid-range numbers, not awful, no real bright spots. Verdict: something is still the matter.
Maine. Gov. Paul LePage (D for demented) is running. May be planning an armed insurrection. Labor numbers better than average, though not all that much. Verdict: he’s nuts.
Maryland. My own state of residence. Incumbent Martin O’Malley (D), not running, will be starting a jug band and touring the country, hoping Hillary notices him. Another ‘meh’ performance overall, but hey, we weren’t so bad off to begin with. Among the highest income states in the country. Our most prominent Republican is Ruthann Aron, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1994 and was convicted of hiring a hitman to murder her husband in 1998. She got a reduced sentence by claiming insanity, which for a Republican in front of a Maryland jury would usually be convincing legal defense. Verdict: we cool.
Massachusetts. Gov. Deval Patrick (D) is not running. (Corrected from original post.) It’s a woman, about whom the less said the better. Good not great numbers across the board. Verdict: are there still Republicans in Massachusetts, or did they ship them all off to work camps?
I finished James C. Scott’s Two Cheers for Anarchism (TCA). He wrote a very well-received book called Seeing Like A State that is on my to-read list. The latter book will take more of an investment of time and concentration. TCA is shorter. I read it via Kindle.
The title is likely to mislead people. The book is not about how to organize uprisings or smash the state. The word ‘anarchism’ for most people connotes intransigent politics and mindless violence. Any good history of anarchism will inform you of the common practice of police informers provoking and actually committing terrorist acts. Many times. Some anarchists made this easier through their enthusiastic participation. We can observe the same sort of thing today when the FBI recruits and organizes assorted rootless unfortunates and stoners to commit terrorist acts with fake explosives. Then the big arrest and burst of publicity. Bravo, FBI! Do you feel safer? (Thanks, Obama!)
We could agree on the impracticality of past anarchist adventures, but morally, why not? After all, the targets were the murderous autocracies of Europe. Czars, kings, barons, dukes and whatnot; there was no democracy. Don’t forget, in the 19th Century — in the birth-pangs of modern capitalism and its mixture of progress and social atrocity — it was not obvious that capitalism would prevail.
Ranting aside, the lead principle of anarchism 101 is mutual aid between freely consenting people, free of interference from oppressive hierarchies. Scott’s thesis is that an important dimension of social life and human well-being is lost when centralized, bureaucratic regimes suppress spontaneous, productive self-activity .
One of Scott’s interesting examples is the case of traffic lights in Germany. In one small town, someone got the bright idea of taking down one of the town’s traffic lights. The counter-intuitive consequence was many fewer accidents. The reason was that drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians were moved to be more attentive and cautious. They were no longer encouraged to test the limits of the rules, because they were no rules. Their innate sociability and considerateness took over. This practice has spread to other towns in Germany, whose citizens have taken to boasting about it.
Scott devotes a lot of jaundiced attention to one of my own pet peeves — performance measurement, including in elite academia. There is a very funny segment about the idiotic use of indices of journal article citations as a source for evaluating scholars. His related topic is standardized tests.
The measurement problem has been discussed in the literature on privatization and contracting out, most notably for me by people like Donald Kettl and John Donahue. I took my own stabs at it here and here and here. Basically the goals of a program are reduced to something that can be measured, while important dimensions are left out. Then numbers are brandished in pseudo-scientific display.
The other problem with such practices is that which is measured and used to determine how much somebody gets paid becomes the object of gaming. The widespread school testing scandals provide lurid examples.
The ideological delusion underlying such fiascos is that the imposition of a purported “market” arrangement will bring efficiency and creativity. Instead it’s a new playground for rapacious vendors engaging in what economists call “rent-seeking.” The sellers (contractors) end up rigging the market and bilking the taxpayer.
There are lots of stories about follies arising from central planning. One such is that a factory was incentivized based on the number of shoes it manufactured. It ended up producing a lot of shoes — but only for left feet. Contracting out with performance measurement in ultra-modern capitalism can generate similar results, not least, God help us, in the public education of children. When you attach high stakes to a narrow measurement, hijinks ensue.
For Scott, performance measurement and testing are futile efforts by a state to regiment what would otherwise be more productive, creative, unplanned work. Such practices are an over-extension of meritocracy. Meritocracy is an improvement over rewards according to the accidents of birth, much less to predatory behavior. But meritocracy can degrade itself, as society’s winners massage the rules to perpetuate their privileges for their less-deserving descendants. Such practices of course build on the inherent advantages derived from gender, race, and class that provide unequal advantages in the establishment of merit.
One of Scott’s more compelling passages is about how the ubiquity of regimentation in schooling and large organizations, both public and private, for the purported exercise of a benign meritocracy, actually generates an attitude of fear and supplication that is not conducive to democratic citizenship.
Again I’ll resort to one of my pet peeves. The corruption of the American institution of the “town meeting.” In folklore, if not in fact, the town meeting was a setting where citizens gathered as equals and engaged in democratic discussion and debate. In small towns, familiarity made it difficult for people to promote their own narrow interests above those of the community, because everybody knew everybody else’s business.
These days the town meetings one usually finds are commanded by a local elected official. He or she controls the microphone. Constituents — supplicants, really — are allowed brief questions. Ushers will escort troublesome people out, aided if necessary by the local police. The fun part of these affairs is when control breaks down and critics reach critical mass. Meeting adjourned!
Scott devotes some attention to the so-called petit-bourgeoisie, an object of contempt in the Marxist tradition, to say nothing of elite doctrines. Strictly speaking these folks are not Capital with a capital “c.” They would like to be, but they haven’t made it. What they do have is some measure of security that affords them the confidence, wherewithal, and prestige to participate in democratic debate. The worker may feel beholden to an employer and be politically neutered. From a marxian standpoint, unlike the wage laborer, the petit-bourgeoisie have control over their own working day. They can comprise a genuine town meeting. As free producers taking advantage of mutual aid, they have an honored place in anarchist doctrine.
One of Scott’s more interesting theses for those of us who are politically obsessed is that the petit-bourgeoisie are themselves better situated to fight the haute-bourgeoisie, the 1%. This fight can take reactionary form, as in today’s Tea Party, but in the past it has taken progressive, even revolutionary form. The Bolshevik slogan, after all, was “Bread, peace, and land.” The thirst for land, a piece of the rock, has motivated revolts the world over. The U.S. populist movement of the 19th Century, although worker-friendly, was led by farmers, in opposition to corrupt government and rapacious monopolies in railroads and banking.
The fundamental, unfulfilled promise of TCA for me goes back to where I started. How to organize uprisings? You can’t organize them. Nobody organizes them. They blossom from a myriad of individual roots. You can prepare to be helpful when they bust out. For instance, I predict St. Louis is going to blow up before the year is over. Are you ready to be helpful?
People do try to take revolts over, often to the detriment of the cause. An old insight from the late 60s from an SDS veteran went something like this: “We thought you could make a revolution. In fact a revolution is a rare event.”
Occupy is the big recent case in point. Like a butterfly’s wings starting a chain reaction leading to a monsoon, we could point to some isolated causes. There was the Ad-Busters role. I always thought when, on video, the NYC cops pepper-sprayed some girl they had penned in, for no remotely defensible reason, that had a big impact. Whatever the factors, it was all tinder. The firewood was the underlying growth of poverty and inequality. Then we were off and running.
The anarchists involved in the encampments had the wit to prevent the affair from being pigeon-holed into narrow categories, and to deny to the media leaders who could become targets for petty attacks. My own view is they went a bit too far in the refusal to put forward more specific demands. But they had a good run before the State came down on their heads. (Thanks, Obama!)
TCA provides no political road-maps. In the end this is why anarchism is fundamentally unsatisfying to me. It’s great when good stuff happens, and the limitations of ‘vanguardism’ should be obvious. But we are still left in a quandry. It is not clear what is to be done.
I’m just a suburban dweeb, so some of this will be old hat to some of you. I spent the weekend in the southern wilds of Virginia, between Covington and New Castle (corrected, see comments) in the Blue Ridge Mountains, Allegheny highlands section. I’m not trying to brag; it was pretty cheap. We were in a cabin with a nice, vigorous stream (Potts Creek) running past in the back yard. No Internet, no cable, no cell phone reception, no MSNBC. People come here this time of year to look at the trees. This is why:
Today our excursion was to the Craig County Fair, in New Castle. Arts and crafts. BBQ. Hippies with long hair and beards who hate the government. I could totally fit in. What’s not to like? Well . . .
As you could guess, these were not Obama voters. Nobody really wearing politics on their T-shirts (Exception: some dude, long blond hair in a pony tail, cut-off pants and bare feet, with a picture of a KKKer on his shirt, labeled “The original boys in the hood.”). Lots of Confederate flags in evidence; camo everywhere too. Apparently it’s “Confederate History Appreciation Month.” We saw maybe two black people the whole time. I had enough sense not wear my Caucasian T-shirt.
Ideological outposts at the fair occupying booths were limited to some churches, the NRA, and these folks:
The sign on the bottom right says “Craig County Citizens for the Constitution.” The store behind it — the “Emporium of Fine Books and Essential Goods” — was interesting. Books on cooking, home repair, firearms, and urban guerrilla warfare. A book on the latter topic by one Mao Tse-Tung. Army training manuals. Yup. Books on the Civil War, the Founders, children’s books, and Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman. Did they know he was gay? Actually, I bet the store owner did. He looked like a smart cookie. Different types of dehydrated and freeze-dried food in big coffee-can sized tins. Seeds. All the essential items. A grim-faced lady by the powdered food behind the knife counter was dressed like Betsy Ross, but I don’t think it was meant as a costume.
There were booths for the American Farm Bureau and Virginia Tech, the VFW. I don’t think these folks hate government. They hate change — stuff the government does now that it didn’t used to do, representing people who used to lack representation. I’m not lawyering for them; I really don’t know them well.
One striking thing about this part of the country is the frequent juxtaposition of the houses of rich and poor. And there are a lot of poor folks here — people living in trailers and ancient, broken-down houses. There is also the juxtaposition of poor peoples’ residences and stunning scenery. Like this (vacation pix alert):
People are friendly; if you look one in the eye, you had better say hello. I happen to like their music:
I don’t care what the hell they’re singing about, as long as they can pick.
I once thought I’d like to live up on a mountain. I’ve looked at a few homes. Downside of living on a mountain: you have to drive up the mountain. The road might be a mess, and it takes a long time. And that’s in good weather. Another big drawback, Asian restaurants are thin on ground.
In the George Washington National Forest the roads are mostly well-paved. Perhaps the Feds get the credit. People can live in pretty remote but accessible places. I don’t think I could live here, but I’m sure I’ll be back to visit.
There are black bears in the woods, big ones, not far past our backyard, up on the ridge line. I’d like to see one.
The excellent Annie Lowrey in New York Magazine argues that Amazon is not a monopoly. I disagree. Or at least, I have to say the premise is not supported quantitatively. The problem is the denominator. Monopoly resides in market share. AL compares Amazon to all retail sales, but that is the wrong comparison. Amazon’s market is the market for intermediaries that shepherd you through the sale of Everything. It’s a consumption manager. The best comparison is the up-and-coming Walmart. Google doesn’t really count, since it just throws you at individual retailers.
The fact that Amazon sells low does not debunk the monopoly thesis. A monopoly grows through predatory pricing (as with Diapers.com recounted by AL) and investment in fixed capital that provides competitive advantage. The stage of reaping monopoly rents via price increases lies before us. That is what the market for AMZN is saying, in light of the astronomical price-earnings ratios. It could be wrong. The future monopoly rents might not be realized, in which case Amazon’s shares should crash, big time. It wouldn’t be the first time that happened to a dot-com company.
I’m not offering any moral guidance. I use Amazon all the time. It’s just too convenient, and life is short. It is not Amazon’s market power over its own suppliers that facilitates its treatment of its own workers. That could happen under other circumstances. In fact, the organization of work — huge shipping centers employing lots of people — lends itself to union organizing. It’s the overall labor market — workers chasing jobs, rather than the converse — plus the indulgence of employers over unions by the government that is the root of Amazon’s labor pains.
Taking Scott’s points in order:
To all the commenters who have gotten their backs up, remember I say at the outset I mostly agree with PK. OK? It ain’t North Korea, OK? It’s the hippie punching I most object to. I got fewer complaints when I attacked Republicans. Now people say what happened to poor MaxSpeak. Go figure.
Whether Obama campaigned as a progressive is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. You are either familiar with progressive dog-whistles or you aren’t. I wouldn’t say he campaigned as an ultra-liberal, but I would argue as more than a centrist. For instance, I’m so old I remember he said he would fix Social Security with a higher payroll tax. That isn’t exactly super-liberal, but it is left-er than fixing SS by reducing benefits with the so-called chained price index.
On ACA (which I see as an advance), yes some complained bitterly and unrealistically about the failure to do single-payer, which I agree was not politically feasible, at least in the short- or medium-term. I would say PK has at least some obligation to tackle the best critical arguments, not the fish-in-a-barrel. One better argument re: ACA was we could have seen a bit more rhetorical love for the public option.
As for the ACA being “neo-liberal,” that criticism clearly pertains to the exchanges, not to the Medicaid expansion. That doesn’t mean ACA wasn’t worth doing in the end. Those of us in the far-out left worry about bogus exaltation of markets. A neo-liberal reform isn’t necessarily not worth doing, if you can’t get anything better. But it is good to avoid getting into the habit of staking everything on the use of private, for-profit vendors to deliver social services. Everybody here knows why.
I don’t doubt the public option could not have passed. Nor do I think it would have been world-shaking if it had been enacted. But it could have been talked up more for the sake of public intellectual hygiene.
This leads to the bully-pulpit issue. I do not think Obama can rule by decree, nor do I blame him for the constraints he faced as far as domestic legislation is concerned. (Foreign policy and law enforcement are another thing entirely, but my post was not mostly about Obama, it was mostly about PK’s reductionism of progressive critiques of Obama.) That aside, Obama could be more educational for the sake of the longer term. For instance, he could have stressed all along that a public option and a bigger stimulus may not have been politically doable, but they would be worth doing. Instead the White House boasts of reducing the deficit when we still have too much unemployment. We need bigger deficits, not smaller ones. This is Macro-Econ 101. They’re making people stupid.
I did not write about Obama’s dubious negotiating practices. That is salient to Obama’s competence but not especially a matter of progressive critique.
Bottom line: why talk up stuff you can’t pass right away? If you don’t, it will never ever happen, that’s why. I think the crazy right understands that.