God is on sabbatical leave

Monday, March 31, 2008

God is on sabbatical leave
Friends, here is the situation:
The Kings and all their ministers are gone for a box office love movie. Our elected noble and wise lawmakers go on comparative studies abroad, comparing their books of laws, hi-tech accesories and salaries. Our revolutionary middle class arguing for a revolution, sipping Starbuck's coffee, then races to malls for shopping spree . . . . and God is on sabbatical leave
. . . and they are all leave us home alone.

Yes, we are all alone when those market worshipers sneak in through our backdoor, grining, laughing, like a gang of ghosts . . . . and in no time unveiled faces of poverty appear all around the house . . . and with a single Midas touch, they turned us into commodities to be sold in a market we never made. (March 14, 2008)

Harvard Disorientation Guide to Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism 101
By Ted Lechterman
http://harvarddisguide.blogspot.com/2007/10/neoliberalism-101-by-ted-lechterman.html

Introduction

It’s not your grandmother’s liberalism, that’s for sure. There are, in fact, two brands of neoliberalism. When contrasted against neorealism, neoliberalism can mean the approach to international relations that stresses collective security through interdependence, supranational institutions, and soft power. In the economic realm, however, neoliberalism forms the backbone of the right-wing intellectual movement.

Today, neoliberalism—sometimes referred to as free-market capitalism or market fundamentalism—has ascended to the point where it has co-opted the title of “mainstream” economics. While neoliberalism presents a legitimate approach to economics, its hegemony obscures equally legitimate approaches from the fields of study, debate, and policy. The following presents a brief introduction and a critical analysis of certain aspects of neoliberalism, which I will use as a shorthand for the convergence of similar streams of mainstream economic thought.

I first examine the reach of neoliberalism’s influence; next I draw out some of its guiding principles before discussing its policy prescriptions and evaluating their impact.

Neoliberalism at Harvard and Beyond

Neoliberalism is the lingua franca of Harvard’s economics department and the only school of thought to which a credulous student of economics will be exposed. [1] Neoliberalism is the guiding philosophy behind the Harvard Corporation, which helps to explain why movements toward socially responsible investing and employment policies encounter bitter resistance.

A frequent critic of student labor activism is N. Gregory Mankiw, professor of the giant introductory economics class Social Analysis 10: Principles of Economics (“Ec 10”). Mankiw has worked as chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors. Mankiw was preceded by Martin Feldstein, who taught Ec 10 for 20 years and was chairman himself under President Reagan.

Feldstein mentored none other than Lawrence H. Summers, former Harvard president, Secretary of the Treasury, and chief economist at the World Bank. Summers, whose economic policies, like those of his colleagues, leaned heavily to the right, in turn mentored the infamous Andrei Shleifer. With the help of Summers, Shleifer later settled a lawsuit with the Justice Department that charged him with defrauding the U.S. Government for corrupt dealings while advising Russian industrial privatisation.

While I do not mean to imply a link between neoliberalism and corruption, I do want to emphasize that the political positions and controversies that have become associated with these Harvard economists are not mere coincidences, but rather predictable consequences of neoliberal economic philosophy. Many of President Summers’ polarizing statements, for example, came out of the context of neoliberal policy positions, and, to an extent, Shleifer’s missteps in Russia resulted from the policies he was implementing. These conspicuous characters and events, however, overshadow the day to day influence of neoliberalism at Harvard, where economics is the largest undergraduate concentration and the financial industry draws in the highest percentage of students after graduation.

Economic liberalism has governed several periods of American history, including the period leading up to the Great Depression. The Keynesian welfare state emerged from the Depression and World War II as a model compromise between a growing market economy and an inclusive distribution of wealth. This model lacked the dynamism that many economists believe to be central to economic health. What began as a critique of the largess of the welfare state, however, resulted in a concerted effort to unbridle the forces of capitalism.

What’s Wrong with Self-Interest?
The progenitors of neoliberalism, such as Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand, reacted to the egalitarian ethos of the welfare state with a call to restore the spirit of rational egoism, advocating for a society in which each individual pursues her self-interest. Neoliberalism took center stage during the Reagan Administration, and has been the guiding force behind U.S. economic policy ever since. The so-called Washington Consensus, the term for the neoliberal package of policy prescriptions that the U.S. has exported internationally, now governs the policies of many U.S. allies, recipients of U.S. aid, the Bretton Woods institutions, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Recently, neoliberalism has been encroaching on the European Union, one of the few remaining bastions for social democracy, such as with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy in France.

Neoliberalism begins from a particular view of human nature: homo economicus. The “economic man” is one who acts rationally, by maximizing his self-interest. Self-interest, in this context, traditionally means material resources, though revisionists have pointed out that the maximizandum (i.e., that which we are to maximize) could be any resource, from something as mundane as physical sustenance, to something instrumental like money or power, to something as abstract as happiness.

Economic man, and neoliberal thought more generally, engages in instrumental reason, the process of determining the best means to a given end. According to neoliberal psychology, human beings have limited, if any, authentic concern for each other, or for higher principles such as community, religion, justice, or the good life. The economic man, therefore, is invariably selfish, distrustful of cooperative ventures, and pessimistic about human capabilities. He is reminiscent of a being in Hobbes’ state of nature, where a constant war of all against all proscribes social behavior.We must ask ourselves whether (1) the concept of homo economicus presents an accurate description of human behavior, and (2) whether it presents a desirable or legitimate form of such behavior.

I believe it does neither of these. In fact, homo economicus has undergone significant criticism for its atomistic assumptions (cf. methodological individualism) about human sociality; it is continually facing challenges from the natural sciences for its descriptive fallacies, and from normative fields, such as theology and moral philosophy, for the implications of its amoralism.Despite its dubious claims to truth, just as subatomic particles ground the natural sciences, homo economicus is the fundamental principle of mainstream economic analysis. Even more surprising, given its limited generalizability even at the individual level, homo economicus is extended to analogize aggregate social units, such as the firm and the state. For the firm it has the effect of justifying its raison d’être of maximizing profits for its shareholders and minimizing costs. Likewise it justifies the nation-state as a unitary rational actor attempting to maximize power of one kind or another.

Homo economicus thus sustains the corporate ethic that governs the economy and increasingly invades other domains of social life, economizing our relationships with one another. What begins as a claim to scientific impartiality becomes a normative ethic unto itself. Yet neoliberalism often cloaks itself in scientific rhetoric, and its normative underpinnings, which at the very least merit debate, elude the public conscience.

Privatization and “Free” Markets

When neoliberals argue for privatization of government services, they are claiming that private industry, through the profit motive, can run services better or more efficiently than government agencies. Value claims like “better” and “most efficient,” however, beg the question as to what might constitute goodness or efficiency. As I explained earlier, instrumental reason, the process by which one determines the best means to a given end, is the sine qua non of neoliberal thought. Concerns for efficiency and maximization, therefore, always rule out over alternatives. The fact that the profit motive might not be appropriate in many government activities—e.g., health care, defense, education—cannot enter into neoliberal reasoning, and thus often escapes public discussion.The buzzword “choice” also comes up a lot in the context of privatization. By turning public goods over to individual stewardship, neoliberalism argues that through the ensuing competition of the market individuals can gain more options at various prices. While this may be true, it is rarely desirable. One function of government is to solve collection action problems by holding public goods in common and providing services to which each citizen has an equal claim. Privitization, on the other hand, tends to exacerbate inequalities. For example, those who are already wealthy and financially astute have the most to gain from the privatization of Social Security. Those who have less money often have less time and financial experience to administrate their own retirement funds effectively.

Rhetorically, choice benefits everyone. Practically this is rarely the case.Privitization is one element of the argument for free markets, the idea that governments are maladroit at economic management, and that regulations and taxes infringe on innovation and production. Rather, neoliberals insist, the “invisible hand” of the market will regulate the natural give-and-take of supply and demand. An unregulated market can produce more, they argue, and an ever-enlarging economic pie is best because it provides more “choice,” which benefits everyone. Neoliberals advocate against labor unions and minimum wages, which they regard as artificial barriers to efficiency.

“Free” Trade

According to the theory of comparative advantage, when nations specialize in industries in which they are most adept and trade their excess production, more goods enter into the economy with the potential to benefit all of the trading partners.In reality, specializing in the production of certain goods takes away a country’s self-sufficiency and leaves it vulnerable to fluctuations in the global economy. Furthermore, the rallying cry of free trade finds conspicuous sympathy from multinational corporations, who are more than happy to exploit untapped markets for labor and consumption in hitherto recalcitrant regions. Free trade contributes to the rise in inequality among nations and the uneven distribution of the benefits and losses from globalization.

Neoliberals argue that global poverty is the result of local policies, rather than globalization itself. However, when a developing country, recovering from the yoke of colonialism, finds its options closed off by aggressive foreign investment and dogmatic trading regimes, it is hard to argue that local policies are the result of autonomous choice.

Three Critiques of Market Fundamentalism1.

Inequality and Distributive Justice:

It should be no surprise that we enter the world endowed with a set of resources entirely contingent on the family, country, and circumstances into which we are born. Without modest regulation, such as collective bargaining or minimum wages, those of us who must sell our labor fall at the mercy of those born with a better hand of cards. The logic of profit maximization, meanwhile, leads firms to compensate labor at the bare minimum. An unregulated market confers disproportionate benefits to the most well-off while exploiting the labor of the least well-off. These trends tend to be self-reinforcing: increasing concentration of wealth corresponds to an increasing concentration of power in monied interests.

Poverty—the inability to provide for one’s basic needs—is but one endemic consequence of inequality.Neoliberals are generally deaf to concerns about inequality because of their obsession with Pareto optimality. Pareto optimality holds that if someone can be made better off without making anyone else worse off, one can, and one should, make a “Pareto improvement” by accepting the exchange. Economic growth, therefore, takes precedence over economic justice. From this logic, if the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, society experiences a net gain. The logic of Pareto tends to form the horizon of neoliberal responses to distributive justice2.

Public Safety and Environmental Degradation:

Without any counterbalance, the lack of regulation under a free market paradigm threatens public health and depletes the environment. Marketing dangerous products and polluting the environment are tremendously efficient practices in the short-run, as firms can write off the costs of safety mechanisms and environmental sustainability. Conservation and wellness only enter into the neoliberal calculus when they can be seen as profitable for one reason or another. Currently, what seems to be most profitable (or least costly) is to use public relations techniques to convince consumers that a particular company or product is “green,” regardless of its true environmental impact. Examine the current ad campaigns of the energy industry for a case in point.3.

Consumer Culture and Escapism:

The hegemony of the reigning economic order conspires to convince the losing parties of the inevitability of their plight. The escapism of consumerism and mass-produced popular culture distracts the least well-off from their declining standard of living and erodes civil society. We tend to be much more interested in Paris or Britney’s latest exploits than the fact that 30,000 children under the age of 5 die each day from preventable diseases, or that many of us lack health insurance. Particularly under the gloss of neoliberalism’s scientific rhetoric, the economy as we know it seems monolithic and immutable, so much so that we feel like no amount of our own effort could have an impact. Neoliberalism bears particular blame for this state of affairs because it promotes the skewed distributional patterns that lead to despair and despondency. It encourages the escapist enterprises that prey upon our vulnerabilities and prolong our struggle.

Alternative Schools of Thought

The overriding theme of this piece has been that markets, while appropriate in certain circumstances, can be dangerous in others. Market values need to be weighed against other values, and this is something neoliberalism, the dominant economic ideology of our time, fails to do. How can we promote a dynamic vision of the economy without sacrificing our beliefs about the right and the good? Not all heterodox theories are equally advanced or consistent in their tenets, but an inquisitive student owes it to herself to apprise herself of all the options. A common misconception—one which neoliberal demagogues have relished in perpetuating—is that the only alternative to neoliberalism is some form of socialist command economy. This could not be further from the truth. Countless schools of economic thought are advancing critiques of the reigning dogma as well as alternative ways to organize the production and distribution of resources, particularly with an eye toward social and environmental justice. The onus, however, is on the student to discover these alternatives. Chances are, you won’t find them at Harvard.

Endnotes

[1]: A critic might contend that the Economics Department subscribes, rather, to neoclassical foundations, which might serve as a jumping off point for neoliberal ideology. I argue, however, that neoclassical foundations lend themselves too easily to neoliberal ideology, to the point where distinguishing between the two is not instructive. Whether or not this has always been the case is debatable. Today, though, we see a convergence of neoclassical and neoliberal thought, so much so that to call oneself a neoclassicist but not a neoliberal has become self-contradictory.

The Essence of Neoliberalism

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Bordieu:
The Essence Of Neoliberalism


Pierre Bourdieu, Professor at the Collège de FrancePierre BourdieuDeceased in 2001Le Monde, December 1998En español: La esencia del neoliberalismoLa globalización en La BitBliotecaLa nouvelle vulgate planétaire (au Monde diplomatique) Pierre Bourdieu en La BitBlioteca.


As the dominant discourse would have it, the economic world is a pure and perfect order, implacably unrolling the logic of its predictable consequences, and prompt to repress all violations by the sanctions that it inflicts, either automatically or — more unusually — through the intermediary of its armed extensions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the policies they impose: reducing labour costs, reducing public expenditures and making work more flexible. Is the dominant discourse right? What if, in reality, this economic order were no more than the implementation of a utopia — the utopia of neoliberalism — thus converted into a political problem? One that, with the aid of the economic theory that it proclaims, succeeds in conceiving of itself as the scientific description of reality?


This tutelary theory is a pure mathematical fiction. From the start it has been founded on a formidable abstraction. For, in the name of a narrow and strict conception of rationality as individual rationality, it brackets the economic and social conditions of rational orientations and the economic and social structures that are the condition of their application.To give the measure of this omission, it is enough to think just of the educational system. Education is never taken into account of as such at a time when it plays a determining role in the production of goods and services as in the production of the producers themselves. From this sort of original sin, inscribed in the Walrasian myth (1) of “pure theory”, flow all of the deficiencies and faults of the discipline of economics and the fatal obstinacy with which it attaches itself to the arbitrary opposition which it induces, through its mere existence, between a properly economic logic, based on competition and efficiency, and social logic, which is subject to the rule of fairness.That said, this “theory” that is desocialised and dehistoricised at its roots has, today more than ever, the means of making itself true and empirically verifiable. In effect, neoliberal discourse is not just one discourse among many. Rather, it is a “strong discourse” — the way psychiatric discourse is in an asylum, in Erving Goffman's analysis (2).


It is so strong and so hard to combat only because it has on its side all of the forces of a world of relations of forces, a world that it contributes to making what it is. It does this most notably by orienting the economic choices of those who dominate economic relationships. It thus adds its own symbolic force to these relations of forces. In the name of this scientific programme, converted into a plan of political action, an immense political project is underway, although its status as such is denied because it appears to be purely negative. This project aims to create the conditions under which the “theory” can be realised and can function: a programme of the methodical destruction of collectives.


The movement toward the neoliberal utopia of a pure and perfect market is made possible by the politics of financial deregulation. And it is achieved through the transformative and, it must be said, destructive action of all of the political measures (of which the most recent is the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), designed to protect foreign corporations and their investments from national states) that aim to call into question any and all collective structures that could serve as an obstacle to the logic of the pure market: the nation, whose space to manoeuvre continually decreases; work groups, for example through the individualisation of salaries and of careers as a function of individual competences, with the consequent atomisation of workers; collectives for the defence of the rights of workers, unions, associations, cooperatives; even the family, which loses part of its control over consumption through the constitution of markets by age groups.


The neoliberal programme draws its social power from the political and economic power of those whose interests it expresses: stockholders, financial operators, industrialists, conservative or social-democratic politicians who have been converted to the reassuring layoffs of laisser-faire, high-level financial officials eager to impose policies advocating their own extinction because, unlike the managers of firms, they run no risk of having eventually to pay the consequences. Neoliberalism tends on the whole to favour severing the economy from social realities and thereby constructing, in reality, an economic system conforming to its description in pure theory, that is a sort of logical machine that presents itself as a chain of constraints regulating economic agents.


The globalisation of financial markets, when joined with the progress of information technology, ensures an unprecedented mobility of capital. It gives investors concerned with the short-term profitability of their investments the possibility of permanently comparing the profitability of the largest corporations and, in consequence, penalising these firms’ relative setbacks. Subjected to this permanent threat, the corporations themselves have to adjust more and more rapidly to the exigencies of the markets, under penalty of “losing the market’s confidence”, as they say, as well as the support of their stockholders. The latter, anxious to obtain short-term profits, are more and more able to impose their will on managers, using financial directorates to establish the rules under which managers operate and to shape their policies regarding hiring, employment, and wages.Thus the absolute reign of flexibility is established, with employees being hiring on fixed-term contracts or on a temporary basis and repeated corporate restructurings and, within the firm itself, competition among autonomous divisions as well as among teams forced to perform multiple functions.


Finally, this competition is extended to individuals themselves, through the individualisation of the wage relationship: establishment of individual performance objectives, individual performance evaluations, permanent evaluation, individual salary increases or granting of bonuses as a function of competence and of individual merit; individualised career paths; strategies of “delegating responsibility” tending to ensure the self-exploitation of staff who, simple wage labourers in relations of strong hierarchical dependence, are at the same time held responsible for their sales, their products, their branch, their store, etc., as though they were independent contractors. This pressure toward “self-control” extends workers’ “involvement” according to the techniques of “participative management” considerably beyond management level. All of these are techniques of rational domination that impose over-involvement in work (and not only among management) and work under emergency or high-stress conditions. And they converge to weaken or abolish collective standards or solidarities (3).In this way, a Darwinian world emerges — it is the struggle of all against all at all levels of the hierarchy, which finds support through everyone clinging to their job and organisation under conditions of insecurity, suffering, and stress.


Without a doubt, the practical establishment of this world of struggle would not succeed so completely without the complicity of all of the precarious arrangements that produce insecurity and of the existence of a reserve army of employees rendered docile by these social processes that make their situations precarious, as well as by the permanent threat of unemployment. This reserve army exists at all levels of the hierarchy, even at the higher levels, especially among managers. The ultimate foundation of this entire economic order placed under the sign of freedom is in effect the structural violence of unemployment, of the insecurity of job tenure and the menace of layoff that it implies. The condition of the “harmonious” functioning of the individualist micro-economic model is a mass phenomenon, the existence of a reserve army of the unemployed.This structural violence also weighs on what is called the labour contract (wisely rationalised and rendered unreal by the “theory of contracts”). Organisational discourse has never talked as much of trust, co-operation, loyalty, and organisational culture as in an era when adherence to the organisation is obtained at each moment by eliminating all temporal guarantees of employment (three-quarters of hires are for fixed duration, the proportion of temporary employees keeps rising, employment “at will” and the right to fire an individual tend to be freed from any restriction).


Thus we see how the neoliberal utopia tends to embody itself in the reality of a kind of infernal machine, whose necessity imposes itself even upon the rulers. Like the Marxism of an earlier time, with which, in this regard, it has much in common, this utopia evokes powerful belief — the free trade faith — not only among those who live off it, such as financiers, the owners and managers of large corporations, etc., but also among those, such as high-level government officials and politicians, who derive their justification for existing from it. For they sanctify the power of markets in the name of economic efficiency, which requires the elimination of administrative or political barriers capable of inconveniencing the owners of capital in their individual quest for the maximisation of individual profit, which has been turned into a model of rationality. They want independent central banks. And they preach the subordination of nation-states to the requirements of economic freedom for the masters of the economy, with the suppression of any regulation of any market, beginning with the labour market, the prohibition of deficits and inflation, the general privatisation of public services, and the reduction of public and social expenses.


Economists may not necessarily share the economic and social interests of the true believers and may have a variety of individual psychic states regarding the economic and social effects of the utopia which they cloak with mathematical reason. Nevertheless, they have enough specific interests in the field of economic science to contribute decisively to the production and reproduction of belief in the neoliberal utopia. Separated from the realities of the economic and social world by their existence and above all by their intellectual formation, which is most frequently purely abstract, bookish, and theoretical, they are particularly inclined to confuse the things of logic with the logic of things.These economists trust models that they almost never have occasion to submit to the test of experimental verification and are led to look down upon the results of the other historical sciences, in which they do not recognise the purity and crystalline transparency of their mathematical games, whose true necessity and profound complexity they are often incapable of understanding. They participate and collaborate in a formidable economic and social change. Even if some of its consequences horrify them (they can join the socialist party and give learned counsel to its representatives in the power structure), it cannot displease them because, at the risk of a few failures, imputable to what they sometimes call “speculative bubbles”, it tends to give reality to the ultra-logical utopia (ultra-logical like certain forms of insanity) to which they consecrate their lives.And yet the world is there, with the immediately visible effects of the implementation of the great neoliberal utopia: not only the poverty of an increasingly large segment of the most economically advanced societies, the extraordinary growth in income differences, the progressive disappearance of autonomous universes of cultural production, such as film, publishing, etc., through the intrusive imposition of commercial values, but also and above all two major trends.


First is the destruction of all the collective institutions capable of counteracting the effects of the infernal machine, primarily those of the state, repository of all of the universal values associated with the idea of the public realm.


Second is the imposition everywhere, in the upper spheres of the economy and the state as at the heart of corporations, of that sort of moral Darwinism that, with the cult of the winner, schooled in higher mathematics and bungee jumping, institutes the struggle of all against all and cynicism as the norm of all action and behaviour.

Can it be expected that the extraordinary mass of suffering produced by this sort of political-economic regime will one day serve as the starting point of a movement capable of stopping the race to the abyss? Indeed, we are faced here with an extraordinary paradox. The obstacles encountered on the way to realising the new order of the lone, but free individual are held today to be imputable to rigidities and vestiges. All direct and conscious intervention of whatever kind, at least when it comes from the state, is discredited in advance and thus condemned to efface itself for the benefit of a pure and anonymous mechanism, the market, whose nature as a site where interests are exercised is forgotten. But in reality, what keeps the social order from dissolving into chaos, despite the growing volume of the endangered population, is the continuity or survival of those very institutions and representatives of the old order that is in the process of being dismantled, and all the work of all of the categories of social workers, as well as all the forms of social solidarity, familial or otherwise.


The transition to “liberalism” takes place in an imperceptible manner, like continental drift, thus hiding its effects from view. Its most terrible consequences are those of the long term. These effects themselves are concealed, paradoxically, by the resistance to which this transition is currently giving rise among those who defend the old order by drawing on the resources it contained, on old solidarities, on reserves of social capital that protect an entire portion of the present social order from falling into anomie. This social capital is fated to wither away — although not in the short run — if it is not renewed and reproduced.But these same forces of “conservation”, which it is too easy to treat as conservative, are also, from another point of view, forces of resistance to the establishment of the new order and can become subversive forces. If there is still cause for some hope, it is that forces still exist, both in state institutions and in the orientations of social actors (notably individuals and groups most attached to these institutions, those with a tradition of civil and public service) that, under the appearance of simply defending an order that has disappeared and its corresponding “privileges” (which is what they will immediately be accused of), will be able to resist the challenge only by working to invent and construct a new social order. One that will not have as its only law the pursuit of egoistic interests and the individual passion for profit and that will make room for collectives oriented toward the rational pursuit of ends collectively arrived at and collectively ratified.How could we not make a special place among these collectives, associations, unions, and parties for the state: the nation-state, or better yet the supranational state — a European state on the way toward a world state — capable of effectively controlling and taxing the profits earned in the financial markets and, above of all, of counteracting the destructive impact that the latter have on the labour market. This could be done with the aid of labour unions by organising the elaboration and defence of the public interest.


Like it or not, the public interest will never emerge, even at the cost of a few mathematical errors, from the vision of accountants (in an earlier period one would have said of “shopkeepers”) that the new belief system presents as the supreme form of human accomplishment.


(1) Auguste Walras (1800-66), French economist, author of De la nature de la richesse et de l'origine de la valeur (“On the Nature of Wealth and on the Origin of Value”) (1848). He was one of the first to attempt to apply mathematics to economic inquiry.(2) Erving Goffman. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.(3) See the two journal issues devoted to “Nouvelles formes de domination dans le travail” (“New forms of domination in work”), Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, nos. 114, September 1996, and 115, December 1996, especially the introduction by Gabrielle Balazs and Michel Pialoux, “Crise du travail et crise du politique” [Work crisis and political crisis], no. 114: p.3-4.Translated by Jeremy J. ShapiroLa globalización en La BitBliotecaLa nouvelle vulgate planétaire (dans le Monde diplomatique)

The US Neoliberalism Crisis

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Yes, these seem familiar for all of us here, in Indonesia

Socialism for Bankers, Savage Capitalism for Everyone Else?James S. Henry : The bailout jeopardizes the entire progressive agenda, undermines democracy, doesn't compensate us for our money and doesn't solve the problem. Otherwise, it's great!

Goldman Sachs SocialismWilliam Greider: Bernanke demands $700 billion with no accountability, no transparency and no guarantees. Take it or leave it, suckers.

Bail Out People Before Bankers

The Nation. posted by Peter Rothberg on 09/23/2008 @ 7:03pm

Economists are widely panning : Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's bailout package for lacking appropriate regulatory mechanisms to prevent another future crisis; for not providing homeowner relief; for richly rewarding corporate executives for their failure and for neglecting to provide meaningful oversight over how the aid is distributed.This whole mess has given lie to the free market and called into question virtually the entire basis of late capitalist economic organization. The Feds are propping up stock prices, directing buyouts, nationalizing private industries and subsidizing crooks and swindlers who already made a killing off the mortgage bubble.

The Fed and Treasury are right to take steps to avert this disaster but the use of taxpayer money to exclusively prop up and reward the rich while the needs of everyone else are written off as too costly is both morally unacceptable and, to quote conservative economist Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago School of Business, "will undermine the fundamental workings of the capitalist system."While there is an urgency to put a bailout program in place, there are several important issues that Congress should address as part of the process. As economist Dean Baker has outlined on TPM , there are some very clear principles that could guide a bailout and a restructuring of the financial system. A coalition of grassroots groups, including Credo Mobile, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice and MoveOn.org are planning to express their opposition to Paulson's bailout plan and call for those clear principles this Thursday, September 25 in a rally and march at 4:00pm near Wall Street in lower Manhattan.With the world famous financial district as the backdrop and the eyes of the national media watching, the organizers' aim is to make visible the anger and concern of so many people at the prospects of this bailout and to do so as Congress appears set to pass legislation by the end of the week before adjourning for the fall campaign season.If you're not in New York, you can still contact your elected reps and implore them to reject Paulson's plunder and enact a plan that bails out Main Street as well as Wall Street and provides for investment in a new productive economy

NATIONALISM ISN'T EVERYTHING

NATIONALISM IS NOT EVERYTHING

by Dedy N. Hidayat

Retrieved from "apakabar" database, Ohio University Library

From: apakabar@access.digex.net
Date: Tue Jan 16 1996 - 16:37:00 EST

---

Nationalism is not everything
It is nationalism that functions as the driving force of the Third World leaders' demand for equality among nations within a "New World Order." Yet, equality among nations is not necessarily equality among people. Some nationalism have been framed within regressive traditional or primordial values that tend to undermine universal humanism values on social justice, democracy, human rights, etc. Thus, while calling for external equality (among nations) some expressions of nationalism in the Third World neglect the issues of internal justice, equality, and human rights.

Various expressions of nationalism also take the form as a response to the globalizing processes, or a desire to eliminate all otherness. They produce tendencies that reject values perceived as superfluos, fake, others, or Westernized. They therefore can easily be exploited by xenophobic, chauvinistic, and anti-Western sentiments.

As national cultural and political unity is the goal of nationalism, we observe conflicts resulted from the centripetal push toward national unity and the centrifugal pull of local cultures or subcultures, especially in heterogeneous nation states. These conflicts have led to "cultural death" of various subcultures, or to the subordination of subcultures by particular hegemonic cultures.

Nationalism is something, yes. Yet, nationalism is not everything. There are values higher than those underlying a political consensus to unite under a nation state; there are values higher than nationalism and patriotism. Warning: failure to recognize these higher universal humanism values in the development of our nationalism, may result in the blurring of demarcation line between nationalism and chauvinism, fascism, primordialism, and racialism. Ask Hitler for valuable experiences. Thus, ignore what those Westerners said about your country; pay no attention to how they portrayed your country's human rights records. Just look around with your own hearts, and make your nationalism as a driving spirit in placing your country on the same ground as other countries in terms of the implementation of globally accepted human rights values.

Nationalism, in Soedjatmoko's words, should be part of "the general search among people all over the world for new moral foundations on which a viable international order can rest." (dedy n. hidayat, madison WI, Winter 1994).

. . and what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free?

If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead.
You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them.

And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed.
For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyrany in their own freedom and a shame in their own pride? (Kahlil Gibran).

Financial Facism

By Robert Scherer
September 24, 2008

Robert Scheer is the editor of Truthdig, where this article originally appeared. His latest book is The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America(Twelve).

Does it really matter which party is in charge when it comes to bailing out the Wall Street hustlers whose shenanigans have bankrupted so many ordinary folks? Not if the Democrats roll over and cede power to the former head of Goldman Sachs, the investment bank at the center of our economic meltdown.

What arrogance for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson--who the year before President Bush appointed him Treasury Secretary was paid $16.4 million for heading the company that did as much as any to engineer this financial travesty--to now insist we must blindly trust him to solve the problem. Paulson is demanding the power to act with "absolute impunity," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who admonished the Treasury chief: "After reading this proposal, it is not only our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution as well."

Clearly, it's a vast improvement to have Dodd in the chairman's seat of the Senate Banking Committee, asking the right questions, rather than his predecessor, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, who presided over the committee in the years when the American economy, long the envy of the world, was viciously sabotaged by radical deregulation legislation.

Gramm, whom Sen. John McCain backed for president in 1996, pushed through the financial market deregulation that has brought the American economy to its knees. Maybe this time Congress won't give the financial moguls everything they want, including a bailout for foreign-owned banks like Swiss-based UBS, where Gramm now hangs out as a very well-paid executive when he's not advising the presidential campaign of McCain, his old buddy and partner in crime. Oops--sorry, no crimes were committed because the deregulation laws Gramm pursued and McCain faithfully supported decriminalized the financial scams that have proved so costly.

Just check out the language of Gramm's pet projects, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. By preventing mergers between the various branches of Wall Street, the former act reversed basic Depression-era legislation passed to prevent the sort of collapse we are now experiencing. The latter legitimized the "swap agreements" and other "hybrid instruments" that are at the core of the crisis.

The legislation's "Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000," Title IV of the law--a law that Gramm snuck in without hearings hours before the Christmas recess--provided Wall Street with an unbridled license to steal. It made certain that financiers could legally get away with a whole new array of financial rip-off schemes.

One of those provisions, summarized by the heading of Title III, ensured the "Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements," which successfully divorced the granters of subprime mortgage loans from any obligation to ever collect on them. That provision of Gramm's law is at the very heart of the problem. But the law went even further, prohibiting regulation of any of the new financial instruments permitted after the financial industry mergers: "No provision of the Commodity Exchange Act shall apply to, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, an identified banking product which had not been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the United States by any bank on or before December 5, 2000."

Even some Republicans on the Senate committee expressed exasperation Monday with the swindles that they had voted for with such enthusiasm in the past, as well as with giving Wall Street yet another blank check. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., condemned Paulson's proposal as an effort to "take Wall Street's pain and spread it to the taxpayers." He added, "It's financial socialism and it's un-American."

He's wrong on that last point, for what is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state that services the politico-economic elite at the expense of the people is more accurately referred to as "financial fascism." After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company's corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler's bubble burst.

Smell a rat if Congress approves the Paulson plan without severely curtailing CEO pay and putting a freeze on the mortgage foreclosures that are threatening to destroy the homes of millions of Americans.