This is DanMKervick's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following DanMKervick's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
DanMKervick
Recent Activity
I suspect you don't even know what "neoliberal" means. It's over your head. That said, if anybody other than me had made the same comment, you probably would have passed it by without further thought rather than bluster in, cranky old gums blazing and flapping, on some issue you know nothing about. You live to get in (anonymous) fights with adversaries on the internet. Why don't you just stick to the issues being debated and stop trolling every word I say. If you want to defend neoliberal capitalism and say it had nothing to do with the declining fortunes of Flint, then do so. You might actually have to look up "neoliberal", though, so you have a clue what you are talking about.
1 reply
Here's the link to the Michael Moore interview. Watch the whole thing, but also go to the 7:45 mark to find the discussion of the point I am talking about. http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/michael-moore-on-the-flint-water-crisis-604708419692 Moore does talk passionately about the current crime, but also the relevant historical background. The population of Flint is *one half* of what its used to be. Flint is a poor and wrecked city because neoliberal capitalism destroyed it. Yes, obviously politicians should not commit evil crimes against the lives and health of people whose lives they have already helped to destroy economically. But the reason Flint is a ruined and abandoned city that nobody in the state house gives a shit about is because the philosophy of outsourcing, offshoring and the free movement of capital smashed it.
1 reply
Michael Moore helped put the nation's finger on the underlying causes of Flint last week. How did Flint get to be such an impoverished city in the first place? It's because plutocratic capital outsourced its former prosperity and destroyed the city. The neoliberal formula for economic development is a recipe for more Flints everywhere in the world. It is based on the idea that capital should be allowed to flow freely, and people should be compelled to go where the capital goes. The result is pattern of migration-and-devastation. People who are most capable of getting out of the communities targeted for destruction do get out, and those left behind forced to live in the derelict hulk that remains. Flint and the rust belt are only some American examples. If the neoliberal model continues to thrive and spread, vast swathes of the world will be Flints. Hot capital will move in to exploit cheap labor where possible, communities will be built on that temporary prosperity, and the capitalists will then put a bullet in the head of that community by moving out just as fast as they moved in. There is an alternative: democratic societies take more active control over he movement and allocation of capital, and put (and keep) the capital and prosperity where the people and communities are.
1 reply
C'mon. It was an omnibus bill. You know this is the oldest campaign trick in the book. Politicians routinely end up voting for junk that they don't like because it's one of a thousand thinks packed into a bill that contains other things they do like and that they worked hard to get included. In this case, there was a late amendment to the bill with the deregulation provision. The deregulators slipped a mickey into the drink.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
The cost reductions of single payer come primarily through (i) administrative simplicity and (ii) the ability of a monopsony customer to name its price. Those are the factors that Krugman and all other single payer defenders have stressed in the past. These are savings that are achieved in any case and are a completely different matters from whether or not the payer decides to reduce coverage. Once the plan is in place, then coverage decisions become an ongoing political and election issue as they should be. Whatever decisions are made about what should and shouldn't be covered are then made for *everybody*.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
The more concentrated the wealth, the more power it represents.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Great, so it becomes increasingly clear that the HRC forces have no "long term incremental plan" to accomplish what Sanders wants to accomplish, but at a slower and more cautious pace, with more political "realism". They really just don't want to change anything very much. The rich kids are fine with the gross inequality of America, in health care as in just about everything else, and don't want to change much about it. A few adjustments, that's all.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
"Reserve ratios" - are you kidding? Nobody serious out there thinks changing the required reserve ratio has anything to do with financial stability. Bank solvency has nothing to do with what percentage of their safe assets happen to be cash on deposit at the Fed. Bank lending is only constrained by their capital, not their reserves. Some stable banking systems don't even have a reserve ratio. Capital requirements are much more important, but higher capital requirements - higher than the Basel III recommendations - have already been implemented by the Fed. I think you guys aren't getting it. You think Konczal or somebody else has better stuff on financial stabilization? Great, Konczal can go to work for the Sanders administration. They can do the Warren stuff AND the FTT, AND the anti-usury stuff AND reform the ratings services AND the additional shadow banking stuff Konczal emphasizes. The policy debate changes all the time. It will look different six months from now; and then again six months after that. But what Democratic voters are deciding is, "Which *person* do you most trust to go hard on Wall Street and Big Capital and do what has to be done to rein them in and defend working and middle class people from predation, flim-flam, corruption, rent-extraction and recklessness? The guy who has been riding them hard his whole career? Or the one who made a fortune giving speeches to them, and whose campaign has received tons of donations from them and eagerly cultivated their support, and who is part of a power couple that has spent the last decade and a half hob-nobbing with billionaires?" You guys are out of touch. You read these mainstream economics blogs all day where people have nice, safe establishment views on the fundamental integrity and workability of the current capitalist system, so long as the right tweaks are applied. But most people in this country think that their democracy has been bought and that they are getting screwed. And that they continued getting screwed during the Obama administration with the Republican Congress, and are going to continue getting screwed further if HRC (and Citibank and Goldman, etc. are returned to office.) Do you honestly think Hillary Clinton is going to make any fundamental difference to the large trends people are worried about? Quick, tell me: What transformational policy is the Hillary Clinton campaign most associated with in the public mind? Puzzling, right? I'll bet not one in 50 people could give a non-stammering answer to the question, "What is the big thing Hillary Clinton wants to accomplish for America?" And you know why? Because she is running a campaign to conserve, tweak and solidify the status quo." Which is great for people who are satisfied with the status quo.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Sound bites??? You said, "Show me where Baker said that." And so I showed you precisely where Baker said that.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Not wrong, but misleading. He was legislatively out-maneuvered, but clearly did not support the intent of the act. He's already responded effectively to it, and no one is going to believe Sanders was a secret backer of deregulating commodities futures.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Breaking up the big banks does nothing? Recall that the overall plan is not simply aimed narrowly at financial stability, but at reducing the political power of organized capitalist finance. When Sanders talks about Citizens United, the Koch brothers and the big Wall Street banks, he's talking about three aspects of the same problem. He's trying to organize a popular movement to restore our democracy and take it back Did Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting do nothing? The wonks aren't thinking broadly enough here. It's not just a matter of writing up the nicest set of legislative rules. If Wall Street owns our politicians and our government, it *is* the rules. It will circumvent and water down whatever formal rules are put in place, and its own people will be running the regulatory agencies and Treasury Department. Let's do it all. Smash 'em.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Sanders proposed, among other things, the 21 Century Glass-Steagall Act that was co-authored by Warren and McCain
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
https://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-and-cracking-down-on-wall-street.html "But the strangest part of Sernovitz's story is that he leaves out Sanders' financial transactions tax (FTT) altogether. This is bizarre, because the FTT is essentially a hatchet blow to the waste and exorbitant salaries in the industry." "Sanders FTT would almost certainly do more to change behavior on Wall Street than everything that Clinton has proposed taken together, by a rather large margin."
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
I didn't mention Krugman in that comment. But I certainly do think that if there were ever a Bloomberg-Clinton team (and Bloomberg has been very friendly with the Clintons) the NY Times and Krugman would support them.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Sanders isn't running Barack Obama's third campaign. He's running his own campaign. It's not his job to list the various things about the health care system that work, or are better than before, but to make the case for the overhaul of the system he wants to bring about because of the things that are still bad about it. That's not demagoguery; it's making a sale for one's policies. Hillary Clinton wants to raise middle class incomes. So I imagine that when she makes a speech she tries to direct the attention of middle class people on the ways in which they are struggling in the income department, and doesn't start with "Middle Class incomes aren't as bad as they might have been!"
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
I keep hearing about all of these holes suddenly, but I have yet to see a thorough quantitative analysis showing they are holes. The cost savings Sanders says will be achieved are in lines with the ones single payer defending economists. have given in the past. Do you think it's the revenue numbers that are wrong? Drum's initial take seemed pretty fair. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the stump speech. Selling people on the new taxes that are involved in the plan requires getting them to understand how much they are going to save in terms of out of pocket expenses being eliminated. So it seems perfectly legit to use this technique to make that point.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
She did help the banks with her vote on the bankruptcy overhaul. Otherwise, she helped them passively by staying out of legislation to do with Wall Street, except where Chuck Schumer gave her the green light.: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/01/16/clinton-record-wall-street-laissez-faire/Z2a3iOsj40wryeRN2iT6qK/story.html
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
I have no idea why you think his plan for Wall Street is worthless. The 21st Century Glass Steagall plan was co-authored and co-sponsored by McCain and Warren. The financial transaction tax has long had a number of prominent supporters in the economics field. The contention that the current ratings service setup stinks is virtually conventional wisdom. And there is tremendous popular support for regulating consumer credit better, something Warren has also been a prime champion of. Breaking up the big banks will indeed be difficult, as "busting the trusts" was in the past. But TR proved it can be done with strong commitment and the right political environment. The point of going after them is not just to promote financial stability, but to do something about the exploding political power of financial and corporate capital. The Kochs, Citizens United, the non-prosecution of Wall Street following the orgy of fraud and flim-flam, the audacious handing out gargantuan rentier "bonuses" looted from the working class, and the sheer size and accountability of these institutions - these are all connected. If we don't take the fight to this leviathan of capital and haul it in, we are going to lose every last shred of our democracy.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Why do you say it doesn't add up?
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Krugman is being utterly hypocritical on health care. Both the political and economic arguments Sanders is making for single payer are ones Krugman himself has made before, and the arguments now being raised for the suddenly "unimpressive" deficiency of the Sanders plan by Krugman 2016 are arguments the Krugman of all recent vintages would have mocked. Also the Clinton campaign has offered no substantive detail itself on how it plans to accomplish all the wonderful extensions of the ACA they claim make single payer unnecessary.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Of course it's not "sufficient". That's why Sanders's financial reform plan also included an anti-usury law and a financial transactions tax and the ratings service overhaul. Dean Baker thinks the financial transactions tax is the most important of all of the proposals, and will do more than all of Clinton's proposals combined. But I don't think Krugman has responded to Baker's column. The attack on Konczal is unfair because, agree with him or not, Konczal is a straight-shooting, low-politics wonk of the classic type. But Krugman has a separate line as a ferociously political animal in addition to the wonkery, and his recent interventions have been transparently political - including today's post attempting to conjure up another TINA argument for the establishment candidate out of the semi-annual Bloomberg posturing. That clearly had nothing to do with wonky policy disagreement. So it is not surprising people are choosing to respond to Krugman in political kind. Clearly Krugman is on Team Hillary and decided to go all in this week now that Sanders has taken a commanding lead and seems poised to surge past her in Iowa too. Also, Krugman had several months when he could have engaged in the ongoing and very substantive Democratic policy debate between the Clinton and Sanders camps, and yet he chose not to. If he had, then perhaps both candidates would have sharpened up their positions even more. But I pointed out before that even finding Sanders *name* in Krugman's column was nigh impossible during all those months, while he had abundant time for bringing down the level of national debate with routine bottom-scraping from the Daily Trump. Krugman is no fool. Why did he choose to ignore the substantive debate? A debate in which one candidate was defending single payer policies that Krugman himself had defended several times in the past, as well as introducing other important proposals concerning the minimum wage, college education, labor rights, public investment and jobs? After all, Krugman is a "wonk", right? Well it was again a transparently political move. *All* of the pundits in the Clinton camp have followed a concerted strategy of ignoring the Democratic debate completely, in the expectation that the hippies would flame themselves out and go back to Vermont, and that Democrats should be kept distracted from that debate, and fixated on "electability", by focusing their attention on the evil Republican nemesis. "Wha... Sanders? ... Who? Oh look over there! Sarah Palin just said something stupid again!" And they *all* joined in launching operation Kill Bernie this weak in unison. This isn't wonkery; it's politics. So now after months of pure, crude, transparent politics that Krugman, with his usual intellectual arrogance thinks people are too stupid to detect, he is suddenly concerned about the cause of policy "wonkery", while his own contributions to the wonkish side of the Democratic contest have ranged from the nonexistent to the shallow and slapdash.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
To tell you the truth, what I think is more likely in the case of a Bloomberg intervention is that, if Sanders is nominated, Bloomberg and Hillary team up as an establishment centrist neoliberal dream team. That will consolidate a lot of the Third-wayers, the Friedmans, the Brookses, the Frums, the neocons, the big banks, the neoliberal think tanks in both parties, the NYTimes and Wapo, etc. This would pave the way for an eventual realignment of American politics around a top/bottom economic class-oriented divide, rather than a liberal conservative cultural divide. But I think what's actually going to happen is that Sanders will be nominated, and then all the worriers like Krugman will discover that they love the guy.
Toggle Commented Jan 23, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Did the Clintons spark this latest resurgence of seasonal Bloombergism, just so Krugman could make his case that we need to vote for the neoliberal Clinton to save the country from this nightmare scenario?
Toggle Commented Jan 23, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Why is that demagoguery? He's trying to point out that lots of people are still paying lots of money out of their own pockets for their health care.
Toggle Commented Jan 23, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
You are ill-informed. The position I articulated in that paragraph is part of what some economists used to call "supply-side Keynesianism", and was a very standard orientation of the left before the old left was replaced with the new neoliberal left, and the latter's view that the private economy was basically self-correcting and self-optimizing in the long run, and that the government role should be limited to demand management tweaks to overcome sticky prices. To be more specific, we need - more strategic economic planning; - more industrial policy; - more public investment; - more government "intervention" in production decisions; - more socialization of investment; This will help private investment as well. Businesses don't invest when the future is unclear, and the future is unclear when the government doesn't set a national investment agenda. When they do set such an agenda, as they used to in the mid 20th century, business performs better, "animal spirits" sag less, and there is lest waste, confusion and coordination failure.
Toggle Commented Jan 23, 2016 on Links for 01-23-16 at Economist's View
1 reply