Dani Rodrik is Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author of The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy and, most recently, Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science.
The Politics of Anger
Perhaps the only surprising thing about the populist backlash that has overwhelmed the politics of many advanced democracies is that it has taken so long. Even two decades ago, it was easy to predict that mainstream politicians’ unwillingness to offer remedies for the insecurities and inequalities of our hyper-globalized age would create political space for demagogues with easy solutions. Back then, it was Ross Perot and Patrick Buchanan; today it is Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and sundry others.
[…]
In reality, today’s world economy is the product of explicit decisions that governments have made in the past. It was a choice not to stop at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and to build the much more ambitious – and intrusive – WTO. Similarly, it will be a choice whether to ratify future mega-trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
[…]
If one lesson of history is the danger of globalization running amok, another is the malleability of capitalism. It was the New Deal, the welfare state, and controlled globalization (under the Bretton Woods regime) that eventually gave market-oriented societies a new lease on life and produced the post-war boom. It was not tinkering and minor modification of existing policies that produced these achievements, but radical institutional engineering.
Moderate politicians, take note.
Mainstream U.S. economists have criticized Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s proposals as unworkable, but these economists betray the status quo bias of their economic models and professional experience. It’s been decades since the United States had a progressive economic strategy, and mainstream economists have forgotten what one can deliver. In fact, Sanders’s recipes are supported by overwhelming evidence — notably from countries that already follow the policies he advocates. On health care, growth and income inequality, Sanders wins the policy debate hands down.
(Jeffrey D. Sachs)
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/26/bernie-sanders-easily-wins-policy-debate
Could it be that mainstream economists are infected with the “emperor wears no clothes” syndrome? They have to note that current models are not functioning properly, because (1) interest rates have been too low for too long and there is talk of negative rates; (2) unemployment and underemployment are problematic in several parts of the country; (3) Stealth quantitative easing continues (4) U.S. debt is almost $19.5 trillion; (5) evidence of bubbles in the housing market and student debit crisis; (6) inflation in many food items, health care, education, rent, hotel rates, entertainment, etc. Of course the MSM basically reports the stock market indices and if they’re going up that’s all that counts. It’s obvious that big changes are needed in current economic models. I wonder how some of these economists sleep at night.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/so-you-thought-quantitative-easing-was-over-think-again/
I forgot to add to the mix above the amount of U.S. Treasury securities that the the Federal Reserve owns: $2,461,637,000,000.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TREAST
That is our entire money supply, correct?
That figure was Treasury Securities owned. There are mortgage-backed securities and Federal agency debt securities. The Federal Reserve’s total assets are $4,229,807,000,000. Their credit is $4,422,096,000,000. There has never been a time in the Fed’s history where they owned these many assets. Of course, the bulk of these assets were produced since 2009–thanks to the Great Recession mess. The Money supply M0 was 3872940 USD Million at the end of April 2016.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0
OT, but this is wild…http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s
-debt-secret
That was very informative. When Nixon’s name appears in some article, it usually involves something secretive. I guess that’s why his alias was Tricky Dick. LOL
Agree with all but point 4. It is largely irrelevant for a country with fiat currency and even so compared with other countries on a debt/GDP ratio basis, it is not extraordinary.
That debt could be reduced by taxing upper-income people, but that makes those stakeholders scream loudly and who has the political will to do so? Repubs like to pontificate about the amount of the debt when they want to diminish a person’s Social Security and/or Medicare benefits and other Uncle Scrooge actions. The problem the Repubs have is the amount of debt incurred during Bush II’s administration and their holding of the House of Representatives since Jan. 2011 and the Senate since Jan. 2014. They own this big debt, too.
I believe Bernie Sanders and some others in Congress have the political will, but at this point there are too few to get the job done.
Has Jeffrey Sachs repented of what he did to Russia with his advice to go cold turkey on public goods and jump headfirst into capitalism?
No doubt former Soviet citizens were assuming that the United States would ease their transition with something like a Marshall Plan. In that moment it became clear that the Marshall Plan was not because the US wanted a recovered and stable Europe but because the Soviet Union was competing on economic progress.
That propaganda competition is also why the US became prosperous and even thought briefly about ending poverty.
There never was any authentic concern for real people, US citizens or former Soviets. That was the delusion of liberal propaganda midcentury.
Or should Bill Clinton have said: “charade.”
Right, he was a party to the can of Shock Doctrine the neolibs opened up on Russia…after a career of implementing it on South America.
A very strange bedfellow for Sanders. But economists are beginning to question orthodoxy…and admitting their nostrums are making the patient sicker.
Yes he has. He also claims that his efforts in Russia have been misinterpreted.
Always good to remain skeptical and wary of those that seem to have had a conversion. (Did I ever get suckered by Brock’s mea culpa which will remain a learned lesson for me for a long time.) I’ve been on the fence about Sachs for a decade and a half but do accept that his change is authentic. Although conversions are never quite complete because the person’s old worldview doesn’t so much disappear but gets integrated into the new worldview. If I were to guess, I’s say that Sachs gets it on a cognitive level but won’t ever fully grasp it on an emotional level, but very few that have enjoyed a certain level of privilege from birth and without deficits ever get it on that all important emotional level.
I was there (Moscow, ’94 and ’95) at times.
There was a syllogism that didn’t work across the Eastern Bloc:
Figuring out to go from communism to capitalism was really hard. Some countries did better than others – the Russians did the worst. I think the average citizen thought glasnost (political reform) would lead to economic growth. There was a lot of free market triumph talk in Russia. I think Sachs was part of that. And they collectively define the word hubris.
Compare China to Russia. Russia did political reform then economic reform. China has done economic reform without political reform.
Pretty obvious which country has done better. The problem is political liberalism was discredited in Russia because the economy failed.
Well, Chinese actually could learn from example what NOT TO DO. That is kinda rare. lol
But they started before the glasnost. Deng reversed collectivization of agriculture in ’79.
I think Russians just regarded China as a backward country they had nothing to learn from.
But Deng Ziaoping would surely be on any short list of the most important people of the last 100 years. It is hard to find a single leader who had such a consequential impact on the economic living conditions of their country in a positive way.
it is tough to say this in the West after Tiananmen.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Too bad the Chinese haven’t been learning since 2008, they are piling on the debt deeper then we did before 2008, and allowing their government owned zombie corporations to keep refinancing their debt even though they are now having trouble paying just the interest on the debt. Add to that their overextended manufacturing and infrastructure concerns, they are headed to a hard landing. When it happens is anybody’s guess because even though their grown is shrinking (down to 6.7%) it is still way above anything that exists outside of China.
The problem is they cannot cover the debt at that level of growth. When the reach the levels the rest of the planet has had to live on the last 8 years, the crash of 2008-09 will be repeated with out the Chinese to handle the growth and financial backstop for the rest of the economies.
If their contraction happens in the next 18-24 months add the woes of negative rates in both japan and Europe, crash in Brazil etc to the world wide contraction.
We are far from immune from this contraction, and whomever is sitting in the white house better have prepared for it.
G/S will be in charge of our response, no doubt.
NO, GS will be scrambling to cover their losses, hoping President Hillary can convince congress for another bailout, Schumer will be groveling for GS of course, wonder what Pauly Ryan will say?
Cruz, given most of his families income comes from his wife’s job at GS.
Elizabeth Warren would be the one to watch here.
Irony is not dead: You’re witnessing the death of neoliberalism – from within
In Red Plenty, his magnificent novel-cum-history of the Soviet Union, Francis Spufford charts how the communist dream of building a better, fairer society fell apart.
But reality makes swift work of such sandcastles. The numbers are increasingly disobedient. The beautiful plans can only be realised through cheating, and the draughtsmen know it better than any dissidents. This is one of Spufford’s crucial insights: that long before any public protests, the insiders led the way in murmuring their disquiet.
When Red Plenty was published in 2010, it was clear the ideology underpinning contemporary capitalism was failing, but not that it was dying. Yet a similar process as that described in the novel appears to be happening now, in our crisis-hit capitalism. And it is the very technocrats in charge of the system who are slowly, reluctantly admitting that it is bust.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/witnessing-death-neoliberalism-imf-economists?C
MP=soc_3156
The problem is what is going to replace it. Basically the Sanders answer is what they have in Europe. But that isn’t really a solution.
Capitalism is indeed in crisis. The problem is so are the other ideologies one might use to replace it.
Don’t see that. The triumph of the billionaires seems nearly complete. The newest trade treaties put corporations above national governments and make local governments into serfs.
Would venture to say that no more than 25% of Democrats appreciate how much damage WJC did to ordinary people in this country. Democratic leaning independents better appreciate the damage done by Clinton but generally can’t articulate it.
Future generations will one day look back at Democrats and liberals and wonder how we could have been so blind and stupid. The best response is that it we were in a pot that was warmly so slowly that very few noticed it.
You know, more and more, I see voting for HC as being asked to re-elect Maggie Thatcher. IOW, you know what she is gonna do…
Glad I am in dark red state. Wonder of others will be leaving that category blank this year in safe red states?
I’m beginning to think that we have collectively regressed to a mid-twentieth century mindset. The one that over-learned the lessons of European fascism and see that boogie-man everywhere that US-centric status quo is challenged.
Perhaps Trump and HRC are the essence of every presidential election since 1964. It’s nothing but the royals bumping each other off to gain the throne and privilege to steal from the masses.
Whoa! Progressive economists in outright revolt!
Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/wall-street-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-213931#
ixzz4AR9gBtPF
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Vichy Dems. Really captures neoliberals.
The ending of this article is an excellent summary:
“The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in such a bubble of operative and media sycophancy that they’ve mistakenly viewed escalating distress and legitimate demands from citizens as mere noise. Sanders voters are taking their cue from Talleyrand, the statesman who navigated the Revolution and the turbulent 50 years that followed with remarkable success: ‘I have never abandoned a party before it abandoned itself.’
If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue day of reckoning.”
Yeah, tell The Blacks, The Hispanics, The Asians, The Women that Trump is responding to their escalating distress and legitimate demands.
These voters aren’t likely to give Hillary and the Dems a day of reckoning in November.
Have you paid any attention at all to Hillary’s campaign? The voters appear to have found it acceptable.
Economists look at the health of the WHOLE.
Collaborators seek smaller and smaller divisions to turn against one another.
That’s why I am a Democrat. It is the party which pursues policies most embracing the whole.
It does so imperfectly. It does so under extremely adverse circumstances that the Reagan Revolution successfully put in place.
But here we are, with a Presidential candidate whose stated agenda is the best of any Party nominee in many decades, and in many areas is the best of any Party nominee ever.
I don’t much care, from platform plank to plank, whether Hillary was there at the start, such as increasing access to affordable, quality health care, or whether she had to be led there, as is the case in many areas of her campaign. We have successfully led her here, and here she is.
In my mind, the difference between Clinton being able to pursue a truly progressive/liberal agenda which is minimalist or maximalist depends on whether she has a nail-biter of a win, or if she achieves a landslide. With the landslide would come better houses of Congress and a greater ability for the ascendant Left to influence her administration.
If Sanders supporters deny Clinton votes in any significant way, they would be rejecting their own ability to gain power and influence policy. It would show that they are not serious about winning the policy changes they claim to want, or do not understand how to gain power to make change, or mistrust power so completely that they do not want it for themselves.
I want power. I want it for us. I will do all I can to see to it that our movement takes that power. We’ll have to stay with the fight for decades. I want us to successfully do that.
yes, this is it
Something to note:
Clinton IT staffer plans to take the Fifth in civil deposition
Unlike the FBI, Judicial Watch has nothing to offer Pagliano to get him to talk.
Based on Lukens and Cheryl Mills depositions in the Judicial Watch (JW) case, JW is going to be hamstrung. (Yes, I read both depos.) Lukens and Mills claimed not to have known much of anything in real time and whatever they may have known, they don’t recall. Both did confirm that HRC is incapable of using a computer to email and in 2009 refused to learn. That’s weird because by 2000, senior citizens that couldn’t program their TV recorders were quite adept at using their PCs for email.
That is strange, I agree–can’t e-mail.
Isn’t it funny to see Dems having the vapors over using FOI laws on Dems?
Not funny. But revealing as to their true nature. In fundamental ways, they are no different from the Republicans they loathe; they just wear different colored caps designating which gang they belong to.
This primary season has really exposed the true nature of the Dem elites. They have engaged in some of the same dirty tricks as Repubs. The problem the Dems have now is how can they continue to portray themselves as Little Red Riding Hood and the Repubs as the Big Bad Wolve?
LOL Have been imagining how flat-footed DNC Dems would be left if Trump did NOT become the candidate for whatever reason?
If I were the DNC I would prepare for all possibilities, since surprises in politics are never the kind one gets on their birthday.
indeed. just hoping they cease troll funding around Nov 8 so we can have our blog back. I know, I know, just a rude Sanders supporter.
haha
Politico — Judge demands to see Clinton aide’s immunity deal
FYI — wikipedia Emmet G. Sullivan. (Remember John Sirica.)
The judge in this case is a Clinton appointee, so no HRC trolls can legitimately claim this is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. I read the comments section accompanying your link. These readers don’t seem to like either Clinton or Trump. Maybe their readers are Independents. I understand that political group is growing like weeds after a big rain.
Indeed, the more exposure, the worse it gets. Folks in non-swing states are talking about leaving the top of the ballot empty. Whoa! If that becomes a trend…
Tell me more — both red and blue non-swing states? Both Ds and Rs?
Saw it being discussed on Toma’s econ blog. Works for me in Texas.
and yeah, both teams. lol
“Toma’s econ blog?”
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/
Thanks — scrolling through the last two threads, I didn’t see much that I’d characterize as large numbers of refuseniks.
look at my last link. Surprising.
Care to share as I didn’t see anything either surprising or interesting.
This one…http://mcimaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Sanders-Clinton-County-1024×791.png
from this link…http://mcimaps.com/west-virginia-democratic-primary-poised-to-have-high-protest-vote/
Surprised me.
Looks normal to me. There have been a couple of wankers picking up 1+ to 3% in the Dem primaries. In many southern states there’s still a large number of registered Democrats that have been voting Republican in general elections for decades. In 2008 some of that vote went to Edwards, but after he dropped out, similar voters in other states mostly went for HRC.
At this point, I’m more interested in looking at general election scenarios. Lots of considerations. Assuming Trump and HRC as the nominees, the door is open for a third party candidate. Unfortunately, it’s not Jill Stein.
http://mcimaps.com/west-virginia-democratic-primary-poised-to-have-high-protest-vote/
Not necessarily independents as a super-majority of the general population rates both Trump and HRC as untrustworthy, etc.
Not what I’m seeing at caucus99percent. After yesterday’s crushing defeat, that blog is full of “Hillary is the lesser evil” talk.Of course at DailyKos, the diaries are full of indignation that Bernie did not grovel sufficiently. You see, heretics need an auto da fe.
Here is face of the Frog Pond http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2016/6/7/233524/7178
You know, it is in the interest of Dems to keep our antagonisms horizonal… Booman trolled it pretty hard today.
“It becomes clearer every year, particularly with Sanders’s popularity, that the American ruling class has made out like bandits simply by keeping portions of the large (and potentially powerful) working class from uniting in a single political party behind even a social-democratic program. And that such a scenario would be nothing short of a disaster for them.
It’s obvious that this kind of popular politics will never be built if segments of the working class — much less a majority of it — are written off So when I hear liberal pundits saying that white workers are morally compromised beyond hope or on the way to irrelevance, I tend to get a little suspicious..
https:/www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/white-workers-bernie-sanders-clinton-primary-racism