http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/04/remarks-president-economic-mobility
Paul Krugman described this speech in his column as
important, despite the relatively ho-hum if not actively negative reaction of
the press:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/opinion/krugman-obama-gets-real.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
Looked at from a political point of view, the speech seems
to affirm Krugman’s analysis that it’s a sort of coming out of the closet for
the President. Obama makes quite clear that he’s speaking as a fellow
progressive and that he intends to conduct himself as such for the remainder of
his term. Apparently, all pretense (if it ever was pretense) of being a
centrist and being above all dedicated to bipartisan solutions, no matter how
much he might have to give up to cut a deal with the Republicans (who usually
refused to cut a deal anyway), is done with as a failed effort. Just as it is
hard to imagine that the Congress could get any more partisan and nasty just
because the Democrats changed the Senate rules to limit filibusters, it is hard
to imagine that the Republicans could scorn Obama any more because he made this
speech.
Our point of view here, however, is related to economism. I
have quoted from previous Obama speeches, both in The Golden Calf and in this blog. As a rule, in the past, I was
quite happy if I could identify one or two passages in an entire speech that
seemed fully expressive of an anti-economism posture. In this speech, on the
other hand, I was hard put to find a passage that did not seem to me to call
out economism for the flawed ideology and policy that it is.
The main focus, as the title indicates, is the way that
income inequality in the U.S. has led to a loss of economic mobility. It is
simply no longer true that a poor person, or the poor person’s children, can
hope that through hard work, or education, or whatever, they will become
reasonably well off. Obama labels this
as a serious challenge to who we are as a nation.
Along the way, the President trots out many of the
statistics that people worried about income inequality commonly cite—like the
CEO who was content to make20 to 30 times that the average worker made in the
1960s now makes 273 times as much, and that the top few percent of the
population are running off with an increasingly disproportionate percentage of
wealth and new economic growth. He deals with many of the standard ploys that
economism’s defenders use to defend the status quo (like the claim that raising
the minimum wage would hurt poor workers) and points out why all of them are
misguided or inaccurate. He insists that government policy must play a major
role in redressing the problems.The road back from economism (maybe that’s a good title for the book that refutes the standard reading of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom) will be long and difficult, but it has to start with the flaws of economism becoming the subject of robust political debate. As I explained in The Golden Calf, for far too long, economism has thrived on the widespread belief that the key portions of its ideology are nothing but common sense and that no rational politician could possibly disagree with them. Just to call them out and to insist that the debate must start is a major step forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment