Linda McQuaig writes that radical measures are required to get us through this pandemic. And, she argues, they should be adopted when the pandemic is over. But powerful interests are lining up to ensure that doesn't happen:
This is the sort of dangerous thinking that a phalanx of powerful interests -- from the Fraser Institute to the financial press -- are keen to crush, realizing it could spread more easily than coronavirus at a crowded, maskless beach party.
Bay Street is determined to return to low government spending and to ensure that the recovery focuses, not on new aspirations, but on restoring the corporate world so that it's as rich and dominant as it was before the crisis.
As the Fraser Institute's Jason Clemens insists, the priority must be on tamping down government intervention and encouraging entrepreneurial innovation, while avoiding tax hikes.
In other words, resurrecting the old orthodoxy -- and making sure the rich aren't asked to pay a penny more.
But these kinds of radical solutions are not new. They were suggested ninety years ago to get the world out of The Great Depression:
The brilliant British economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out at the time that private enterprise wasn't investing during the Depression because, with everyone out of work, there was little prospect of making a profit. He argued that the only solution was for government to step in and spend massively on needed projects.
"We have the savings, the men and the material," he declared. "The things are worth doing."
Keynes said that putting people back to work would create productive capacity -- the very source of wealth: "It is utterly imbecile to say that we cannot afford these things. For it is with the unemployed men and the unemployed plant, and with nothing else, that these things are done."
Franklin Roosevelt adopted Keynes' program and it worked. It can work today:
But wait! Not so fast! Now that we see how it can be done, one is tempted to ask: could this be a way to pay for increased government spending on future things we truly need -- like building hospitals and public transit and investing in renewable energy?
As economist Jim Stanford suggests, "the genie is out of the bottle."
Rest assured, however, that the wealthy will do everything than can to stuff that genie back in the bottle.
12 comments:
The people are going to have to be vigilant, Owen, and the people are going to have to demand real change. If some of the fervour we are currently witnessing in the streets can be channeled toward revising the system, there is hope.
.. aint no 'genie' .. its more 'Pandora's Box' ..
All that's left in the box ? Lid open ?
HOPE .. which is not a strategy ..
more 'a wing & a prayer'
wish upon a star..
climb every mountain
meets Jack in the Beanstalk
& tinkerbell..
I agree, Lorne. The people in the streets will determine if -- in so many ways -- we will go back to the old orthodoxy.
Yes, it is a Pandora's Box, sal. We have been living with more than one virus. Now we have to try and put an end to both of them.
As someone just into my 80's, Owen, I say if the private sector wants to invest their stockpile of money into making widgets for sale to the masses, then have at it.
However, if I get to the stage n life where a privately run senior care joint is my only option, where it has already been proven my well-being is more than likely to be severely compromised, then I will shout to the skies "no bloody way"!!!
This from The Sunday Edition: "No need to worry about a deficit when the government can print money, say some economists"
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-june-7-2020-1.5594627/no-need-to-worry-about-a-deficit-when-the-government-can-print-money-say-some-economists-1.5594636
Listen to the discussion. There is a stunning admission by a Fraser Institute spokesman that the government can function well with an high deficit.
I started to wonder about this a year or two back. Remember all the dire predictions about Japan after the Tech Bubble burst? It turns out that Japan's economy is running very well in spite of a 200% deficit. As Jim Stanford said, "The Genie's out of the bottle."
The assumption is that they have your best interests at heart, Lulymay. That assumption is questionable.
The pandemic has proved that a lot of our assumptions don't hold water, Toby.
.. for Lulymay.. wuz a woman once.. was observed by an astute young man aboard a cruise ship. Crew deferred to her as royalty.. The astute man inquired politely re her identity. No answer. Later he politely met her on the deck.. and introduced himself.. Somehow he politely felt for an answer to her obvious crew admirers.. Captain's Table invites.. etc.
'Oh' she tossed off.. 'I've done many consecutive tours aboard.. its far less cost than an old age home.. and they wait on me hand and foot, the food is fabulous, I see the world afloat.. and I tip graciously.. why do you ask ?'
Why indeed .. ?
Sounds like a different kind of mobile home, sal.
@ toby
There is a stunning admission by a Fraser Institute spokesman that the government can function well with an high deficit.
Ah yes, the Fraser Institute of Fantezy and Fibs. The spokesman must have slipped when cornered.
There is an entire school of heterodox economists under the banner of /h Modern Monetary Theory that has been, more or less arguing this for years---well, I think the argument is a bit more complicated---much to the horror of orthodox, neo-liberal, economists and, especially to our bankers and local oligarchs.
Austerity, coming out of a pandemic-caused recession/depression sounds like a total disaster, well, except, possibly, the 1%.
Austerity was always for the masses, jrk. It was never meant to find its way into the financial temples of the nation.
Post a Comment