In a series of recent posts, Paul Krugman is starting to admit that he’s failing to be able to use his pulpit, position and his credibility to encourage government spending.
What I find most interesting is that he argues that proletariat sentiments of inequality (injustice) are the driving social force, while failing to understand that middle and upper middle class sentiments of injustice (inequality) are an equally driving force.
[callout]What I find most interesting is that he argues that proletariat sentiments of inequality (injustice) are the driving social force, while failing to understand that middle and upper middle class sentiments of injustice (inequality) are an equally driving force.[/callout]
I think you are failing in your effort as a public intellectual, that you are aware that you’re failing, and that twenty years from now, it’s going to be clearly evident that you failed to encourage borrowing (debt) and spending (investment) that WOULD have made a difference, and WOULD have assisted us in getting out of this long term stagnation. And you’re failing because you can’t envision HOW to put money to work in the economy, and you can’t do that because of your personal biases and fantasies.
But I suspect that you will go to your grave holding desperately to your desperate convictions – convictions held by the fantastical beliefs of a frustrated minority. A minority that has not in two thousand years, been able to obtain and hold onto land, and as such fails to understand peoples that DO hold onto land, and why they are able to hold it. And in particular, why they are wiling to pay very high social costs, in order to hold it.
But the social engineering you think that you can accomplish with economic policy runs too counter to human behavior to produce your desired ends. A heterogeneous people will NEVER act as you desire them to. A ‘CREATIVE CLASS’ will never work to produce your desired ends. Because a creative class must take RISKS, and they take risks with people with whom they TRUST. And they trust people with whom they can best how to trust. And they best understand people who are LIKE THEM.
The diasporic english, armenian, chinese, hindu and jewish people are the most competitive and innovative, but aside from the english, the rest tend to work intra-race. Even within races, people cooperate within CLASSES. They may work or consume across lines but they do not RISK across lines, and RISK is what generates jobs, and jobs are what generate consumption. Government spending does NOT ‘inform’ risk takers. It actually makes them angry, because they see the state as a competitor that deprives them of opportunity, and a predator that deprives them of choice.
More importantly, all productive creativity requires some sort of technological innovation. It is a product of material manipulation of the physical world. Creativity is not in the capitalist class but in the entrepreneurial middle class. Something must be invented before it can be profited from. So some groups are more effective at mobilizing their middle classes than others.
The USA had prosperity to share because of external, not internal factors. Anglos had a new continent to sell off, the only form of government capable of distributing the work of it, (And after the Louisiana Purchase, a government invented specifically for it). Aggregate but temporary technological advantage over much of the world. The inexpensive acquisition of british sea ports. The ability to sell ‘dollars’ internationally because of adopting those ports and the ensuing projection of military power. The collapse of or absence of competitors – particularly those under communism. The conversion of vast numbers of laborers and farmers to suburbanites made possible by low cost of energy, energy distribution and manufacture. The use of print, television and radio advertising to stimulate class-advancement incentives in vast numbers of people by the accumulation of basic consumer goods many of which freed women from the need for dedication to household labor and allowed them to enter the work force and increase productivity.
These external factors are MORE INFLUENTIAL than monetary policy. Demographic (distribution), Race, Culture and Class factors are MORE important than monetary policy in determining risk-taking, and risk-taking is what creates jobs. These cooperative frictions DECLINE under wealth because of less need for group persistence, and they INCREASE under duress. In fact, we are seeing a national moving pattern that is the ‘flight from diversity’. And we are witnessing the US adoption of the south american model of a defensive white urban elite, an increasingly minority poor suburban ring. And in those cities where this situation cannot form, flight. Because diversity is an economic disadvantage. Cheap labor may not be. Diversity is. And we have known for a very long time that tribes may integrate into the legal and property system, but they do not integrate into the political and cultural system. Any integration is an illusion of our winner-take-all two party system.
Minorities and majorities demonstrate group-persistence strategies. They do so because status determines mate selection, access to opportunity as well as serves to provide people with feedback signals, and status is easier to obtain within group than without. This status-economy is MORE important than pricing signals EXCEPT under absurd conditions. The US interwar period is an ABSURD condition. The euro-atlantic expansion is an absurd condition. The western dalliance with integration of cultures is the product of ABSURD conditions.
[callout]our government, has built an empire rather than a nation. … [Empires] only survive when a minority has political control over the empire, and where that minority allows economic freedom, but specifically prevents political freedom.[/callout]
Under these conditions of absurdity, our government, has built an empire rather than a nation. Empires are not egalitarian, they simply consolidate trade routes and reduce the friction of trade while increasing the size of the market. They are anything but egalitarian. And they are only beneficent, and they only survive when a minority has political control over the empire, and where that minority allows economic freedom, but specifically prevents political freedom.
You are not going to get what you fancy. You’re going to fail as a public intellectual. And you’re going to fail as a public intellectual because of your own class and cultural biases.
It’s not that we don’t need spending. It’s that we must invest in production not consumption. And that your underlying desire is really redistribution, and fulfillment of your frustrated cultural and racial ambitions, not increases in production. And you will not get the body of people to borrow and invest unless you abandon those fantasies.
But people never do. You won’t. And so you’ll fail.
And all your efforts will be wasted.