'One Market Under God' Chapter One: The Illuminati

Great Debates
1

Well, after a bit of self prodding I picked up the book, One Market Under God by Thomas Frank, and I cannot yet say whether I thank Gadarene for this suggestion or not :wink:

The contents of the first chapter will serve to outline this OP. I have not yet read passed the first chapter.

The first chapter sets the stage for what Frank is describing as a massive shift in appearance of Big Business. Big Business is explained to have bested the other two Bigs (Labor and Government) in some contest of the gods, fought in the terms of populism (identification with the masses). BB (and for you 1984 fans the choice of abbreviation is delierate) is said to have ushered in a wave of support for itself by essentially overturning popular expression and symbolizing the market as the ultimate expression of democracy.

Big Business was able to achieve this because of shoddy regulation practices and the decline of the Labor movement, says Frank. He conveniently fails to mention why Labor lost its power and why Government regulation failed to serve its purpose, but nevertheless BB was there, lurking in the backround, eager to reclaim the Holy Grail of popular support that it graduallly let slip in the early 20th century, and which it completely lost after the Great Depression.

The travesty is, we are told, that the expression of Regulation and Labor is essentially a “throwback” to the stodgy 50’s, and who wants that? The new CEO rides a skateboard. The old corporations are thinking new, and thinking you. The economics of Hayek and other free-marketeers are telling us that if we aren’t wealthy it is because we haven’t innovated, and those innovators like Gates are where they are by running circles around Old Money and corporate Fat Cats.

[Meanwhile, these innovators really are the corporate fat cats, and the gap between the rich and the poor grows]

So far, the chapter eerily reminds me of The Illuminatus! Trilogy, not in that I feel it is presenting fiction as fact, but rather that there is some vast conspiracy lurking out in the open, and if we could just see passed the fnords in IBM’s commercial we’d all trancend our ignorance. To quote:

When you look into the abyss, Tom.

To be fair to Frank, he does present many detractors opinions fairly, and apart from the general context of the book without sarcasm (yet). But this does not stop me from making the following observation about liberalism and its attempt to cry out.

It is always the target of a vast right-wing/ Christian/ libertarian conspiracy. These people are lying to us (‘us’, the common men and women). They’ve ingrainined it into our language. There are fnords on the television and doublethink in the workplace. The market fails, people!-we need regulation, we need stability, we need control over the areas of the market that do not accurately reflect our interests.

Meanwhile, the marketeers that Frank will get on to damning are expressing their support of the market by its ability to realize the desire of just about anyone, by its ability to reward hard work and punish failure, by its ability to adjust quickly and efficiently to whatever comes down the pike, to raise all ships in the ocean of the capitalist economy.

My comments on my “expression” of liberalism have been said a few times here on the board. I have come to accept (or rather, shall we say ‘agree’) that the market can fail in certain key areas. I in no way feel that it fails in as many ways as proposed liberal regulation would have me believe, but as ever I am willing to listen.

My comments on my expression of the marketeers is that they are simplistic in their notions of what a market can actually realize. I don’t think a liberal government would give us niche political markets like fetishists, whereas the market itself can actually cater to much smaller subsets of interest. But that alone does not mean that the market really is the true expression of the population.

All that notwithstanding, the book seems to touch a Randian nerve in me, as do many posts on this board that seem to ring true to it’s (the book’s) words. The liberal movement seeks to undermine the Illuminati (that is, corporate america) while laughing at corporate america’s cries that there is some liberal conspiracy against them.

Truth be told, people, it is a big fucking conspiracy on all sides, and I am not laughing about it, and I don’t think that any of the Big Three (Labor, Business, and Government) can do squat about it because they are all struggling to fight each other. They ar like divorcees and we are the children caught in the middle. The Labor movment wants to stagnate growth so workers don’t have to reeducate themselves and stay competetive, while Government seeks to force competition by battling Business tries to consolodate economic power. Each side has its own little Ayn Rand on their shoulder, espousing some tired ideology that should rise above all others like the WD-40 of political, social, and economic life. Each side promises everything and delivers…

Well, each side delivers things, too. The Labor movement did give us the 40 hour work week in a way, and they did succeed in toppling the combined powers of Government (who stoped breaking strikes) and Business (who didn’t care about their employees). The Labor movement also made benefits possible to more people than I could imagine, even those who aren’t unionized. The Government has secured the borders, 9/11 notwithstanding, and has provided an infrastructure capable of supporting a large population in a large land mass. This is no small feat, as comparable land-mass countries have not done the same. And Business has given us (or popularized) tools which have made huge economic success possible. No, I don’t make a huge salary, and no, I do not live a life of leisure, but god damn it even people on welfare have televisions and cars.

But I’m no moderate. I’m exceedingly libertarian on social matters, and pretty libertarian on economic ones (though I am mostly identified with ‘conservatives’ because I fight regulation :rolleyes: ).

Are there things to fix? Sure, but trying to point out conspiracies in the woodwork isn’t going to accomplish much other than aid the ongoing struggle of the Big Three, each of which have their problems. Excessive labor movements slow growth and devaluate the dollar, excessive regulation hampers innovation and puts power in the hands of lobbyists, and excessive growth leads to civil unrest. None of these things are mysteries.

The real tragedy, IMO, are people who write these books, catering to the angst in different social groups without mentioning the fact that their solutions are no better, and to some are actually worse. The illusion presented by liberal and conservative ideologies is more dangerous than corporate fascism (Business), Oceania (Government), or Marxism (extreme Labor). And listening to even some very recent posts in the media threads disheartens me even more. The tired rhetoric of the vast (insert group here) conspiracy isn’t false, but it isn’t doing anything than shifting power form one conspiracy to the next.

But perhaps I am really just a victim of the fnords Frank mentions.

2

You can sell a book, start a cult, run for office, just bsed on the premise “100 reasons why X is bad” without once addressing the equally true “but the alternatives are even worse”. I can give you 100 reasons why democracy is bad and they are all true. Of course, I can give you even more resons why the alternatives are even worse.

These days it is fashionable to say big business has too much power. I happen to think this is not as bad as it seems at first. I happen to think dividing power is a very good thing. The government is divided into three equal branches and it works fine. I can give you 100 reasons why this is bad but the fact is countries where the government is not divided like that and it holds monolithic power are countries where I would not want to live. Now, power is not only government power, it is also other kinds of power (economic, information, etc) which the government does not and should not hold and I want these powers as divided as possible. Countries where a few people hold all power are shitholes. I want the checks and balances. I want strong economic interests to check the power of the politicians and I want the government to check the power of the corporations. I do not want any of them to be absolutely above the others. If the government had absolute power to regulate business without limits, that would be a disaster as government people know little about business. Any country where the government runs the business world is a disaster. I think it is a very good thing that economic power is free to push for its own interests.

Power: the more divided, the better. We have the government divided into the three traditional branches. The economic power of corporations all competing so they have common interests but also competing interests.

The power of the media and information in general which also serves to keep the government and the business world in line.

The power of NGOs which are becoming more and more important in the world.

And the power of each of us as individuals to vote for the politician we like, buy the product we like, volunteer for the NGO we like…

In summary: Big business has a lot of power: yes, but I do not consider that a bad thing in the least. It may have some bad things but the alternatives are even worse.

Now you have big business trying to get away with stuff and other groups putting limits on that. If the governemnt and big business were pretty much one and the same, who would put limits on either?

3

I haven’t read the book in question, so I can’t comment upon that.

But dang, eris’ ranting/writing has gotten way better.

Firstly, like flowbark, he’s discovered italics. Always good for a chuckle, though I’m not sure why.

Now, it wasn’t perfect, but the paragraph that started with “Truth be told, people, it is a big fucking conspiracy on all sides” and ended with "Each side has its own little Ayn Rand on their shoulder, espousing some tired ideology that should rise above all others like the WD-40 of political, social, and economic life. Each side promises everything and delivers… " had some nice turns of phrase.

Nice 1984 allusion. I liked “Oceania” especially.

Oh, and the concept was sound as well: ideologues and politicians are in the vision biz.

To that, I would add that journalists and writers are in the Narrative Business. And that good narrative is not always good analysis.

Finally, I would say that many (not all) of the underlying issues are empirical ones, that is ones where it matters whether the world is actually fashioned in one way or the other. Bias in interest or perceptions nothwithstanding.

4

The problem is not with people writing books with a particular agenda. These books are necessary, it is even necessary that a single book have an agenda or else it wouldn’t be coherent. One book cannot espouse ALL sides. The problem is with people who unlike you, lack the critical thinking skills necessary to make a cognitive decision as to which parts of the book they are reading make sense and which parts are ludicrous.

I off and on read a book in the same vein as the one to which you refer. It’s a book of essays, which is how I accomplish the on and on thing and still have a coherent idea of what I’m reading. Anyhow, it’s called Commodify your Dissent, and while it has an agenda, that agenda is on point, however the point is very trite, and it does say things, that are true, about the way corporate culture incorporates rebellion and uses it as a marketing tool, it also makes it in a very trite sarcastic manner, and to me at least seems as though it is stating the obvious.

With these types of books, while everything they are saying may or may not be true, you have to look at it as part of a larger picture, one that is not contained completely in that book. It’s as Sailor said, they can make 100 statements that are all true but not mention what type of effect the alternative might have. Lately I am trying to read books from many sides of the equation in my interests. (Well at least articles) Right now I am reading Edward Said’s Orientalism to get a perspective on the European colonial perspective from an alternative viewpoint, in kind of an attempt to figure out how modern foreign policy was shaped, especially with regard to the middle east. However this book will no more serve as a bible than reading Kissinger.

The problem is not with the narrow viewpoint presented in literature, it’s with the narrow viewpoint being received when someone reads a book that fits their perceptions so that they can feel justified in the way that they think.

Erek

5

erislover, I don’t have the time right now to reply to your post. And I imagine Gadarene will do better anyway. However,
I thought I’d post this article-length excerpt from Thomas Frank’s book so that others who don’t know One Market Under God could look it over and offer an informed reply.

The article is quite full–gives you a very good sense of where Frank is coming from.

BTW, I think it’s pretty brilliant

6

sailor, I do have time to briefly reply to your post. You suggest that there should be a balance of power: big business/big government. I think what Frank is after is big people. I’m for that as well.

The mere fact that you don’t even see “the government” as something that is yours as a citizen is proof in itself of how deeply dysfunctional our democracy has become.

In any case, I think you might find Frank more interesting that erislover’s post would lead you to believe.

7

Mandelstam Thanks for the link. Here’s my review, FWIW:

The article was devoid of any sort of explicit policy discussion. Hey, that’s ok.

It cited a number of catch-phrases such as, “Washington Consensus”, and “Golden Straightjacket”, without discussing their conceptual underpinnings or justifications.[sup]1[/sup] That’s ok too.

I think Frank’s theme is contained below:

Readers of Wired magazine, as well as the WSJ will be familiar with the market populism concept.

Frank doesn’t bother to draw any distinctions that might distinguish the valid aspects of this concept (surely markets have some role in matching production to consumer preferences) from the dubious ones. That might involve a careful evaluation of the extent to which consumer preferences are autonomous or easily manipulated. Woops, too tricky. Hey, I’m good with that.

I suppose there was some sloppy thinking during the 1990s which tended to oversell the free market. But this isn’t exactly an original observation. And let’s face it, Frank’s characterization of the cultural Zeitgeist was pretty rough. Maybe I’m missing something (other than Frank’s admittedly colorful language.) Perhaps the book is better. Or perhaps I’m just not a Zeitgeist kind of guy.

[sup]1[/sup]The Washington Consensus refers to the developmental policy advocated in DC (and, BTW, elsewhere) for third world countries. Noting that import substitution, military dictatorship and extensive regulation had not been particularly successful in Latin America, the Consensus emerged that 3rd world countries should emulate the Asian tigers (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.) who had successfully made the transition to between lower income and middle or upper income. The Golden Straightjacket refers to the propensity of the international bond and currency markets to punish economically unsustainable policies. Just in case it wasn’t clear from the article.

8

Thanks flowbark for that reply.

I should perhaps have noted that the article-length excerpt was published as a cover story in an issue of The Nation a couple of years ago. Most Nation readers know all about the “Washington Consensus” as that term (and its ilk) are used constantly to explain why there is so little understanding of or debate about the current course of globalization. When Frank excerpted for The Nation, in other words, he would have assumed that his readers would be successful graduates of “courses” in the Excesses of Multinational Corporate Power 101 and 102. ;).

Bear in mind too that Frank is a cultural commentator–not an economist, historian, or sociologist. As such his aim isn’t either to parse policy, or to collect new forms of empirical data, but to interpret existing policy/data in an original and incisive way. Frank says he’s coined the idea of “market populism” and I’m not sure, flow, whether you’re suggesting that the term has been in use in Wired, or simply that what it refers to is there on display without any self-conscious naming. (As to the WSJ, in that case you presumably mean that the paper disseminates “market populism”–for I can’t imagine you believe that the Journal is in the business of showing readers how they’re being suckered in by the powerful allure of market mythologies.)

In either case, I think Frank deserves credit for an original analysis since he’s been writing about these issues since the late 80s and some of the people who write for Wired would be exactly the sorts to actually read The Baffler (Frank’s publication), etc.

As to the kind of analytic tools Frank brings to bear on the subject of culture–there are, of course, major precedents. Frank practices a kind of analysis inspired by the works of Roland Barthes Mythologies, Pierre Bourdieu (works too numerous to mention), and British cultural studies writers such as Dick Hebdige, whose stellar cultural analysis of punk (Subculture, The Meaning of Style, 1979) is a personal favorite of mine.

Said’s Orientalism–sitting on mswas’s night table as we speak ;)–can be put in this grouping, though it has been deservedly credited for taking this kind of analysis into a new “postcolonial” direction.

In a general sense all of these books show us how cultures–in this case, modern Western, liberal-democratic cultures–generate certain myths that help ordinary folks to buy into the status quo even though the status quo wouldn’t, without these myths, give them a great deal of purchase (literally or figuratively!).

The goal implicit in these analyses, therefore, is a population that is more conscious, informed, and, therefore, active in understanding and pursuing the popular interest. In other words, a more active citizenship and, as a result, a more truly democratic society.

9

Oh dear, I actually skipped your definition of “Washington Consensus,” flowbark, assuming that it would be neutral and reliable. Alas, I must dissent!

The Asian tigers didn’t in the least follow the Washington consensus; rather they followed a model of economic nationalism that Japan pursued way back when. It’s only recently, since the bubble economy in Asia (for various complicated reasons) required a late 90s IMF bail-out that the “golden straightjacket” has, to a degree, been imposed on the tigers.

For particularly glaring examples of how badly this policy works see: Russia and Argentina. There is actually no example of a success story predicated on Washington consensus models; some like to cite India even though India–despite IMF badgering and some recent neo-liberal policies–features a highly complicated blend of non-consensus and pro-consensus elements. China is certainly not a “WC” adherent, though that may change now.

The important thing to bear in mind is that when third-world countries are asked to accept the Washington consensus in exchange for IMF loans, they’re being asked to accept conditions that the United states and Europe would never accept for themselves. Some would reply that this is because the US and Europe are already industrialized–but the biggest lie (or implication) of all is that first-wave industrialization depended on Washington-consensus-like policies.

For examples of how “first-world” industrial nations could not and did not industrialize under the free-trade orthodoxies of the Washington consensus, see any of the following: the history of British industrialization c. 1780-1870, the history of German industrialization c. 1870 on, the history of French industrialization c. 1870 on… All of these relied upon aggressive mercantilist and/or nationalist policies–not on some “straightjacket” of free-trade and/or laissez-faire.

10

Mandelstam, I am most definitely not for big government. I am for the smallest government which we can live with. Regarding business, I am for big competition which should be a “checks and balances” of sorts in this area. As for “big people” well, I like them petite but there’s no accounting for taste is there? :wink:

Au contraire mon ami, I definitely participate through the democratic government but I also participate through my work in a company, through NGOs which I support, through my purchases as a consumer, etc. God save us all if the only choices we had was the politicians we could vote for.

11

sailor: “God save us all if the only choices we had was the politicians we could vote for.”

Precisely. But what I’m suggesting is that democratic “government” shouldn’t and needn’t be reducible to the (increasingly unexercised) act of voting for “politicians.”

I don’t think you will understand this without reading Frank but, in effect, your views are the product of the malaise Frank is trying to describe. By your own characterization, you are a market populist. You see markets as the one place where you can exercise choice, and you see “government” as primarily an obstacle to your participation in hte latter.

The one important difference between you and the Frank prototype is your participation in NGOs which Frank would undoubtedly see as an important form of non-market activity.

FTR–I’m an amie not an ami but please to be on amiable terms with you nonetheless. :wink:

12

Exaccery! Let’s face it, not all regulation aimed at improving the market actually helps consumers. As I tried to say eloquently (but I fear I’ve failed) a bureacracy like a monopolistic government cannot cater to niche politics, whereas the market actually can cater to niche markets. Witness fetish botiques, crazy-ass pornography, pickle-lovers, bakers, etc. If I am a baking fanatic there are many areas where I have my own store to buy from, dedicated to my needs!

No WAY a government can accomplish this. Though the idea of a power monopoly does differ from an economic one, some premises must carry over, and one of these is an inability to innovate. So yeah, we need the government to undermine negative market tendencies, but I think it is a laughing matter (Nelson: ha-ha) to say that Democracy will solve our political and social needs. It doesn’t, and it can’t.

And a point which a certain poster often mentions (christ, I can’t remember who it was, and I am sorry for this because I was very glad they said it) is that business can devote full-time resources to lobbying the government, while we need to get on with our lives. Sure, we can vote ever X years on certain political matters, but lobbyists get to influence political decisions as they happen.

The closest thing the average mope has to this is supporting (or not) a market trend as it is brought out. But even here one is washed away with the tide, unless you happen to live in a high-population area (or at least one which can feasibly support niche markets).

Woe is you if you want to visit a strip club in many towns. Not that the economic demand isn’t there, but hey, all “they” (nay-sayers) hav to do is vote up a few zoning regulations and you can forget about seeing the girl next door shaking her stuff, when clearly both you and her want it to happen.

Democracy as politics has a say in absolute regulation of existence (to whatever extent that regulation encompasses, it obviously doesn’t need to be 1984-esque), but the market (operating smoothly from limited government interference) doesn’t care about that. In Congress, a democrat and a republican need to work together to achieve results. In the market, competing businesses can work right next door to each other.

Frank seems to want me to believe (and I am midway through chapter two right now) that market-as-democracy is a farce, and I don’t think that is well-founded. Clearly it has many democratic elements to it. Hell, by many standards our form of government as democracy is a farce. Not all my choices are accurately, or even inaccurately, represented or representable (consider the case where I don’t support any politician running and I don’t vote: this has the same impact as the guy who doesn’t care about voting at all; now, are those two expressions really equivalent? Our democracy would have me believe it is).

Unions, too, are rather democratic in their own way. Hell, any thing which allows people to choose can be considered demcratic; any thing which fails to reflect all choices can be said to democratically fail. Sort of a trivial conclusion when one comes right down to it.

Any dominant structure is not perfect, and it needs to have other structures which will either prop it up or control it in some way. The question is one of getting the whole house of cards to stand. And if businesses want to tell me that I have more choices today because of them, am I supposed to think they are lying to me when my own senses tell me it is so?

13

erl: *…a bureacracy like a monopolistic government cannot cater to niche politics, whereas the market actually can cater to niche markets. Witness fetish botiques, crazy-ass pornography, pickle-lovers, bakers, etc. If I am a baking fanatic there are many areas where I have my own store to buy from, dedicated to my needs! *

Swell. I think we’re all agreed that markets are irreplaceable when it comes to ministering to this kind of consumer preference. The “command economies” of the Communist companies just couldn’t compete in that regard. No argument there.

I think Frank’s point, though, is that the aim of “market populism”—which kind of seems to be working in your case—is to persuade you that markets are the best way to satisfy all of a citizen’s needs, not just his/her consumer preferences. After a long enough barrage of “ain’t markets wonderful!” rhetoric, we tend to lose sight of the simple fact that markets are not capable of catering to our needs except where they can make a profit.

You want green ketchup, custom fetishry, gourmet pickles, “crazy-ass pornography”, baking tins shaped like the Statue of Liberty? The market will supply them, and all sorts of other luxuries and necessities, in profuse abundance and generally at competitive prices—thank heavens for markets!

You want low-cost high-quality education for special needs kids? Unskilled jobs that don’t expose workers to lots of health hazards and pay them enough to make a reasonably secure living and save for retirement? Improved environmental and public health protection? Well-staffed, well-maintained public lands for wilderness and recreation without exorbitant user fees? Excellent public libraries? Research on vaccines and treatments for diseases that mostly affect poor people? Do you see private businesses elbowing each other out of the way to offer us increased choices in these or any of a host of similar areas?

No, for the simple reason that these are not money-making commodities. There are lots of things that people want and need that it is simply not profitable for markets to try to provide. That’s a fact of economic life, and there’s nothing wrong with it, and it’s not intended as a criticism of markets.

The problem arises when businesses try to encourage us to overlook this fact: “hey, if the private sector is so good at providing us with cheddar-and-jalapeno pickles, it must be good at providing us with job safety and public health and reliable investments too! Deregulate everything! All power to the market!” Uh, nope. I’m not knocking the advantages of having more choices in many consumer goods and services because of the market, and I really don’t think Thomas Frank is either. What I think he’s criticizing is the insinuation that therefore markets must be better at everything.

Hell, any thing which allows people to choose can be considered demcratic; any thing which fails to reflect all choices can be said to democratically fail.

Right. And by that standard, the private sector is extraordinarily democratic in the area of a certain range of consumer choices, as you point out. It is extremely undemocratic when it comes to things like determining company policies on waste disposal, employee work schedules and job benefits, job security, non-discriminatory practices, and so on.

Frank’s claim, AFAICT, is not that the market isn’t democratic in its own limited sphere of consumer choices. Rather, he is complaining that “market populism” tries to persuade us that all our needs are or can be satisfied democratically by markets, because gee, markets are just so gosh-darn democratic and cool and lovable by their very nature, is that great or what? I think Frank has a point when he notes that such claims are pure marketing bullshit and are not a sound basis for economic policy.

Sure, continue to be happy about the fact that markets make it possible for you to get lots of stuff you want. Just don’t lose sight of the fact that markets will not lift a finger to provide you with anything, no matter how desperately you want or need it, that doesn’t make a profit for the provider. If we could figure out a way to make all human desires and benefits financially profitable, then the “market populist” claim that total marketization equals total democratization would be true. But as things are? No way.

14

Well, who am I to comment on people being swayed by powerful rhetoric? It wasn’t too long ago that I was an aynrandlover.

But I think Frank’s point would have a greater impact if he were a bit more explicit. Of course, I started this thread with me not being very deep into the book, and it is a long book so there would be far too much to comment on after reading the whole thing, so perhaps I am still judging his observations harshly. But some stray comments lead me to think otherwise, like the one I posted in the OP.

Here is another that leaves a bad taste in my mouth(All original emphasis):

That the context of this paragraph is supposed to be an example of the kind of double-think we are swallowing in market populism is noteworthy. I think it is a slur on American workers that we must curb importing labor (or make it difficult to do so) in order to provide them jobs. In what crazy-ass isolationist world do we live when such an action does not bespeak of a direct comment on talent?

And here we find that what is really failing isn’t business for hiring the cheapest talent available, or the government for making work visas and similar papers/legitimate means of existence more difficult to obtain, but the failing of our beloved unions which are dropping the ball and not snatching up more industries. Or do we blame the workers for not spontaneously forming their own unions?

Nah, let’s blame the businesses for not thinking like good isolationists.

True 'dat, and I am not one to disagree here. I think there is a place for the government in the economy. I would even support anti-trust legislation if it were worded more clearly.

Moreover, I can easily admit that there are many areas that the market cannot address at all, nevermind poorly, and something should probably fill that gap. I can think of nothing better than a democratic government making laws about such behavior/areas/whatever.

Is that necessarily true? Here is where the concept of democracy-as-market is tricky as hell. Would it be democratic if we voted for waste-disposal regulation? Would it be democratic if concerned citizens demanded specific waste-disposal procedures from a company lest they stop providing it with business? Would it be democratic if the waste disposal personell went on strike until waste was disposed of better?

There’s three democratic solutions for you, each acting within a specific sphere of influence, all conceivably achieving the same effect. Why would any one be better than another?
[ul]
[li]Political solution to waste:[/li]This is great if the correct method is actually achieved, but due to the nuances of political corruption, more likely is it that corporate lobbying will affect the laws more than the voters’ interests would, since the voters’ interests are only polled by spontaneous outpouring (emails, letters, phone calls to congresspersons) and the occaisional poll or vote. But if the voters’ interests are represented, then there is no problem with this method.

One plus to this method is that a minority subset of the population, if it doesn’t encounter enough dissent, can get the law written in their image. Well, it is a plus if you agree with the opinion. It is a minus if you don’t know such a law is about to be passed so you may form an opinion on it.
[li]Market solution to waste:[/li]I don’t have much to say here. I think this is the way most situations should be handled because it is possibly quick, and should there prove to be a problem with the “regulation” it can be adjusted quickly without lawsuits, lawyers, or more regulation (or amendments to said regulation).
[li]Labor solution to waste:[/li]This, too, is perfect, and acts as the ultimate lobbyist group in every industry in the world. If it were to work there would be no problem with it in my mind.
[/ul]

I think that, generally, the market or labor solution should be acted on first, and regulation should be a last-ditch effort. If the concern is that not enough people would care to act in order to overturn such events, then any political action taken isn’t democratic almost by definition, no?

I think I beat this baby seal quite a bit, but it is my own little crusade. In the America that exists in my mind, anything that the government can accomplish (over the market, not in place of market-failure areas) could be accomplished to the same or better effect by action from labor or the market itself (or, hopefully, both). If we don’t care enough to act on such things, then passing a law on it isn’t any more democratic, and I think it is an abuse of the word to say it is.

Exactly what areas are still subject to government regulation are a matter of discussion, of course. Maybe that’s what this debate should focus on, because I fear we are all rambling on about vague generalities a bit. :slight_smile: But as I am one who loves rambling posts, I ain’t complaining.

15

erl: *I think it is a slur on American workers that we must curb importing labor (or make it difficult to do so) in order to provide them jobs. In what crazy-ass isolationist world do we live when such an action does not bespeak of a direct comment on talent? *

“Direct comment on talent”? Isn’t it rather a direct comment on the law of supply and demand? If immigration policies allow employers readily to import large numbers of foreign workers who will do the job for less money, it is in no way a slur on American workers to point out that the competition will tend to diminish their salaries and the number of jobs available to them. Nobody’s saying that foreigners will necessarily do the job better—that would be a slur on American capabilities—just that foreigners tend to do the job for less money, which makes them more attractive to employers.

How could it be otherwise? Are you imagining that it would be more realistic for American workers to say instead “Hell, let them loosen immigration restrictions, I’m confident that my talents and performance are so superior that my employer will prefer to keep me on rather than hire a guy from Bangalore at one-third of my salary and benefits package!”? For crepes’ sake, if that were the case, why would employers be seeking to loosen immigration restrictions at all? Mind you, I tend to believe that immigration is in general a good thing, but I’m not naive enough to think that people who resent the extra competition it provides are just being too negative about their own abilities.

*And here we find that what is really failing isn’t business for hiring the cheapest talent available, or the government for making work visas and similar papers/legitimate means of existence more difficult to obtain, but the failing of our beloved unions which are dropping the ball and not snatching up more industries. Or do we blame the workers for not spontaneously forming their own unions? *

Hmm, you don’t think this could have anything to do with employers exerting pressure (sometimes in illegal ways) on workers to prevent them from forming or joining unions, or on government agencies to prevent them from protecting labor rights? I’m happy to hear anybody supporting workers’ right to collective action, and I agree that unions should do more on the organizing front, but let’s not kid ourselves that employers aren’t doing all they can to make it as difficult as possible for them. That’s just the dictate of the bottom line: non-union labor, like foreign labor, comes cheaper, so it’s in employers’ interests to have as much of it available as possible.
*Would it be democratic if we voted for waste-disposal regulation? Would it be democratic if concerned citizens demanded specific waste-disposal procedures from a company lest they stop providing it with business? Would it be democratic if the waste disposal personell went on strike until waste was disposed of better? …

I think that, generally, the market or labor solution should be acted on first, and regulation should be a last-ditch effort. If the concern is that not enough people would care to act in order to overturn such events, then any political action taken isn’t democratic almost by definition, no? *

I think you kind of missed my point. I’m not claiming that it isn’t possible to address such problems via consumer boycotts or employee strikes (although it’s definitely not easy to create one that’s genuinely effective, and it usually involves a lot of extra-market influences like feelings of public duty or solidarity; the basic market incentives are all in the direction of buying stuff and getting paid, which is why strikes and boycotts, when people voluntarily give up those advantages, are comparatively rare.) I’m just saying that the standard market approach to such issues—i.e., the folks who run the company make the decisions—is profoundly undemocratic. That’s not always a bad thing; not everything can be done democratically. It’s just important to bear it in mind when we start to get swept away on the market-populist rhetoric that markets are naturally democratic.

*I think that, generally, the market or labor solution should be acted on first, and regulation should be a last-ditch effort. If the concern is that not enough people would care to act in order to overturn such events, then any political action taken isn’t democratic almost by definition, no? *

That’s kind of a peculiar argument. Why would we expect that consumers or workers taking their own uncompensated time and risking their own advantages should be the first solution to abuses by business, rather than the people we elect and pay to defend our interests?

*In the America that exists in my mind, anything that the government can accomplish (over the market, not in place of market-failure areas) could be accomplished to the same or better effect by action from labor or the market itself (or, hopefully, both). If we don’t care enough to act on such things, then passing a law on it isn’t any more democratic, and I think it is an abuse of the word to say it is. *

Except that, as you pointed out before (I think it may be jshore who frequently mentions this), consumers and workers don’t have anything like the resources that businesses routinely invest in such issues. Insinuating that groups of disparate individuals who can’t put together from scratch an organized movement sufficiently powerful to withstand PR/economic/legal pressure from companies that can well afford to pressure them simply “don’t care enough to act”—now that’s a slur on Americans. The resources we do have to act on such issues are mostly concentrated in government legislative and regulatory agencies, and that’s where we should be using them, IMHO.

16

MandelstamLet me clarify.

  1. I’m suggesting that Wired magazine and the editorial page of the WSJ exhibit the sort of, “rah-rah aren’t markets superior?” attitude that Frank labels “market populism” and Soros labels “market fundamentalism”. (Although there are distinctions between the 2 concepts; Soros’ term applies more to the WSJ, while Frank’s notion is more oriented towards Wired.)

  2. I’m suggesting that identifying this phenomenon isn’t exactly difficult. Furthermore, while “Market populism” has a nice ring to it, coining a workable phrase doesn’t quite overwhelm me with feelings of admiration.

Ah, no. I argue that a conscious informed population would be more adept at policy analysis than at the sort of superficial lit-crit analysis that Frank provides. And it is superficial. Essentially, it identifies a thread within a number of differing analyses without bothering to address the substantive arguments within those analyses. But, hey, Frank is a cultural critic: that’s his job.

No problemo.[sup]1[/sup]

  1. Maybe we’re on different pages. Please characterize the components of Japan’s policy. Then characterize the specific policy prescriptions of the so-called Washington consensus. Then show their dramatic differences.

Here’s my definition of the components of the Washington Consensus:
Fiscal discipline.
A redirection of public expenditure priorities toward fields offering both high economic returns and the potential to improve income distribution, such as primary health care, primary education, and infrastructure.
Tax reform (to lower marginal rates and broaden the tax base).
Interest rate liberalization.
A competitive exchange rate.
Trade liberalization.
Liberalization of FDI inflows.
Privatization.
Deregulation (in the sense of abolishing barriers to entry and exit).
Secure property rights
Source: http://www.iie.com/papers/williamson0799.htm

I would say that Japan, South Korea and Taiwan embody this set of characteristics better than Argentina (competitive exchange rate? fiscal discipline?) or Russia (fiscal discipline? Secure property rights?)

As an aside, I would emphasis the second, the last and the first ones on the list, roughly in that order. Furthermore, I would note that there are important differences between the “Washington Consensus” and the sort of Market Fundamentalism espoused on the editorial pages of the WSJ. (See #2, #5, and even #9 at times).

  1. Also, Washington doesn’t impose the “Golden Straightjacket”; international capital markets impose it. (eg France in the early days of the Mitterand regime). Although if you get your information from cultural critics, it’s easy for me to see how this rather important distinction (between the golden straightjacket and the Washington consensus) can be blurred. After all, the two terms share the same Zeitgeist. (This is insight?)
  1. No, the important thing to remember is that the IMF never imposes its plans on anybody. Now, I’m not convinced that the IMF always does the most competent job, but it’s important to remember that they are only called in when unsustainable economic policies become manifest. Those blaming the IMF often resemble the fool who blames the fireman for the fire.[sup]2[/sup] Also note that actually US policy does rather resemble 10-point list above, at least relative to Argentina in the 1970s.

[sup]1[/sup]In contrast, the term market fundamentalism can be useful starting point. It naturally leads to a discussion of the strengths (adept processing of preferences) and weaknesses (inequality, failure when certain goods such as pollution are not priced) of the market system.
[sup]2[/sup]Ok, so that’s a clumsy metaphor. Hey, we all can’t be writers.

17

Those who have read the link I provided will recognize that I am using the term, “Washington Consensus” in the way that its original inventor (J. Williamson, 1989) used it. Since then, it has become synonymous with “market fundamentalism” in common usage.

Now then. My underlying point is that Frank isn’t very good with distinctions. There was a consensus among economists during the late 1980s and mid 1990s regarding developmental policy, and that consensus did not jive all that well with the tenants of market fundamentalism. Except in the most superficial sense. Furthermore, I would argue that the IMF / World Bank never espoused market fundamentalism, although at times the WSJ has.

I’m not saying that Frank disagrees with me on this point. I’m saying that he never addresses the underlying issue(s). And that those with hopes for enhanced human welfare are not well-served by such muddling.

The appropriate role for government: 'Nother thread, guy.

18

Tenets of market fundamentalism. But maybe the original version isn’t that bad. :wink:

19

flowbark, I enjoyed skimming Williamson’s article and it’s good to know that man who claims to have coined the term “Washington consensus” wants to distinguish between it and the popular sense in which it used–that is, as a synonym for neo-liberal economic policies.

Here’s Williamson himself btw:

“Let me take first the popular, or populist, interpretation of the Washington Consensus as meaning market fundamentalism or neo-liberalism: laissez-faire, Reganomics, let’s bash the state, the markets will resolve everything… It will presumably come as no surprise that I would not subscribe to the view that such policies would be good for poverty reduction. We know that poverty reduction demands efforts to build the human capital of the poor, but on the populist interpretation the Washington Consensus signally fails to address that issue. …”

This is an interesting point, and were we debating whether the World Bank is or isn’t invested in neo-liberalism tout court its relevance would be substantial.

As an indictment of Frank, however, it’s pretty marginal since Frank isn’t writing an article on the Washington consensus (he uses the term only once I believe), and he isn’t discussing globalization. Rather, he’s analyzing the condition of culture and citizenship in the US, and arguing that democratic participation has been coopted by “market populism.”

Frank’s “market populism”–as analysis of what many Americans believe about markets, and George Soros’s “market fundamentalism,” a neo-liberal policy agenda, don’t therefore, refer to the same thing. (I like Soros, btw, so I’m not at all criticizing him or Williamson’s invocation of his term.) I’m simply pointing out that since Frank’s focus is US culture, not the global economy, the distinction isn’t relevant.)

“Maybe we’re on different pages. Please characterize the components of Japan’s policy. Then characterize the specific policy prescriptions of the so-called Washington consensus. Then show their dramatic differences.”

There are numerous differences even today–though if you look again at my post what I said was that the Asian “tigers” emulated the Japanese “miracle” way back when, with the key words, as far as Japan goes, being “way back when.”

It is common knowledge that free trade orthodoxies were not part of the policies that underwrote the economic “miracle” of Japan or the tigers. In fact, many (including Paul Krugman. who is pro-free trade) blame the tigers’ eventual failures on their differences from the Western liberal model.

BTW–I don’t champion Asian-style economic nationalism; I simply note that it was effective in building an industrial economy as no neo-liberal model has ever been. (Neo-liberalism can work for an advanced industrial economy; but it doesn’t work for getting an industrial economy off the ground; hence all the criticism directed at IMF policies.)

However, all of this is a HUGE detour from Frank.

“Also, Washington doesn’t impose the “Golden Straightjacket”; international capital markets impose it.”

I did not say that Washington–as in the US government–“imposed” the straightjacket. Where did you read that? I understand the provenance of the term, flowbark. However, if you care to start a thread with a globalization theme we can debate the extent to which governments–the US’S and Europe’s–make it possible for financial markets to exert “discipline” as such.

“Although if you get your information from cultural critics, it’s easy for me to see how this rather important distinction (between the golden straightjacket and the Washington consensus) can be blurred.”

Actually, I get my cultural information from cultural critics; I get my economic information from a variety of sources including but not limited to books, economists’ writings, and The New York Times business section. I think if you re-read you’ll discover that the only blurring that occurred on this topic was imputed by you.
As Williamson’s own article points out, it’s common to use “Washington consensus” as a synonym for neo-liberal economic policy. So attempting to discredit Frank with this particular charge–when his article isn’t about this or any other trade or fiscal policy–is a bit absurd.

As for the “golden straightjacket”–perhaps you know that Thomas Friedman is himself a journalist with no formal background in economics whatever. He is what The Times itself would probably be happy to admit is a cultural critic; as well as the author of the (particularly dim-witted) The Lexus and the Olive Tree. I guess you might say he’s a market populist. :wink:

“My underlying point is that Frank isn’t very good with distinctions. There was a consensus among economists during the late 1980s and mid 1990s regarding developmental policy, and that consensus did not jive all that well with the tenants of market fundamentalism.”

I believe you mean “tenets,” though I rather like the idea of “market fundamentalism” as a chichi condo in the TriBeCa area ;).

Once again: where exactly did you get the impression that Frank’s article was about “developmental policy”? I’m beginning to think you read a different link…

More to Frank’s actual focus:

“I argue that a conscious informed population would be more adept at policy analysis than at the sort of superficial lit-crit analysis that Frank provides.”

I agree that citizens should familiarize themselves with policy analysis. But what makes you think that Frank expects people to read his article and abjure policy analysis? As he doesn’t purport to be a policy analyst, as he merely purports to be a cultural critic, one might as well criticize him for any number of things that he doesn’t do that would be important for a well-informed citizenry. A well-informed citizenry should be fully abreast of US political history and Frank doesn’t do that. Does that mean he’s superficial?

Sorry flowbark, reading isn’t a zero sum game. And given how this thread is going, I’d say that Frank’s thoughts on “market populism” are controversial to say the least. Now that you’d explained it, you’re idea that Frank isn’t worth reading because he notices something that’s evident from reading the Wall Street Journal is a bit odd.

“Essentially, it identifies a thread within a number of differing analyses without bothering to address the substantive arguments within those
analyses. But, hey, Frank is a cultural critic: that’s his job.”

Sounds like you have a bit of an axe to grind against cultural critics. I’d say there’s a role for people who tie together different kinds of analyses with which their readers are already familiar, offering an interpretation.

But to each his own.

Btw, here is the quotation from Frank himself–early on in the article. This and your seeming unfamiliarity with Frank’s actual argument makes me wonder if you actually read the article or just the first couple of paragraphs.

*“The opposition was ceasing to oppose, but the market was now safe, its supposedly endless array of choice substituting for the lack of choice on the ballot. Various names were applied to this state of affairs. In international circles the grand agreement was called the “Washington Consensus”; economics writer Daniel Yergin called it the “market consensus”; New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman coined the phrase golden straitjacket” to describe the absence of political options. While once “people thought” there were ways to order human affairs other than through the free market, Friedman insisted, those choices now no longer existed. “I don’t think there will be an alternative ideology this time around,” he wrote in August 1998. “There are none.” *

Note that Frank’s definition of “golden straightjacket” is quite different from flowbark’s.

20

Addendum

  1. When I said that neo-liberalism can work for an advanced industrial economy, I ought to have said, for some peple in an advanced industrial economy. (It’s probably no secret that I don’t agree with neo-liberalism.)

  2. Apologies flowbark if I appeared not have noticed that you corrected your own typo with tenet/tenant. I just had to get that line about the condo in :wink: