|
Edited on Mon Nov-21-05 02:35 PM by K-W
What they claim their goals to be is not relevant, our economic system IS driven by private power to what extent they actually get to design the system is what must be debated, my OP's contention is that what could be called Clintonism was not designed to meet the needs of the private sector, but of the public good within our changing society. Again unless you're contesting that considerations of economic growth in the private sector should NOT AT ALL be considered I fail to see your point.
Well that just isnt true. Clinton's policies were very much effected by, shaped by, and openly in service to the private economy. Clinton was very open about that fact.
And yes, i am saying that the growth of the system that produces and exacerbates inequality should not be a goal of the system that is supposed to counteract that inequality.
What good is a mixed economyn if the growth of one sector has to be a goal of all the other sectors? When is it the private economies turn to reform to make the welfare state grow?
It is not not a mythology that technology changes economic realties, its called "creative destruction",
No it isnt. And technology doesnt change the realities, it changes the potential realities. Just because a technology exists doesnt mean we have to use it, and it doesnt mean we have to use it in a specific way. Technology is wholly under human control, it is not something that acts on us, it is something we create and use.
It is not the technology that is changing the world, it is people and institutions using those technologies. That is the issue, how does that technology get used, when does it get used, what does it get used for. And those are decisions that we should all have a say in, not decisions that we should pretend get made by fate.
if you are suggesting that we have it in our power to halt technological advance so we can deal with a static economy, I suppose in some hypothetical sense your right, but I certainly wouldn't call such a scenario desirable.
Good thing I never suggested that.
You bring up the new deal approvingly (I certainly agree), understand the New Deal was a reaction to industrialism, many at the time of the New Deal, argued that adjusting government to face the challenges of the new economy was not the answer, but that attempting to turn back to a more agrarian Jeffersonian democracy", was preferable. This is a similar argument to currently arguing that the anachronistic shibboleth's of yesterday's left that dealt with yesterday's reality should be preferred to new solutions to deal with our current issues,
Except that nobody has made the argument you are countering here. Why are you arguing against a point that niether I, nor anyone on this thread, has made?
Nobody is arguing that we advance old models, people are arguing that we advance new models based on liberal values to counter the models based on conservative values.
what I am advocating is a sort of New New Deal to deal with our current technology based economy the same way the first new deal dealt with the industrial economy.
We still have an industrial economy. The technology doesnt change that.
Just because corporate America claims we have a new economy now doesnt make it so, and doesnt mean that Democrats should just accept this new economy without question and then work from there.
The only way that welfare can serve the people is for it to be reformed so it can fit with the changing economy, if it is based on an economic reality that no longer exists, it is not serving the people. You should make up your mind.
I know what you are but what am I! I have never contradicted myself so I have no need to make up my mind. I dont know what this mythological new economy you are referring to is, of course the economy changes, it has always changed, but to argue that we have crossed some magical line of change that means we should ignore history is a big silly no?
I advocate for mixed economies because I believe they are the most efficient.
Im not sure a faith based approach is the best way to deal with economics.
While my personal impulses are based upon helping the poor and the public good, my opinions are based upon sound growth oriented sustainable economic polices, these should be to the liking of both corporations AND poor people as they should benefit them both in the long term, my goal is not to be hostile to the private sector, it is to make it conducive to the public good.
You cant have your cake and eat it to. Providing for poor people and making the rich richer are conflicting goals. Clinton was wrong to think they were compatible and so are you.
A real welfare state is anethema to private power and vice-versa. Argue for a mixed economy if you want, but argue for one that recognizes the competing interests in our society, not one that pretends we are all working for the same things.
If we reduce inequality, the rich will feel attacked. If we give the rich greater profits, it will increase inequality. The fact that we have computers now hasnt changed that fact.
|