shuggy's blog
I think you're possibly being a little bit harsh. I think the striking fact about the current crisis is the level of uncertainty, no-one really knows what is going on and what is likely to happen. As such, people feel free to give whatever opinion they like on the matter, and elaborate these opinions with analogies to uncomparable examples from the past.
Protection does seem to be making something of a comeback, witnessed in the reaction to many of the bank crashes, particularly the Icelandic ones. You're right, there is nothing intrinsically left-wing about it.
Like most people I've no idea how bad things will get, or how extensive the crash will be. I do have a lingering hope, though, that it will eventually lead to some of the capitalist excesses of the past 30 years being reversed and help foster a resurgence in leftist ideas within society.
Shuggy,
I don't always agree with you on everything, but I will say this: it is writing of this quality that is the reason that I have you on my RSS reader.
The blogosphere can, at times, be quite politically/ideologically polarised. It is posts of this sort that help bridge the gap, that allow topics to discussed properly.
Keep it up Shuggy: you are doing everyone a service.
Why are you surprised?
Crisis's are a great opportunity to say "I told you so. We need to implement my pet policies because if we had done so before then we wouldn't have this crisis"
The level of discussion currently is moronic. Everyone is saying it needs to be "fixed". We must have better "regulation". We must take "concerted international action". None of these magic pills are fleshed out with substance.
Here's a moron in the Telegraph telling us that if only we had implemented "Basle (sic) II" then we would have avoided the crash. Only problem is the banks in Europe had by and large already implemented Basel II.
Magic Pill!
Here's an article from UCLA which reinforces your point about FDR's solution to the 1929 crash.
"I'm referring to trade here. I simply don't understand some people on the left and their attitude to international trade. In the 19th century, the 'liberal-left' in this country, including sections of what we would now probably describe as the 'hard-left', campaigned for free trade and against the Corn Laws on the grounds that it meant cheaper bread for hard-pressed working class families. Can someone explain to me what the hell happened?"
Willingly. You're conflating liberal with left, when they were very different it not counterposed at the time.
There were probably as many Tory trade unionists (protectionists) as there were Liberal free-traders.
The whole point of socialism, the Labour Party, whatever, was that NEITHER policy in itself would give the working class what they wanted and deserved.
This was an enjoyable post and you're right that people are using this crisis to put forward any proposals they want.
On the question of free trade, when you say no-one's as yet calling for protectionism but given the 'current narrative of much of the left you don't tend see much in the way of evidence that it would be resisted should it arise', I suppose one reason to be optimistic is that I don't think, with the exception perhaps of concerns over environmental impact of long-distance freight, the left has been particularly hostile to trade between developed countries, which accounts for more than 80% of UK trade. So I'm not sure there would be a huge deal of political pressure.
In fact I don't think (but I might be wrong here) that the American criticism of trade with developing countries that it creates job losses/lower wages has been that prevalent here, perhaps because we have no equivalent of Mexico. But one area of concern might be the rising risk of protectionism in the form tight curbs on immigration.
You're conflating liberal with left, when they were very different
I don't see what the problem here is. I'm referring, of course, to the time before the Labour party existed as a separate entity. Those in the ILP, for example, many of whom also supported free trade were of course distinct from the Liberals but the point is that they both supported free trade - which brings me to this:
The whole point of socialism, the Labour Party, whatever, was that NEITHER policy in itself would give the working class what they wanted and deserved.
Nevertheless they supported free trade because they believed that it was in the interests of the working class.
It's a disaster for the current model of the Mixed Economy. Government's role in providing a sound currency has been cocked up - conspicuously so in the US, at the hand of Greenspan; Government regulation has been neither particularly heavy nor light, but particularly incompetent. Government interference in the housing market, again conspicuously in the USA, has been malign. Government debt levels - in the UK, for example - are less than enchanting. Meantime, the bankers have been looting their shareholders by making investments that have been beyond reckless, to the point of mad, arrogant stupidity, and with no sign that "capitalism" is, or was, remotely capable of disciplining the buggers. It's also not looking good for democracy: the US President is a Lame Dud; the two Presidential Candidates have nothing of the least interest to say, and Congress has been its usual frivolous, corrupt self. Brown, who has played a central role in making this country vulnerable to the disaster, is strutting the stage and indulging in heroic levels of dishonesty. And, of course, much of the Demos has been behaving as a herd of stupid, greedy swine. Lastly, it is, or ought to be, a catastrophe for Economics - which of the apparently bottomless well of winners of the pseudo-Nobel Prize in Economics saw this coming and warned us in a timely way? Should we conclude that Economics, insofar as it is not just footnotes to Smith and Ricardo, is partly an intellectual void and partly a con trick? Maybe we should.
And right there is the reason I no longer read DSTPFW.
Great article!
Thanx for posting.
Also thanx to magic for his comment/link.
Commenting by HaloScan
