McKinney: The economists I follow are…
During an interview at Break The Matrix tonight, I was able to have a question asked as requested by readers of Independent Political Report.
While the interviewer did not get it exactly right, he did ask her something along the lines of “Looking at economic thinkers on a spectrum from Ayn Rand on one side and Karl Marx on the other, where do you fall on that scale? Which economic thinkers do you follow?”
I did not mention Marx, but did mention Rand as well as E. F. Schumacher and Gandhi.
I am paraphrasing McKinney, just as I did the interviewer, but she referenced three things. She said that she had read a lot about the Federal Reserve System, it’s founding and the role it plays in our economy and was influenced by those who wanted that system changed. She said that she follows former Comptroller General David Walker. Finally, she said she looks to Ron Paul for his views on economic matters.
Does anyone else find this stuff deeply disturbing form the presidential candidate of an ostensibly left progressive party?
Well Eric, I think that is something the Green Party, or at least a substantial sub-set of us, have said for some time. The Green Party actually does seek the sort of revolutionary change that cannot come from pursuing economic policies that are not democratic, responsible, respectful of diversity, locally based, sustainable, non-violent, grassroots and ecologically wise. Look around and there is no doubt in my mind that this economy is balanced on a knife’s edge, and the risk of economic transformation of the negative variety is almost inevitable.
We Greens must be willing to face the reality that economic laws don’t bend to our will any more than laws of gravity do. Wishing that supply and demand have no impact on price is the sort of woolly headed thinking we came to expect from Nixon.
In like manner we Greens must ask, what is the goal of an economic system and how best can we meet those goals.
I don’t give much of a whit if individual people get rich. To me the purpose of an economy is to allow for the survival and stability of humans. As time has marched on we have found effective ways to build cathedrals, empires, casinos, indoor ski slopes, and television.
We have, however, never found a way for society to deliver on the need for survival for all human beings. We have allowed ourselves to prosper at a time when children in other parts of this globe starve. We turn on the Simpsons while people across the planet, and across town, suffer from illiteracy. For those, and therefore all the rest of us, the system is not delivering the promise of survival.
An old style answer to these problems, like “Grow lots more crops and ship them everywhere” is going to lead where it always has: the rich getting much richer. Do you think food stamp recipients are better off with that benefit, or from an opportunity to participate in a locally owned and operated family farm? Of course, the point is not to limit, but to expand choices.
We must not get trapped in the left-right trap. We are different.
Nukes suck, be they privately or state owned.
The only “trap” I see is the sort of deep confusion that would cause one to perceive Ron Paul as a force for any sort of progressivism.
Some Greens may bandy about slogans like “neither left nor right but out front,” but the party platform is unambiguously on the left … perhaps not as far left as I would like, but certainly to the left of the Democrats.
McKinney, on the other hand, is becoming more and more ambiguous every day. If she is going to take economic advice from the likes of Ron Paul and David Walker, then you can say goodbye to single-payer universal healthcare, social welfare spending, and other key planks of the Green platform.
Thank you, Eric. My mind boggled when I saw this…I believe that the Greens are indeed “neither left nor right”, but Ron Paul isn’t left or right, either – he’s just wrong. Rep. Paul has gone on record as calling for the elimination of the IRS and the Federal income tax, challenging the government’s right to levy such a tax in the first place (which it unquestionably has) – and has said he would replace such a tax with “nothing”, preferring to slash government spending 40-50%, eliminating entire departments, such as Education, Energy, HHS, Homeland Security, Commerce, FEMA, the ICC, and several others. Does Congresswoman McKinney actually believe in any of this? And if not, why quote Ron Paul?
I don’t see the slogan the same way you do, clearly. I agree it’s a slogan, but there are always slogans. The question is, what does the slogan mean.
To me, left and right have brought the planet a series of never ending wars that enrich a few at the expense of the many. No government I can think of since we have had government has been a non-violent one. Doesn’t mean we should not strive for that, for a non-violent future is a must if we are to survive. But, no government has been able to accomplish this I believe, although I would love to be shown that I am wrong, for a government not involved in violence against others or it’s people is a government we could learn form.
Left and right thinking is part of the problems, or at least I feel confident enough about that to be willing to learn from other voices which may also not be interested in a left-right mind set.
Whether in India or Dubai, Copenhagen or San Francisco, Hong Kong of Sydney, money talks and governments are more like a mafia partner than actual regulator. If, for example, you believe the people are better off with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission holding up their fig leaf than if they had to try to stand up in the market on their own, you know nothing about nuclear power. And, I’m not making accusations Eric. I’ve no idea how you feel about nukes.
I do understand that many Greens do have a particular flavor of economics they are fond of. I am fond of E.F. Schumacher and Ivan Illich. To me, I believe we must be like the Dalai Lama says he is, willing to abandon any belief when evidence shows it to be untrue.
We have the entirety of human history to show us that we are unable to live in peace and in harmony with nature. But the future doesn’t have to be a rerun of the past. As Cynthia has said, to get something we have never had, we must do things we have never done.
Steve, she didn’t quote Ron Paul. She said that she looks to Ron Paul for his ideas on economics.
Do you deny that Ron Paul has some ideas on economics that are worth giving time to? They agree on many things. Just because you think that the alphabet soup you recited is evidence that Ron Paul has it wrong, I don’t necessarily see it that way. For example, I would be 100% fine with doing away with the Energy Department. It is a government funded side door into the market with taxpayer supplied grease. The entire nuclear power industry, mountain top removal, “Clean Coal” and high tension wires are not the Green Future we need, but that is exactly the sort of thing that a lumbering government is only capable of doing.
Government need not be the enemy of the good, but it has been exactly that for at least the past thirty years. To get anything approaching justice from the maze of laws we were able to force in the 1970 a person must give up their entire life to fight the huge corporations and governments working hand in hand, with our own money to boot!
Gregg, I honestly don’t get where you’re coming from here. Getting rid of the Department of Energy doesn’t mean mountain top removal, nuclear power, and the like would stop, because the DoE doesn’t initiate these things. All it means is the demand for power would be met by private corporations who would pollute the environment with impunity, because there’d be no oversight. It would be a complete ecological disaster. That’s why the GOP and the fat-cat corporados are against regulation! Why would we expect the private sector, which is by definition in it for their own profits, to do something for the public good, and not the government, which is by definition elected by the people?
If government needs reform, then let’s get elected and reform government – not destroy it. We can end the revolving door between industry and oversight, funnel government money into sustainable energy programs, lead projects to increase efficiency while decreasing consumption, and thereby reduce dependency on foreign sources…these are all government functions. The private sector won’t just start doing them out of their boundless human kindness – as we’ve seen, it’s much easier and cheaper for them to spend their money obfuscating the problems and “greenwashing” their practices.
Do I deny that Ron Paul has economic ideas worth listening to? Absolutely, emphatically, yes! I agree with him on several matters having to do with social issues, the war, and Constitutional protections…but the economy is the one major area where he, and the Libertarians, and the GOP, have it entirely wrong. Rep. Paul’s economic vision results in nothing less than a dismantling of the social contract and regulatory role that the U.S. has had for over 100 years, and which all progressive societies on Earth have almost by definition. I can only surmise that Rep. McKinney must be disconnected on economic issues not to realize this.
Cynthia Mckinney has my vote this year for POTUS.
I’ve been pretty much voting LP (libertarian) sinced the early 70’s. I’m not a fan of Ayn Rand, but on an economic spectrum of Marx-to Rand, I say I’m about 96% of the way towards Rand.
If Ron Paul had made it through the GOP primaries, Cynthia Mckninney (and the greens) would not have to endure folks like me showing up! (I’d go GOP).
I guess you progressives are just gonna have to put up with us.
“I guess you progressives are just gonna have to put up with us.”
It is easy to do, Mr. Currier, easy to do.
Both Cynthia McKinney and Ron Paul would have voted against this bail out, and I believe many Greens would say that would have been the better thing to do.
Massive government agencies trying to regulate massive private agencies is a model we can say has brought us to where we are today. If you believe tweeking and the question of who is in charge is the answer, I guess we just disagree.
I am not a libertarian on economic policy either, but I am not in favor of regulation by overly powerful bureaucrats who work in concert with private plutocrats. This is the situation we have today pretty much everywhere, and must change if we are to achieve the society I hope for.
I’m not saying that I have all the answers, nor that Ron Paul or the anti-fed folks or David Walker have all the answers, but I do believe they have enough in the way of thoughtful insight that to disregard them out of hand seems inappropriate.
As I have said, I consider E. F. Schumacher and Ivan Illich to be examples of economists I would like to follow. What are yours?
progressives are just gonna have to put up with us…..It is easy to do, Mr. Currier, easy to do. Ronald Hardy
Not that easy or quick!
Libertarians and their ilk are an oppinionated lot, myself included. I personally don’t fit neatly into the ‘economic-spectrum- Marx-to-Rand’ stuff, being basically closer to a ‘classical-Jeffersonian-liberal’. Like Jefferson, I don’t endorse corporate capitalism, which keeps me from being neatly being 100% aligned with either the libertarians or Ayn Rand groups.
That sounds a lot like me.
I’m looking at working within many parties simultaneously.
Maybe we should have a Green Caucus in the Libertarian Party and a Libertarian Caucus in the Green Party?
I’m already thinking of starting one in the Democratic Party to be called Jeffersonian Democrats.
As a joke, I’ve also thought of starting Democrats Against Democracy (anti-ballot access, to put out press releases under that name), Republicans Against the Republic (dedicated to making the Bush family America’s official royal family and renaming the country Bushi America, Saudi Arabia style), and Libertarians Against Liberty (basically lampooning every stupid right wing distortion of libertarianism that creeps into the LP).
I’m not endorsing this per-se, but the link is one that addresses one Libertarian’s perspective on the Ten Key Values. Thanks to paulie who posted it to IPR:
Read that message here.
I’ll also post a link to The Mutualist, who refers to his writing as “Free Market Anti-Capitalism”, and yes, that’s a slogan too, but again, everything is a slogan at some level.
Reminds me of “Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)”
I have a strong belief in the benefits of keeping the other side off balance. When we behave as they expect us to behave, we lose, no matter how hard we try. They have much more money and experience at doing the expected.
Also reminds me of “Progressives against Progress”, a group that gathered signatures at the Green Party national convention.
Dang…to watch Greens sign the “Progressives against Progress” petition at the 2004 national convention in Milwaukee, click here.
Sorry, couldn’t get the embed to work.
Bureaucrash has the right idea, making politics hip/fun/funny…unfortunately their perspective is more Randian, we need a more left-libertarian equivalent.
Lots of sites with mutualist views:
http://libertarianleft.bravehost.com/
This one compiles articles from some of the best
http://leftlibertarian.org/
This might be of some interest as well.
posted by VTV
Restore the Republic Radio (Formerly Revolution Broadcasting) to launch a left leaning liberty minded channel.
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/10/restore-the-republic-radio-formerly-revolution-broadcasting-to-launch-a-left-leaning-liberty-minded-channel/
Revolution Broadcasting which is directly affiliated with those who brought you the Revolution March recently merged their efforts with Restore The Republic, the organization started by the late Aaaron Russo who made the film “Freedom to Fascism”. Recently a project has been started to include a new channel for left leaning radio hosts who still agree to the freedom message. The foundation of this network will be geared towards the four points that Congressmen Ron Paul put forward that was agreed to by Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin
[...]
This new project is looking for radio hosts who would like to do shows on the channel. Dennis Kucinich Democrats, Mike Gravel Libertarians, Nader independants, Green Party activists will all be welcome.
If you are interested in this project, please contact me at Leveer@Gmail.com. I will be providing further details as this project develops.
“Libertarians and their ilk are an oppinionated lot…”
I don’t doubt it. Greens agreeing at a meeting is usually followed by applause and a break.
Maybe we should have a Green Caucus in the Libertarian Party and a Libertarian Caucus in the Green Party? …….paulie
I’m skeptical about the smoke-filled ‘caucus’ approach, but I like the idea of having bickering, feuding factions.
I would really enjoy being part of a petty little ‘green faction’ of the LP or BTP.
It all depends on what you smoke.
Is there such a thing as a vegan cigar?
Nothing could symbolize a Libertarian-Green Congress like a vegan cigar. Would that be a bidi?
Classic schizophrenic platform merging “de-criminalize victimless crime” versus “smoke-free work place” versus “legalize it” versus “fair-trade tobacco and marijuana mandates” versus…
smoke-filled ‘caucus’ approach….
It all depends on what you smoke……paulie
Trout.
As I have said, I consider E. F. Schumacher and Ivan Illich to be examples of economists I would like to follow. What are yours? ……Gregg Jocoy
I don’t believe that economists are leaders. Hence, don’t ask me to follow.
One economist I like (that we pay little attention to) is William Forster Lloyd. (1795 – 1852)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Forster_Lloyd
His writings date back to a time in England when economics and ecology weren’t quite separate disciplines. I’ve always been amazed at modern economists who have seem to have no understanding of ecology, and modern ecologists who seem to have no understanding of economics.
Massive government agencies trying to regulate massive private agencies is a model we can say has brought us to where we are today. If you believe tweeking and the question of who is in charge is the answer, I guess we just disagree.
If you believe that placing a Green Party in charge of macroeconomic government policy is anything less than a revolution, much less a “tweak”, then yes, we disagree quite strongly!
At that point, I have to wonder why you advocate that the GP should be running electorally…the aims seem more insurrectionist than anything else.
As I have said, I consider E. F. Schumacher and Ivan Illich to be examples of economists I would like to follow. What are yours?
I thought about this, and the name I came up with was Franklin Roosevelt – and I suppose by extension John Keynes. I don’t have a problem with managing a government to maximize freedom, but I think of it in terms of the Four Freedoms – not the sort of “freedom” that’s espoused by Rep. Paul or the LP.
I believe ultimately, this is the niche of the Green Party: a managed, mixed economy with decentralized and localized “engines” (the Key Value of Community-Based Economics – something not mentioned by McKinney, in fact), and a stabilizing macroeconomic influence to insure that rewards and losses are privately kept when the risk and investment were truly private, and publicly shared when the risk and investment were public.
In fact, an article from the Independent which is currently running in GreenChange says that the UN has recommended a “Green New Deal” to combat the world economic crisis. Once again, Greens are ten years ahead of the curve! The Republicrats have spent the time since WWII dismantling the New Deal such that when the economy’s debts came due, thirty years of Reaganomics was wiped out in two weeks. Now the proposal for saving us is nothing less than sustainable worldwide capital investment in saving the planet.
As I have said, I consider E. F. Schumacher and Ivan Illich to be examples of economists I would like to follow. What are yours?
1) Franklin Roosevelt
2) John Keynes
—Steve Kramer
Let’s look at Franklin Roosevelt first.
FDR isn’t exactly considerered an economist.
I personally like King Tut as one of the greatest statists of the world, but FDR managed out-do him (and the pyramids of Egypt) with the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam, a project larger than the projects of King Tut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Coulee_Dam
If I were to pick an example of extreme ecological disaster, it wouldn’t be the pyramids of Egypt! I’d be more inclined to point my finger at the Grand Coulee Dam. That incredible project got shut down by the Supreme Court when Army Corps of Engineers were in charge. But ‘thanks’ to FDR, we have a second gob’ment agency to deal with, Bureau of Reclamation who can bypass nuicances like judges and courts.
When the Grand Coulee Dam project was being argued in Congress, one of the interesting selling points was that the hydroelectric generation would be so great that electricity would be offered for free to residential consumers of Washington State. Only commercial users would need to pay for electricity. That argument didn’t work very well. For a short time in WA, newly constructed houses were wired with alluminum wiring, taking ‘advantage’ of ‘economic’ consideration of free electricty to residential consumers.
I’m somewhat at the loose arguments about economics at that time. Those in the U.S. Congress telling the public that they’ll get free electricity were using an assumption that there will be NO growth (population) in the Pacific NW (an absurd assumption), while also assuming that Adam Smith’s invisible hand will sort out problems in the ‘housing industry’.
Oops! Oh well, let’s just have more building codes (copper wire) to correct the problem, say the progressives.
The idea of NO growth was part of the sale of the Grand Coulee Dam, and we (the public) sure got suckered on that one.
I think it’s hillarious that at the same time Congress was selling NO growth economic solutions with dams, they were also selling us ponzi (pyramid) schemes of Social Security which depends on extreme growth of population.
Before we pick economic solutions, one of questions that needs to be asked is about population. In FDR’s time, radical increases in population were achieved through two methods.
1) emigration
2) reproduction
I’m a little pessimistic that the US can support unlimited increases in population.
I definately don’t endorse extreme ecological disaster projects sold to us an NO growth, or ponzi schemes (Social Security) that relies on rapid and unlimited growth.
Above post has some formating mistakes (along with spelling and word omission mistakes). Read with caution.
I don’t see that McKinney did anything different here from what Bob Barr did at and following Al Gore’s ‘We’ event. Of course, a lot of Libertarians attacked him for selling out, too.
Like Barr, McKinney’s a pro, and like him she’s trying to play the game in a different way than we’re used to. She’s targetting beyond the base, trying to appeal to other groups by speaking their language. So at an event hosted at a Ron Paul rEVOLution site, with mainly RPR interviewers and audience, she tries to reassure them she’s listening to their authorities and ideas.
Of course that looks completely wrong to radicals, whether Green or Libertarian: In their view, the candidate should be seizing every opportunity to promote our ideas and figures, to “educate.”
Whereas a reformer would just see that as preaching to the base, and (as it’s too small a base to have much of any political influence) a wrong-headed strategy in turn.
That’s not a debate that’s going to go away, or (to my mind) ever be resolved once and for all. Good to see more than Libertarians debating it.
Paulie, definitely start drawing up plans for Democrats Against Democracy (I’ve had the same idea) and Republicans Against the Republic. As for Libertarians Against Liberty… it’s a good one for Bob Barr, to be sure, but my vote is to give Libertarians a pass since they’re not the ones screwing up the country (or keeping Greens off the ballot).
I’m down if people want to help.
At a minimum we would have to get basic level memberships in the big parties. I don’t really want to give them any money at all, but even though it would be transparent it would have to be done to have any pretense at credibility.
Besides, a very basic membership and zero donations might cost them more in propaganda shipping than they will make off me. After that we just need clever writers/promoters/videographers/interviewees etc!