July 23, 2009 at 8:13 pm (American Thought, History, Politics)
We know that he is a Harvard historian (not bad in my book), but I pulled a few youtube clips to give a glimpse of the man. Many are trying to demonize him. Don’t fall for it.
I also found a very interesting clip of Gates discussing his documentary on Lincoln (which is wonderful). However, it will not allow me to embed it. So follow this link.
July 22, 2009 at 5:12 pm (Political Economy, Political Philosophy, Politics)
Brad Delong argues that while dead almost six decades, Joseph Schumpeter’s economics are to the 21st century what Keynes was to the 20th century.[1] This is interesting to me because Schumpeter seemed to me to be very much stuck in past eras, particularly the industrial revolution and the Great Depression. But to view Schumpeter as a figure of the past is to confuse his economics with his politics. Delong admires the economics, while he dismisses the politics.
For Delong, the primary contribution of Schumpeter was his attempt to put long-term economic growth, emphasizing entrepreneurship and enterprise, at the “top of the discipline’s agenda.”[2] Schumpeter bemoans that the success of capitalism, which is rooted in entrepreneurship, ultimately leads to a bureaucratic society which will stifle, rather than encourage, that very entrepreneurship. These anti-entrepreneurial bureaucracies include both large corporations and government agencies, both of which rely on capitalist success, but neither of which produce the type of enterprise that Schumpeter sees as the heart of capitalism
I found it interesting that Schumpeter condemned government bureaucracy for undermining entrepreneurial creativity since he is also a fan of capitalist monopolies. Could it not be argued, and is it not now argued by free-market capitalists, that monopolies undermine entrepreneurial activities by squeezing out the smaller and newer innovators from the market. So while Delong thinks that Schumpeter’s focus on entrepreneurship and enterprise might define the next phase of the American and Western economy, Schumpeter might just be a historical footnote to a renewed interest in entrepreneurship and enterprise within the discipline of economics. Read the rest of this entry »
June 11, 2009 at 5:26 pm (Political Economy, Political Philosophy, Politics, Uncategorized)
The prospect of socialism is a dim one. The demise of Soviet style socialism/communism was followed by the decline of welfare-liberalism in the west (particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom). We even see the adaptation of market-authoritarianism in China, by this I mean a one-party state with a relatively market-driven economy. While I do not see a connection between the demise of the Soviet Union and the failure to achieve a “Great Society” in the United State (not to say that there is not one), it does seem that ideals of economic egalitarianisms are becoming distant dreams rather than prospects on the horizon.
“The era of capitalist triumphalism is a difficult one for socialists…” says Stephen J. Fortunato, and this is true for all egalitarians.[1] What then are we (those sympathetic to the concerns of socialism) to do? Is socialism dead? Is market capitalism the only answer? Clearly Fortunato, Ollman, and Blackman think that there is a place for socialism despite the apparently justified pessimism about its prospects. The dilemma is that while the need for socialism still exists, many have removed socialism from the table of ideas and classified it as a historical relic which is now outdated and broken. Yet, who decided this? The forces of capitalism have long associated socialism with Stalinism. By doing so they undermined the possibility of an open discussion about how socialism could be applied to the west. With the fall of Soviet Stalinism, came the fall of socialism. Right? Well, I do not think so, though it should be recognized that most Americans are deeply committed to ideological structures that support such views of the state of socialism. The need is for socialists, along with political theorists and political economist in general what is socialism in the 21st century. How is it different? How is it the same.
Gerald Cohen addressed this question in 1992, when his poised as the title of an article the question: “Is there still a case for socialism?”[2] In this article Cohen argues that the Soviet experiment promised, yet failed to achieve, “instead of class exploitation of capitalism, economic equality; instead of the illusory democracy of class-based bourgeois politics, a real and complete democracy; instead of alienation from one another of economic agents driven by fear and greed, an economy characterized by willing mutual service.”[3] Read the rest of this entry »
May 3, 2009 at 10:57 pm (Political Economy, Political Philosophy, Politics)
With Karl Marx’s birthday coming up on Tuesday (he was born on May 5, 1818), I though that I would share some thoughts. Enjoy. Happy Birthday Karl.
In “Marx’s Contributions and their Relevance Today,” John G. Gurley takes an interesting approach to viewing the contemporary economic world through the lens of Marxist analysis. He asks us to consider what Karl Marx himself would say if he were “to rise from the dead and survey our world of theory and practice.” Gurley approaches the question by looking at what he views as the seven major contributions of Marx to economics. Read the rest of this entry »
February 26, 2009 at 5:06 am (Politics)
Here is his speech for those that missed it:
Part One:
Part Two:
Here is David Brook’s extremely accurate reaction on PBS:
The following links continue what Brooks started above:
Epic Fail, SOTU Rebuttal Version
TNRtv: Who Stole Bobby Jindal?!
No worries though Rush Limbaugh was impressed (hat tip to Ben Smith):
February 22, 2009 at 12:23 am (Political Economy, Politics)
With a number of Republican governors saying that they will not accept any money from the recently signed stimulus law, Arnold Schwarzenegger has kindly offered to take it. Now, the Governor of California has had his ups and downs. But today, I would like to honor a Governor who, like Governor Crist of Florida, cares more about the residents of his state than the approval of Rush Limbaugh.
February 19, 2009 at 5:45 pm (Political Economy, Political Philosophy, Politics, Uncategorized)
This video is of Green Day’s cover of the John Lennon song “Working Class Hero.” I think this song serves as a good reminder of the social outlook that goes along with the socialist political and economic program. It is this outlook that I so very much relate to. It is probably the reason that I am comfortable with the socialist label.
Green Day covered this song as part of a Save Darfur album that was put together by Amnesty International. The best part of the above clip is that this performance was at the American Idol charity show. Like so many charity events, little mention is made about the root causes of poverty and suffering. It is more about the advantaged feeling better about themselves. Green Day brought the issue to the table.
Lyrics to Working Class Hero :
[By John Lennon]
As soon as your born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
Working Class Hero is something to be
Working Class Hero is something to be
They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you’re clever and despise a fool
Till you’re so f###### crazy you can’t follow their rules
Working Class Hero is something to be
Working Class Hero is something to be
When they’ve tortured and scared you for 20 odd years
Then they expect you to pick a career
When you can’t really function you’re so full of fear
Working Class Hero is something to be
Working Class Hero is something to be
Keep you doped with religon, sex and T.V.
And you think you’re so clever and classless and free
But you’re still f###### peasents as far as I can see
Working Class Hero is something to be
Working Class Hero is something to be
There’s room at the top I’m telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill
Working Class Hero is something to be
Yes, A Working Class Hero is something to be
If you want to be a hero well just follow me
If you want to be a hero well just follow me
February 1, 2009 at 9:21 pm (American Thought, History, Political Philosophy, Politics)
In 1846 Abraham Lincoln wrote the following about his religious outlook:
To the Voters of the Seventh Congressional District.
FELLOW CITIZENS:
A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this District, in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity, I have by the advice of some friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the “Doctrine of Necessity” — that is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus however, I have, entirely left off for more than five years. And I add here, I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing, is the whole truth, briefly stated, in relation to myself, upon this subject.I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences, between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, or the community in which he may live. If, then, I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who should condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me.
A. Lincoln
July 31, 1846
We see that Lincoln was at times accussed of either not being religious or even being hostile to religion. While he admits to not belonging to a church, he also does not express any particular belief. Instead, he denies having ever spoken poorly of scripture or religion in general. Essentially, he denies ever having denied it.
In the second paragraph, Lincoln expresses tolerance for religion. I think that Lincoln, who will later use Christian references and symbols in his speeches, largely values religion as a mechanism for expressing humanistic philosophical concepts.
Was Lincoln, like Jefferson before him, not a “scoffer” of religion because he was religious or because it would not have been very wise politically? I will come back to that question.
January 22, 2009 at 5:06 pm (Political Economy, Politics)
Not much time to post today. This perspective should not be forgotten as we consider the current economy.
D. Goodman: The “Who Want to Be a Millionaire” images in the video are not aimed at you. I recognize that you are just brilliant. No greed needed.
January 20, 2009 at 12:03 am (Political Economy, Political Philosophy, Politics)
Keynes by Duncan Grant
I am working on some posts about John Maynard Keynes and Keynesian economics as they relate to our current economic situation. For now I want to draw your attention to a profile of Keynes done on NPR’s Morning Edition last Friday. In many ways Keynes best represents my view within the schools of political economy, in particular I have a particular affinity for the left-leaning Keynesianism of Paul Krugman. More to come.
