The Conservative Nanny State

Before I post the book I want to point out that the author, Dean Baker, was about the first economist to realize that we were heading for a housing bust and inevitible recession as early as 2002. He was also one of only two economist (Paul being the other) willing to risk their positions by alerting the public in common terms (which was predictably met with derision and mockery).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Ba...7.E2.80.932009



"Basing his outlook on house-price data-sets produced by the US government and Yale economist Robert Shiller, Baker was among the first economists to assert there was a bubble in the US housing market in 2002,[7][8][9] well before its peak in late 2005[10] and one of the few economists to predict that the collapse of this bubble would lead to recession.[8][9] He has been critical of the regulatory framework of the real estate and financial industries, the use of financial instruments like CDOs, and the incompetence and conflicting interests of US politicians or regulators, such as Hank Paulson.[11]

Baker opposed the US government bailout of Wall Street banks on the basis that the only people who stood to lose from their collapse were their shareholders and well-paid CEOs. As regards any hypothetical, negative effects of not doing the bailout, he has explained that, "We know how to keep the financial system operating even as banks go into bankruptcy and receivership,"[12] citing US government action taken during the S&L crisis of the 1980s.[13] He has ridiculed the US elite for favoring it, asking, "How do you make a DC intellectual look less articulate than Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric? That's easy. You ask them how failure to pass the bailout will give us a Great Depression."[14]"



--------------------------------------------------------------

In his new book, economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of �nanny state� policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It�s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes � decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care.



Preface

This book is written in frustration and hope. People in the United States who consider themselves progressive must be frustrated over the extent to which conservative political ideologies have managed to dominate public debate about economic policy in the last quarter century. Even when progressives have won important political battles, such as the defeat of efforts to privatize Social Security, they have done so largely without a coherent ideology; rather, this success rested on the public�s recognition that it stood to lose its retirement security with this �reform.� It also helped that the public was suspicious of the motives of the proponents of Social Security privatization. However, success in the goal-line defense of the country�s most important social program is not the same thing as a forward looking agenda.

The key flaw in the stance that most progressives have taken on economic issues is that they have accepted a framing whereby conservatives are assumed to support market outcomes, while progressives want to rely on the government. This framing leads progressives to futilely lash out against markets, rather than examining the factors that lead to undesirable market outcomes. The market is just a tool, and in fact a very useful one. It makes no more sense to lash out against markets than to lash out against the wheel.

The reality is that conservatives have been quite actively using the power of the government to shape market outcomes in ways that redistribute income upward. However, conservatives have been clever enough to not own up to their role in this process, pretending all along that everything is just the natural working of the market. And, progressives have been foolish enough to go along with this view.

The frustration with this futile debate, where conservatives like markets and progressives like government, is the driving force behind this book, along with the hope that new thinking is possible. We shall see.

I appreciate the assistance of many in the writing of this book and the conversations that led up to it. The most important people in this group are my colleagues at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Several people gave me helpful comments and feedback on earlier drafts. This list includes Michael Meeropol, Lynn Erskine, Marcellus Andrews, Mark Weisbrot, Heather Boushey, John Schmitt, Robert Johnson, Katherine McFate, and Helene Jorgensen. Since this book draws on many books and papers written over the years, the full list is much longer, but in the interest of brevity and the fear of excluding good friends, the others will remain un-named. I also thank Helene, Fulton, and Walnut for their immense patience.



--------

The full book can be found at: http://www.conservativenannystate.org/|||Who do I talk to around here to get my own press release? |||Quote:








Who do I talk to around here to get my own press release?




Well, it might be nice if B.E. would actually post some of the text...

I'm going to have to read it at home, but since he can't abide to see what I write I'm not in a great hurry to post about it. At first glance, it seems like a Progressive author who can't (or won't) tell the difference between "conservative" and "Republican". The GOP is sometimes nearly as great a plague on the free market as the Democrats.

Sometimes.|||Americans are either ignorant of or unperturbed by the fact that wealth is pooling at the top in a hugely disproportionate manner. I have mixed feelings towards blue-collar republicans who proudly live out their lives in the manner of indentured servants, opposing the very policies that would benefit them while their jobs are shipped overseas and they have very little put away for retirement.

Not surprising since big business owns the media and controls the message.|||You're just not patriotic enough. |||Quote:








Americans are either ignorant of or unperturbed by the fact that wealth is pooling at the top in a hugely disproportionate manner. I have mixed feelings towards blue-collar republicans who proudly live out their lives in the manner of indentured servants, opposing the very policies that would benefit them while their jobs are shipped overseas and they have very little put away for retirement.




If you think they weren't perturbed, how do you explain away conservative Democrats or NeoCons? There's just a realization that the solutions offered by both parties are no solutions at all.|||Quote:








If you think they weren't perturbed, how do you explain away conservative Democrats or NeoCons? There's just a realization that the solutions offered by both parties are no solutions at all.




Neither of those groups are a voice against burgeoning corporate power. I applaud those who realize that issues aren't black and white and that different problems succumb better to different ideologies.

It's an unfortunate by-product of our two-party system that we've become a polarized nation with no room left for intelligent discussion. The far-left are out of touch with reality, have no grasp of basic economic principles, and think that singing 'Kumbaya' together will solve all problems. The far right operate on fear of socialism and gheys, and can't help but worship authority.

The more extreme factions of movements tend to hijack groups, as evidenced by research and real world, and impose their will on said groups. I'm often surprised that some highly educated colleagues can't grasp that capitalism will always have unemployment (and therefore complete abolition of welfare would be harsh and ineffective) while some others are completely unaware that we are teh sux when it comes to education or that you can't just share a Coke with a terrorist and become best buds.

The large number of 9/11 truthers and Obama birthers should be cause for concern when you factor in our economic standing in the world. We're almost as gullible as third world nations when it comes to politics.

As someone once said, the great thing about a democracy is that people get the kind of government they deserve.|||Quote:








Neither of those groups are a voice against burgeoning corporate power. I applaud those who realize that issues aren't black and white and that different problems succumb better to different ideologies.




Hell, both parties support corporatism and govt. expanse at this point. I can't help but laugh at the nuts who honestly think "teh left" has ruined the country. The right has been in the majority control over the past 30 years or so, but the left has done everything in their power to make up for lost time when they were in office.


Quote:




I'm often surprised that some highly educated colleagues can't grasp that capitalism will always have unemployment (and therefore complete abolition of welfare would be harsh and ineffective) while some others are completely unaware that we are teh sux when it comes to education or that you can't just share a Coke with a terrorist and become best buds.




I never got this. We choose an economic system that inherently requires that there always be an under class, not matter how hard they work, and yet justify patently unethical actions by saying they're lazy and deserve it. I don't think this is purely lack of education; it has to be indoctrination into selfish wordlviews. Just look at how many people base their sense of ethics on market interactions.

Now, I don't mean to imply that capitalism isn't the best system we've found - it is - but it's undeniably flawed as well. But that's OK, since we can use policy (welfare et al) to help shore up those holes. The problem comes when fundamentally greedy people liken this to socialism, a strong welfare state, or if you're of the nutty neo-libertarian stripe, "theft under threat of violence."|||Quote:








The right has been in the majority control over the past 30 years or so,




Stupefyingly false to the point of lunacy, yet again. The Democrat party has been the establishment for quite some time, even ignoring their dominance in the financial, housing, entertainment, education, and media industry.




Quote:








The problem comes when fundamentally greedy people liken this to socialism, a strong welfare state, or if you're of the nutty neo-libertarian stripe, "theft under threat of violence."




So I guess I'd presume that B.E. is pro-slavery? Because that's what the Democrat party is (the more things change, the more they stay the same). Illegal immigration relies on the same incentives slavery did, and the defenders use the same logic.|||Quote:








Illegal immigration relies on the same incentives slavery did, and the defenders use the same logic.




Except for the whole consent thing, right? I mean, that's the difference between a romantic night in and a lifetime registration as a sex offender. Kind of a major factor, I'd say.