Joe Biden Is A Regular Franklin Roosevelt (New Deal Sold Separately)
When Joe Biden locked up the Democratic nomination, hopes for meaningful change in America effectively died.
In addition to a deeply ingrained aversion to "socialism" (despite most Americans being unable to define the term without reference to Venezuela), the urgency of ousting Donald Trump meant voters were arguably less inclined to go out on a limb with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren for fear of accidentally contributing to Trump's reelection.
The idea was (and still is) that Biden is em
US politics isn’t my home turf but I would have thought that the LBJ presidency could be instructive here. An earned reputation for being a conservative political lifer provided much of the liberating momentum behind his presidency. Where he had the tailwind of the Kennedy legacy, Biden will have George Floyd and COVID. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves…
Front running peak uncertainty has already started it appears.
I think it is a bit of fresh air to have an Administration coming in that doesn’t have a bunch of
aspirational programs that they never seem to be able to fulfill. In this case, we may end up
getting someone elected who ends up doing more than they promise. I think Joe will be guided by
the people he decides to put in his Cabinet……and maybe his VP.
As much as I’d like to think Biden could reinvent himself as “Great Society” LBJ, I see nothing in his past, nothing, to suggest that such a transformation is in the offing. That’s why his VP pick is so critical.
From a historical perspective, the broad definition of socialism that I use is:
A system of governance that advocates for the democratic ownership of the means of production, distribution of goods, and allocation of services.
One of the nice things about this definition is how easy it is to contrast with capitalism. For capitalism’s definition, simply replace “democratic” with “private” to arrive at the following:
A system of governance that advocates for the private ownership of the means of production, distribution of goods, and allocation of services.
One word of difference in the definition, yet two very different ideologies arise from each.
There’s a part of me that believes if we could just get these definitions out in the open that we would progress as a society. Unfortunately, the other part of me is a realist and tends to agree with Niebuhr when he upends the arguments made by rational idealists.
^ this is correct
Democratic ownership… who is going to tell me how my company MUST determine “ means of production, distribution of goods, and allocation of services.”? Who is the ‘democratic politburo’ that I must answer too? Any inspiring links to a policy framework substantiating how your grand democratic ideal would work?
You misunderstand the use of the term democratic, which, I suppose, isn’t surprising given your conflation of socialism with communism. Socialism is about the employees of the company having a say in how the company operates, how it distributes profits, and how it reinvests its capital.
There are successful socialist companies in the US today. Take a look at how companies like Ocean Spray or Blue Diamond Farms operate vs. how a company like Tyson Farms runs its operation.
Which farmers do you think are happier?
Your idea of some fantastical, overarching politburo making decisions for everyone fits nowhere into the idea of socialism I provided above. You should read something before you write something.
It seems to me that, for the next few years, US monetary and fiscal policies will be primarily decided by the virus, not politics.
The viral contagion rates, death rate, long term health effects (as presently understood), effectiveness of vaccines/ medical treatments and any mutations that hopefully make the virus less harmful and lethal are the issues that will drive policy.
Medical care should be looked upon as an infrastructure issue. A utility. Public and private integration. Our Nations response to this Pandemic has been lacking.
I don’t think that is the definition of Socialism.
Not sure who the democratic ownership refers to.
I must say this is an excellent piece of work and I wish it were on the front page of every paper In the country.
Thank you!
I don’t really buy the “we did it in an emergency so we could do it whenever” argument. We do all kinds of poorly thought through, shortsighted things in an emergency. Often, they improve our chance of survival in the short-term even if they present long-term consequences. If I wrecked my car and plowed it into someone else’s, sure, I could put a new one–and maybe my insurance deductible to boot–on my credit card at 18% interest. Depending on my need for a car, that could be a smart decision under the circumstances. But that doesn’t mean that in the long run I’d choose it as a strategy. Even if it were advantageous in the long run, I might not consider it because it would be crowded out by all sorts of other considerations, but I might in a pinch and with an immediate need to act.
What if you were the one who determined the interest rate on your credit card and if you were also the one providing yourself with the credit?
Conflating household balance sheets with the US government is the single biggest fallacy in economics. It’s not just apples to oranges, it’s apples to lawnmowers. It makes no sense.
Bond yields are a policy variable. YCC proves that (e.g., the JGB 10-year yield is what the BoJ says it is just like 3-year yields in Australia are what the RBA says they are — you can try to challenge the BoJ and the RBA on that, but you’ll lose, because they print money). And Fed purchases absorbed a good portion of the debt issued to fund the stimulus, although the shifting mix will mean coupon issuance outstrips QE in the back half of the year.
More broadly, though, there is no mandate that the US has to issue an interest-bearing version of the dollar (which is all bills and bonds are) to “pay for” stimulus. That is a myth. We do it to maintain a charade which, unfortunately, most Americans are still buying into.
I get what you’re saying, and point well-taken. Reading more about MMT here and elsewhere has converted me from a “What the hell is this?!!” skeptic to an “I’m not so sure about this…” skeptic. I wasn’t trying to make a “we’re going to debtor hell-in-a-fiscal-stimulus-handbasket” argument, although it sounds that way.
My argument about accepting high-interest debt in times of emergency muddied the waters a bit. The broader point is that we do things in a pinch (or global pandemic) that we otherwise wouldn’t–or shouldn’t–do.
Without debating the merits of sewing up our badly-torn safety net (I have no disagreement on that front, so there’s no argument to make), I still have this nagging intuition that printing to our heart’s content will have unintended consequences. Reading Stephanie Kelton, she often concedes that yes, there is a point at which inflation becomes a problem. Yet, I’ve never heard anyone identify the warning signs that we’re reaching that point. And, of course, once we do, it’s too late, right? Maybe someone has written on that and it’s out there, but if not, its absence is disconcerting.
And then there’s the reality of consumer psychology. You, understandably, bemoan everyday Americans’ conflating household budgeting constraints with budgeting practices of currency-printing sovereigns. Again, no argument that this is a bad comparison. But, it also serves a function: Money is a confidence game, isn’t it? If we think it’s limited and there’s a cost to profligacy, we treat it as valuable. When we realize it isn’t and it’s not (at least if you own the printing press) will it continue to be viewed as such? To badly butcher a mixed metaphor, what happens when it’s discovered that the fiat wizard behind the curtain has no clothes on?
Regardless, we’re heading into interesting times macro-wise. I continue to keep an open mind about MMT. I mean, we’re doing it. But I do so with a measure of skepticism. I hope what I’m driving at makes sense. If there is material out there addressing the points I raise, I’m happy to have a look.
Enjoy your weekend.
“In addition to a deeply ingrained aversion to “socialism” (despite most Americans being unable to define the term without reference to Venezuela)“
I struggle with this in conversation with people (Americans) all the time. Funny (weird) how they believe a “leftist” ideology is the same as Soviet “communism” despite the fact that the Soviets were right extremist authoritarianist. The world has yet to see a “Communist” government that was not right wing extremist authoritarianist.
Aah Bernie Sanders. He has accomplished nothing in both houses of Congress in 30+ years. Nobody can name one bill he shepharded through Congress. When he ran in 2016 and was interviewed by the Daily News, he could not name the regulators in charge of large banks- and that was his signature issue. He yells a lot. Not too friendly to women either- and definitely not a team player- his support of Hillary after the primary was tepid. So no, Bernie is not going to be the savior- at least in my view. Biden is a mianstream Democrat. His views reflect the center of the party. But the center of the party has moved. If elected, it is really up in the air what he will/can/want to get done. A lot depends on who he picks in his cabinet and most importantly is the make up of Congress. If he gets elected and gets a Republican Senate, there is not as much he can get done. If he sweeps and gets off to a fast start, there could be some really good things to come out of his election. It is too soon to crown him- he is not elected yet. And we do not really know the playing field he will have if he does succeed. But it is far too soon to write him off.
The Biden strategy — tilt toward the middle–to appease moderates and attempt to attract “wavering” Republicans is perhaps the dumbest idea ever. This is a complete own goal. First, Trump is the GOP and they love him, there is little chance of defections. Second, you are betraying the energy built over the summer by the left. This is an election that is about polarization and populism–for the DEMs to win they need to tap into that. Going back to a kinder/gentler world or a normalization is a terrible strategy—Biden is having his Dukakis on a tank moment. It just proves that when the DEMs go for someone from deep in the establishment they lose and its only when they go for new and fresh that they win—Carter, Clinton- Obama.
There are legions of Republicans who have said they won’t vote for Trump, some of whom have come out to support Biden. And win over enough independents–who have gone screaming from Trump this time around–and you have enough votes to wrap this thing up without any Republicans on board.