Perhaps some might feel that Mirowski's attempt to fight back against the Right is a little over the top and conspiratorial. After all conspiracies don't happen do they?
Mirowski on the Neoliberals: Know your enemy http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/09/know-your-enemy-before-you-start.html
I don't think it's over the top as I believe that conspiracies do happen. I actually still don't think 9/11 Trutherism is so crazy.This doesn't mean that I do-or don't buy Mirowski's premise. Actually I do think it deserves serious consideration and no matter what there is much to learn from it.
However, I think he's on the right track. He's certainly right that most attempts to fight back against his Neoliberals over the last 5 years have not been successful. The EMH is a perfect example. It's an idea that's too easy to criticize. While you can always criticize it, just the same it's proponents can always dismiss your criticism. Yes, Sumner is the perfect case in point.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=12801
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4140
Note the way he puts it-'are there any good arguments against EMH?' he doesn't even quibble over its truth or lack thereof. He just argues 'you can't prove it's not true.' So basically he can assert anything provided you can't prove it's not true. Also, of course, he argues that EMH is useful.
I also agree that Mirowski is right that the conservatives actually may be doing a better job of undersanding that 'you can't go home again' now, ironically enough. If liberals don't get this how do they create the better world they insist is possible?
As far as 'knowing your enemy' is concerned the NLers have the right approach-they deny that Neoliberalism even exists outside the heads of overwrought leftists. Much of the NL is Republican or Republcan leaning-the leading NLers at Monte Perle were Friedman and Hayek. This is quite fitting as the Republicans started as the 'Know Nothing' party in the 1850s-for Free Soil, the Union, the American System, etc.
Mirowski on the Neoliberals: Know your enemy http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/09/know-your-enemy-before-you-start.html
I don't think it's over the top as I believe that conspiracies do happen. I actually still don't think 9/11 Trutherism is so crazy.This doesn't mean that I do-or don't buy Mirowski's premise. Actually I do think it deserves serious consideration and no matter what there is much to learn from it.
However, I think he's on the right track. He's certainly right that most attempts to fight back against his Neoliberals over the last 5 years have not been successful. The EMH is a perfect example. It's an idea that's too easy to criticize. While you can always criticize it, just the same it's proponents can always dismiss your criticism. Yes, Sumner is the perfect case in point.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=12801
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4140
Note the way he puts it-'are there any good arguments against EMH?' he doesn't even quibble over its truth or lack thereof. He just argues 'you can't prove it's not true.' So basically he can assert anything provided you can't prove it's not true. Also, of course, he argues that EMH is useful.
I also agree that Mirowski is right that the conservatives actually may be doing a better job of undersanding that 'you can't go home again' now, ironically enough. If liberals don't get this how do they create the better world they insist is possible?
As far as 'knowing your enemy' is concerned the NLers have the right approach-they deny that Neoliberalism even exists outside the heads of overwrought leftists. Much of the NL is Republican or Republcan leaning-the leading NLers at Monte Perle were Friedman and Hayek. This is quite fitting as the Republicans started as the 'Know Nothing' party in the 1850s-for Free Soil, the Union, the American System, etc.
Just like you cant prove God doesnt exist.
ReplyDeleteHowever its not necessary to prove God doesnt exist nor that the EMH is false. We start in a world without God or an EMH, in order to call it a discovery you must prove its existence. Just because a lot of people "think" the world acts like there is a God or an EMH it is still their responsibility to prove its existence, not our responsibility to disprove something that isnt there.
Yeah that's Mirowski's point too. As long as you're within Neoclassical Econ you can't prove EMH doesn't exist.
DeleteYou guys might be interested in this: my attempt to summarize Sadowski's position very briefly is mostly on the mark:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=23761#comment-279461
So basically what he's saying is
DeleteIf the banking system doesnt want funds to flow somewhere they wont since they are in most cases the dealer that accomodates flow of funds.
I agree with him actually
Until a critical mass of rich influential people realize it is actually to their benefit that some of their wealth gets redistributed to help create a more vibrant middle class, it wont happen.
Its not conspiratorial thinking but people with money acting collectively can shape financial outcomes for people. Many bankers think alike and until more bankers stop being right wing monetarists we are sort of screwed.
Greg, my interpretation is a little less sweeping than that. Maybe you're right... but I'm having a hard time translating that into my more myopic view.
DeleteAll I was suggesting (that Sadowski basically agreed with) was that for fiscal stimulus to work, it requires co-operation from the central bank to create easier money.
Thus I think the Monetarist position is, since fiscal policy only works hand in hand with monetary policy, let's just skip the fiscal policy and do the monetary policy alone... that way we won't get further into debt. Basically they're saying monetary is capable of working on its own whereas fiscal is not.
That's how I see it. I don't necessarily believe that!... but if that *were* true... that would be a good trick and it would be hard to argue against.
So I was glad to see Sadowski confirm that. I never realized that about the MM position before: I knew that's what it was, but I didn't see the logic of it until I read Sadowski's comments in that article. Especially the one in which he presents a Tyler Cowen figure to help explain himself.
Although Sadowski has stated elsewhere (in pragcap) that he did agree with the fiscal stimulus in 2009 (I think!).
Here's the Sadowski comment with the Tyler Cowen link I was talking about:
Deletehttp://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=23761#comment-279107
BTW, have you guys seen this from Beckworth?
Deletehttp://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2013/09/monetary-policy-at-zlb-three-quasi_25.html
Ive had these Mirkowski posts on my mind the last few hours Mike and I just want to chime in on some stuff.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I think neoliberalism would be more aptly named "hyperliberalism" because it takes many of classic liberalisms tenets and applies them everywhere. Even in places where they dont apply.
For example, liberalisms tenets are ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property. No modern conservative argues with any of those issues. But liberalism was a response to conditions where the overwhelming majority of people had none of those things. Only the wealthy few did. Liberalism was the core idea behind policies which created a redistribution of wealth away form the top and created a middle class. Middle class does not happen by accident. It is created in my view. The natural state of a monetary economy is towards haves and have nots in my view. Only a third party (govt for the people) can ensure a middle class. Classical economics does not despite its adherents claims. So liberalism is what drove the actions of a "do something govt ". Most modern American conservatives should be grateful for that liberalism because it drove the wealth creation for their fathers/mothers and gave most of them the life they had.
But this same liberalism also is behind the "govt is so unfair to rich people" attitude so prevalant on the right. They are having to "pay for " everything. "Corporations are people too what about their rights" Its become an absurdity. Now everyone has the same rights regardless of station in life and regardless of how they reached that station. The state supposedly has "no right" to take from the rich and redistribute towards the poor. So now because of everyones equal rights there is no justification for someone to step in and make things "fairer", and you see a middle class that is shrinking.
Cont
DeleteRegarding his comments about OWS and them needing a leader. I disagree.
Leaders can be taken out. What you need is a core idea that resonates with people and I think OWS actually found that. The 1% is now a part of our lexicon and the right hates that. Is it class warfare? Yes. Nothing wrong with that, we need to embrace that. Class warfare is what living in classes is about and contrary to conservative belief we do have classes, and our current system moslty enforces them. Not in the way the Indian caste system does but in our own American way. We are mostly divided but we can come together and often do. But we wont come together if we are driven farther apart by economic conditions. Dont ask my son to die for you if wont even give his brother a job.
We must recreate a middle class and that takes intention, and a degree of taking form places where there is surplus. There is no natural way to achieve that. Show me a country with a thriving middle class and Ill show you one that had a govt that used its power to redistribute wisely.
Getting too much liberalism can be a bad thing. We dont need the owners of society playing victim, we need them to take FULL responsibility for what they own. When I take full responsibility for the house I own I often have to spend lots of money to put on a new roof, paint it etc. If I dont my neighbors complain cuz it affects their house too. Our owners in society have to stop playing victim and start to willingly contribute to building a society where many more are prosperous.Yes it will cost them something but it will be worth the investment. They are the only ones who can make the investment as they are the only ones with the money....... they made it that way!!
I think the thing is Greg is that Neoliberalism is more about economics than the political system-as Mirowski points out the NLs have often been happy to support totally iliberal regims, a la Pinochet.
DeleteThey want a market economy and often they, probably rightly, has seen that tthe best way to go totally libertarian is to have an authoritarian iliberal govt.
Neoliberalism sholuld be contrasted with the old Classical Liberal 19th century economics school Initially Hayke and Friemdan called themselves NLs but later disavowed the term. For about 50 years the term has only been used by leftist or liberal critics.
Mirowski's point-and I think it's realll innovative and well thought out-is to really avoid using NL as just a blanket term for every Right of Center pundit one may not like.
He's trying to really be specific in using this term and I think it works. His point that a movement also needs theory seems to have history on its side. I guess you can discuss how successful OWS was or wasn't. He doesn't think it was so much.
For my part I was set to go to Zucotti Park and check it out but back then had no cash and by the time I was ready it had been disbanded. I will admit I tend to like theory as well and find people who don't care about ideas outside of its obvious immediate use for action rather shortsighted.
DeleteSo Neoliberalism is more about a contrived return to Classical Liberalism than so much about political liberal democracy.
DeleteI think NL CLAIMS to be more about economics not politics, that is another of its fallacies I believe. Economics and politics are inseparable.
DeleteNow, I do think there are some monetary operational things which are completely a-political. How balance sheets get expanded and contracted and which entities initiate the expansion or contraction. That can all be traced and shown to be true via thorough balance sheet examination and understanding of double entry accounting. But money creation is not economics. What the money gets used for IS economics. How a CB maintains liquidity in a system is quite understandable and can be illustrated, why they do and for whom the liquidity is maintained IS politics. I think any assertions to the contrary are lies.
"the NLs have often been happy to support totally iliberal regims, a la Pinochet. "
Right! Only hyperliberalism, which isnt liberalism at all, could lead someone to support Pinochet. Hyperliberalism is soooo far left it actually sits on the right of traditional liberalism. When you develop a way of thinking that is supposedly not interested in class (which is a starting point for politics) just economics you can only get there by ignoring class and simply asserting they dont exist. Its like the Southerners and there assertions about race, they simply explain it away and refuse to deal with it. The coherency of their view requires there to be no class or race issues so they simply say "There is no class or race" while having zero evidence of it. Its the same way they find the EMH and God. These entities (God EMH NL) explain everything, which really means they explain nothing. When everything can be answered simply by deferring to God or EMH you havent explained anything
"Mirowski's point-and I think it's realll innovative and well thought out-is to really avoid using NL as just a blanket term for every Right of Center pundit one may not like. "
ReplyDeleteI agree that NL is a poor blanket term for all Right of Center pundit. Neo con is apt for many ; ) But more to the point, I think when calling someone a NL you should be clear what aspect of their argument you are disagreeing with. Its just about ideas not labels. I dont care what someone labels themselves I only care about their ideas. The right has done a great job of simply painting someone as liberal in order to immediately discredit them. Call me liberal if you want but deal with the specific point Im making if we are discussing something. That should be the rules of engagement for all.
In any case Mirowki just has an interesting method. It's a good way of fighting Hillary Clinton's "Vast Right Wing Conspiarcy'"
DeleteLike if you do imagine yourself facing something of a conspiracy and I think we are I think that Mirowski shows one way you might be able to really engage it rather than just shadow boxing.