Stephen D'Arcy wrote:
>
> First a point about intentionally causing poverty.
> And then a point about how not to read Foucault.
>
> This important question is easily settled. One has only to read a
> textbook on "supply-side" macroeconomic policy. There one will find
> numerous exhortations to increase "labour mobility," which can very
> roughly be defined as the intensity of competition for jobs, on the
> grounds that this is the only way to solve the problem of
> "stagflation," thought to be caused by Keynesianism (which inflated
> wages, thus discouraging production and raising prices). Reading
> further, one will find a series of suggestions as to how to go about
> increasing labour mobility: cut welfare payments, discourage trade
> unionism, cut or eliminate unemployment insurance payments, lower or
> abolish the minimum wage, and generally deregulate hiring practices
> ("labour standards").
>
> If this political program (which is "intentionally" being implemented
> in almost every country in the world today) does not constitute a
> deliberate attempt to increase poverty, I don't know what would.
> Of course, capitalists want to increase poverty, not just for the fun
> of it (although many DO take pleasure in seeing "lazy bums" get their
> comeuppance), but in order to increase labour mobility (desperation
> for low wage jobs), and thereby to increase profits ("the health of
> the nation's economy," etc.). There may be an argument about whether
> one OUGHT to increase poverty in order to increase profits.
Take a course or two in economics, or you may just say something
as ridiculous and distorted as this again.
A bumper sticker: "If socialism is the answer, then the question
must be: 'How can I make everyone else as poor as I am?'"
Since it is fairly clear that market mechanisms and private
incentives are the most effective means to attaining *general*
prosperity, it is really rather silly to blame "capitalists" for
poverty.
> But there can be no doubt as to their _intentions_. The idea that
> increasing the number of poor people, and the intensity of their
> poverty, should be one of the GOALS of government economic policy was
> explicitly formulated and promoted by supply-side economists in the
> 1970's, and has -- with growing confidence and ferocity -- been
> pursued by most (if not all) governments ever since.
Do you know any "capitalists"? You certainly must, for it is
impossible to ascertain from a supply-side textbook that those who
endorse those policies have as their goal the deepening of poverty. (I
am sceptical that such a thing as a supply-side textbook actually exists
and is used in economics courses.) From what I know of the (bogus)
theory by reading about it, advocates of supply-side "economics" have as
their goal, they *intend* to create, a policy environment which would
facilitate maximal economic growth. I've never heard a supply-sider say
that they want as many people outside of Wall Street and certain parts
of Connecticut to be as poor as possible.
> On the question of intentions and agency: supply-side economics is a
> "program" in Foucault's sense, that is, a set of "calculated, reasoned
> prescriptions in terms of which institutions are meant to be
> reorganised, spaces arranged, behaviours regulated" (cf. Impossible
> Prison).
Union campaigns are also programs. So what's the difference?
Unions have a horrible record, too. Some have used force
illegitimately, like some "capitalists," and union "work rules" more
often than not decrease efficiency. I'm sure there are many union
members who do their job well, but there sure the hell are a lot of
union boys who seem to like to sit on their ass. The time for unions is
over. Unions, at least in the developed West, should lay over and die.
Thorstein the Frugal
>
> First a point about intentionally causing poverty.
> And then a point about how not to read Foucault.
>
> This important question is easily settled. One has only to read a
> textbook on "supply-side" macroeconomic policy. There one will find
> numerous exhortations to increase "labour mobility," which can very
> roughly be defined as the intensity of competition for jobs, on the
> grounds that this is the only way to solve the problem of
> "stagflation," thought to be caused by Keynesianism (which inflated
> wages, thus discouraging production and raising prices). Reading
> further, one will find a series of suggestions as to how to go about
> increasing labour mobility: cut welfare payments, discourage trade
> unionism, cut or eliminate unemployment insurance payments, lower or
> abolish the minimum wage, and generally deregulate hiring practices
> ("labour standards").
>
> If this political program (which is "intentionally" being implemented
> in almost every country in the world today) does not constitute a
> deliberate attempt to increase poverty, I don't know what would.
> Of course, capitalists want to increase poverty, not just for the fun
> of it (although many DO take pleasure in seeing "lazy bums" get their
> comeuppance), but in order to increase labour mobility (desperation
> for low wage jobs), and thereby to increase profits ("the health of
> the nation's economy," etc.). There may be an argument about whether
> one OUGHT to increase poverty in order to increase profits.
Take a course or two in economics, or you may just say something
as ridiculous and distorted as this again.
A bumper sticker: "If socialism is the answer, then the question
must be: 'How can I make everyone else as poor as I am?'"
Since it is fairly clear that market mechanisms and private
incentives are the most effective means to attaining *general*
prosperity, it is really rather silly to blame "capitalists" for
poverty.
> But there can be no doubt as to their _intentions_. The idea that
> increasing the number of poor people, and the intensity of their
> poverty, should be one of the GOALS of government economic policy was
> explicitly formulated and promoted by supply-side economists in the
> 1970's, and has -- with growing confidence and ferocity -- been
> pursued by most (if not all) governments ever since.
Do you know any "capitalists"? You certainly must, for it is
impossible to ascertain from a supply-side textbook that those who
endorse those policies have as their goal the deepening of poverty. (I
am sceptical that such a thing as a supply-side textbook actually exists
and is used in economics courses.) From what I know of the (bogus)
theory by reading about it, advocates of supply-side "economics" have as
their goal, they *intend* to create, a policy environment which would
facilitate maximal economic growth. I've never heard a supply-sider say
that they want as many people outside of Wall Street and certain parts
of Connecticut to be as poor as possible.
> On the question of intentions and agency: supply-side economics is a
> "program" in Foucault's sense, that is, a set of "calculated, reasoned
> prescriptions in terms of which institutions are meant to be
> reorganised, spaces arranged, behaviours regulated" (cf. Impossible
> Prison).
Union campaigns are also programs. So what's the difference?
Unions have a horrible record, too. Some have used force
illegitimately, like some "capitalists," and union "work rules" more
often than not decrease efficiency. I'm sure there are many union
members who do their job well, but there sure the hell are a lot of
union boys who seem to like to sit on their ass. The time for unions is
over. Unions, at least in the developed West, should lay over and die.
Thorstein the Frugal