> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11385] Re: Re: NC economics Hi Jim, I heard someone calling my name . . . > . . . > Also, it's important to remember that policy economics can be useful even > within the system. A lot of labor economists used their theory and > empirical work to oppose the recent Gingrich/Clinton welfare "reform." This > is the kind of thing that EPI does, as Max would no doubt point out. Most of our work is not directed at debunking or promoting specific legislation. An exception was the NAFTA debate, when we were in full-mobilization. Our most important and cited work has been simply documenting trends in wages and income distribution, working from raw, primary sources. We usually have a word to say about the budget and tax proposals, but it's usually a brief one. A check of our catalog (available on our web site) attests to all this. On the other hand, our treatment of economic topics invariably has policy implications, a different matter. For instance, if we find that interest rates don't affect business investment (as Steve Fazzari did), there is an implication for tax policy (e.g., drop the fixation with the cost of capital and marginal tax rates) but the topic itself is of interest in its own right as well. > Because the entire system does not simply respond to the needs of capital, > patriarchy, and white hegemony, there are some pockets of resistance, so > that there is some material basis for the use of some NC tools for > counter-hegemonic purposes. (The AFL-CIO, for example, isn't 100% corrupt, I would have thought the issue was politics, not corruption. If Sweeney takes AFL-CIO revenue and buys himself a boat, that's corruption. If he makes a campaign donation to a Democrat in expectation of sympathetic treatment of some issue, that's politics and obviously debatable. > since it has to maintain _some_ basis in the working class outside of craft > unions. It, I am sure, provides some of EPI's funding.) It's true that much > of this research is ideologically limited (e.g., trying to talk to capital > about its long-term interests being poorly served by Gingrichite madness, > as if the capitalist elite cares). But the fact that the system does not > fit the Frankfurt-school image of totalitarian capitalism means that there > can be some validity to some NC research. I'm glad you reject the image of 'totalitarian capitalism.' For some people it gives them a way to cop out of politics, though we obviously have disagreed on what that means. The overwhelming bulk of what the AFL-CIO and EPI do has nothing to do with "trying to talk to capital." Rather, it is about trying to talk to workers and citizens about what is best for the nation. > We have to pick and choose, treating each item of research critically. > (Actually, the same should be said for Marxian research, since some of > _that_ is total dreck.) What?!?! No!!! I'm grief-stricken. There. I'm better now. Cheers, MBS =================================================== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===================================================
