I think that the exchanges on pen-l have become particularly troubling.
It seems that almost everybody wants to discuss the best way to guide
the state from the top. Should you vote for Nader or Gore? What
strategy is best to organize the working-class? Most of these
discussions are too sectarian to be a credit to those who are
participating.
I don't deny that such questions may be important, but I don't think
that this list has any particular claim to expertise in such matters.
Where I think we could do some good would be to try to get better handle
on what is going on in the economy.
I thought that we were making the start on that in the discussion of
bankruptcy and credit. I watch the people who subscribed and then
unsubscribe from the list. I remember when Bill Tabb came here and left
shortly afterwards. I wanted to be able to see us tap his expertise on
Japan, but he left soon afterwards because we got off on so many
tangents.
The tangents in themselves are fine. Even the Nader-Gore debate, if you
can call it a debate, reminded us of the Indonesian poverty statistics
scandal. The problem with the debates is that they go over the same
material, generally using the same rhetoric, without providing anything
new, often with personal aspersions. We can do better.
I myself would like to know more about the extent to which indebtedness,
stock market overvaluations, energy markets, imbalances in trade
accounts, the spread of austerity programs, and just plain foolishness
weaken the international economy. I would like to know what sort of
fundamental strengths might offset these weaknesses.
Once I had a better understanding of these underlying forces, I would
feel more confident about charting a political strategy. For example,
-- and I don't think there's any need to debate whether I was right or
wrong -- part of my thinking in rooting for Gore to lose was that I
expected a depression and I thought that the Democrats, if in
leadership, would be tarred with the responsibility for a decade is Gore
were in power. If I thought that we were going to see another four
years of "prosperity," my thinking would have been very different.
Again, my reasoning might have been "hopelessly muddled." My point is
that the political strategy should be grounded in some sort of
political-economic understanding of the situation. So I would like to
see us go beyond Monday morning quarterbacking -- to use a very American
metaphor.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
