The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive (free ebook)

[Storm]

I found this free eBook written by Dean Baker after reading an article written by him.  While I haven't yet read his book, the article really hit a lot of things right on the head, especially in the context of an economic recovery in the face of demand depression.

Here is the article:  The Story of the Housing Crash Recession That Politicians Don’t Want to Tell
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exch ... 39954.html

And here is the free eBook:  
http://www.deanbaker.net/images/stories ... ralism.pdf

About the book:

Progressives need a fundamentally new approach to politics. They have been losing not just because conservatives have so much more money and power, but also because they have accepted the conservatives’ framing of political debates. They have accepted a framing where conservatives want market outcomes whereas liberals want the government to intervene to bring about outcomes that they consider fair.

This is not true. Conservatives rely on the government all the time, most importantly in structuring the market in ways that ensure that income flows upwards. The framing that conservatives like the market while liberals like the government puts liberals in the position of seeming to want to tax the winners to help the losers.

This "loser liberalism" is bad policy and horrible politics. Progressives would be better off fighting battles over the structure of markets so that they don't redistribute income upward. This book describes some of the key areas where progressives can focus their efforts in restructuring market so that more income flows to the bulk of the working population rather than just a small elite.

[Pointedstick]

Absolutely fascinating stuff coming from a liberal. It's not often that I encounter one who actually knows anything about economics. I'm having a hard time stopping reading.

[cabronjames]

Dean Baker's Conservative Nanny State, another free ebook, is a classic & a quick read
http://deanbaker.net/index.php/home/boo ... anny-state

Baker's theme as I recall (read it yrs ago):
Elite BigMedia/Politicians Conventional Wisdom: Republicans are for smaller government, Democrats are for bigger government.  Baker states what the reality is: Both parties are for Big Government.  Republicans are for class warfare/wealth re-distribution for the rich, via government interventions such as monetary policy, tax policy, Monopoly Patents/IP, "free trade" in manufactured goods but not physicians, etc.  At least some Progressive Dems government interventions are for the entire public/Avg Joe.

[Storm]

Dean Baker's Conservative Nanny State, another free ebook, is a classic & a quick read
http://deanbaker.net/index.php/home/boo ... anny-state

Baker's theme as I recall (read it yrs ago):
Elite BigMedia/Politicians Conventional Wisdom: Republicans are for smaller government, Democrats are for bigger government.  Baker states what the reality is: Both parties are for Big Government.  Republicans are for class warfare/wealth re-distribution for the rich, via government interventions such as monetary policy, tax policy, Monopoly Patents/IP, "free trade" in manufactured goods but not physicians, etc.  At least some Progressive Dems government interventions are for the entire public/Avg Joe.

Thanks for the tip.  I'll check that one out as well.

[jackely]

Progressives need a fundamentally new approach to politics. They have been losing not just because conservatives have so much more money and power, but also because they have accepted the conservatives’ framing of political debates. They have accepted a framing where conservatives want market outcomes whereas liberals want the government to intervene to bring about outcomes that they consider fair.

This is not true. Conservatives rely on the government all the time, most importantly in structuring the market in ways that ensure that income flows upwards. The framing that conservatives like the market while liberals like the government puts liberals in the position of seeming to want to tax the winners to help the losers.

This "loser liberalism" is bad policy and horrible politics. Progressives would be better off fighting battles over the structure of markets so that they don't redistribute income upward. This book describes some of the key areas where progressives can focus their efforts in restructuring market so that more income flows to the bulk of the working population rather than just a small elite.

I think I might actually agree with the last sentence in the paragraphs above but each paragraph starts with such a dubious assertion that I'm left with zero interest in the article.

Progressives are losing? You could have fooled me. Progressives may lose some battles but they always win the war. Whether this is positive evolution or increasing entropy, I guess only time will tell but it seems like a readily observable fact of life to me.

Conservatives believe in redistributing income "upward"? More than 50 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative. I don't count myself among them (I'm a Libertarian Anarchist myself but only if a label is demanded). Do you really think they cheer the fact that the CEO of the company they work for makes a gazillion times more than they do?

[Storm]

Jackh, I think the 50% of Americans that identify as conservatives have little to do with the GOP tax policy that ends up with the 1% paying a smaller share of taxes than the 99%.  We should also not forget that the current system was created by both parties.  No matter who is elected in November, I expect Obamney will continue to keep things mostly the same.

[Pointedstick]

Jackh, I think the 50% of Americans that identify as conservatives have little to do with the GOP tax policy that ends up with the 1% paying a smaller share of taxes than the 99%.  We should also not forget that the current system was created by both parties.  No matter who is elected in November, I expect Obamney will continue to keep things mostly the same.

One of his points is that the tax rates don't matter because the government doesn't need the money in order to spend. He chastises liberals for focusing narrowly on increasing taxes in the name of "fairness" because it's divisive and doesn't really poll that well or even help anything. There's a great graph that he uses to explode the myth that Clinton balanced the budget by showing the total fiscal effect of the tax increases and spending cuts:




His primary foci are instead monetary and regulatory policy, and how they affect the economy itself by tilting wealth generation toward large corporations and away from individuals. I certainly don't agree with everything, but it's a very solid work nonetheless.