“Nearly Any”

blinders The New York Times today headlines an interpretive piece, the main claim of which is this:

Yet even as vital signs weaken — plunging home sales, a bleak job market and, on Friday, confirmation that the quarterly rate of economic growth had slowed, to 1.6 percent — a sense has taken hold that government policy makers cannot deliver meaningful intervention. That is because nearly any proposed curative could risk adding to the national debt — a political nonstarter.

Translation: The overclass, as always, prefers Great Depression to a pro-labor shift in the distribution of power. This society remains entirely capable of employing all its able-bodied workers and thereby ending the present economic cliffwalk. What it lacks is a left coherent enough to demand what the elite won’t mention.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Luis
Guest

Do you think, though, that this can really be done within the framework of capitalism? Isn’t debt an absolute necessity for the continuation of capitalist production? I agree that there isn’t “a left coherent enough to demand what the elite won’t mention”, but you seem to be implying that the main barrier to full employment and a livable wage for all is what the overclass “prefers” rather than something that is inherent to the very dynamics of capitalism itself.

Michael Dawson
Guest

Luis, I agree that the overclass behaves predictably, meaning always in its own short-term interest.

But my point here was to note that the NYT was refusing to mention that “nearly any” is not “any.”

As to what could be done within the framework of capitalist society, I think that phrase has multiple meanings. Could there be another New Deal that is real but also tries to sustain corporate capitalism? Yes, that’s possible. Does another New Deal also suggest moving toward ecological socialism? Hell yes.