As with much of the Occupy movement across the country, their complaints seemed to me to be a grab bag of anti-establishment platitudes without much hard-headed analysis or clear policy prescriptions. Ironically, the topic of the lecture that the protesters chose to boycott was economic inequality, including a discussion of recent trends and their causes.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Buffoons ...
... Know What You’re Protesting - Economic View - NYTimes.com.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let's look at how Mankiw enters the heart of his essay:
ReplyDeleteIn an open letter to me, the organizers said the action was meant “to join a Boston-wide march protesting the corporatization of higher education as part of the global Occupy movement.” They said that “the biased nature of Economics 10 [which Mankiw teaches] contributes to and symbolizes the increasing economic inequality in America.”
In the middle, he writes the paragraph you quoted, Frank. But he then goes on to say, "If my profession is slanted toward any particular world view, I am as guilty as anyone for perpetuating the problem." It's as if the Viet Nam protester in him is softening his Harvard economist's heart, which was his first reaction, the reaction he labeled as nostalgia, but it seems much more than that as the article continues. He is admitting nearing the end of the article that there is a problem to perpetuate, and that he might be perpetuating it. This is different attitude from the paragraph you quoted, what he called his second reaction:
But my second reaction was sadness at how poorly informed the Harvard protesters seemed to be. As with much of the Occupy movement across the country, their complaints seemed to me to be a grab bag of anti-establishment platitudes without much hard-headed analysis or clear policy prescriptions. Ironically, the topic of the lecture that the protesters chose to boycott was economic inequality, including a discussion of recent trends and their causes.
He notes how one of the protesters re-entered the class so as not to miss out on the lecture. But the protest is not about how good of a lecturer or how smart about economics Mankiw is. It's about the "problem" as he puts it. By the time he gets to finish the essay, he seems ready to join the Occupy movement himself:
The recent financial crisis, economic downturn and meager recovery are vivid reminders that we still have much to learn. Widening economic inequality is a real and troubling phenomenon, albeit one without an obvious explanation or easy solution. A prerequisite for being a good economist is an ample dose of humility.
My fervent hope is that any students who are still protesting the class will return — and that, while recognizing our limitations, they will learn from us what they can. A few might choose to become economic researchers themselves. Their contributions will surely be welcome. They might even improve the next generation of textbooks.
Mankiw slipped down the Occupy side of the slippery slope he didn't realize he was on. The Vietnam protesters were able to protest something specific, and were able to say "pull out" or "stop the war". We cannot pull out of the economy, nor should we even try to stop it. The Occupy movements are not about easy solutions. They are about focusing on the problem or problems each addresses (and here "the corporatization of higher education" is what affected Mankiw), admitting that there is a problem, and then finding the creative solutions to it.
What goes against the Occupy movement are solutions such that Mitt Romney has, part of which is to let the foreclosures run their course. I suppose that course should never reach his doorstep, only other people's. Until then, for those such as Romney, there is no "problem being perpetuated." Mankiw is smarter than that. He knows there is one.
What Rus said,
ReplyDeleteThe Occupy people are protesting the basic inequalities, and social injustices that economic inequalities create, that have become rampant and obvious over the past few years. That they are "unfocused and leaderless" is precisely the marker of a genuine grass-roots movement. Not everyone protesting on the lawn agrees on every point, but they all agree that things cannot go on as they have been. Frankly, that's not a bad place to start. It's common ground, and forward momentum in economic policy is going to be based on compromises built around common ground.
Hi Rus:
ReplyDeleteYou say that "the Occupy movements are not about easy solutions." So far as I have been able to tell, they are not about any solutions. I am as appalled by Washington's crony capitalism as anyone. But I'm sorry. The Occupy movement is going away, at least in this city, because it started to become a pain in the ass for all the rest of us who live and work here (and I even gave them a donation last week -- not because I agree with them, but because I like people to be able to make their point, and the young man I was talking to seemed a nice sort).
Anyway, the Tea Party people at least managed to win some elections (because they exploited an existing political structure). What are the occupy people going to have to show for their supine protests? I suspect nothing at all. It may be useful in this context to remember Kierkegaard's point about a crowd "having no hands."
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteWe have a situation in which neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are addressing the issues. That's what we hire them for, and that's what they are failing miserably at. Tea Partiers and all. Failure, because we are where we are.
The Occupy movements by their very conception address the issues, by saying we are here. Wall Street is not Wall Street for the brokers, and most certainly not the 1-percenters, but for the good of all. We only allow big offices for people because they contribute to the overall good. Since it has not been for the good of all, it is time to Occupy the place. It never was to be about the 1-percenters. They got confused and lost somewhere, thinking it was a game of self-interest for them to protect and to play: that somehow they got an intractable right to take from the system selfishly and without care for what it might mean to other citizens. Wall Street and every building on the strip belong to all of us, for all of us to decide what to do with it.
When we have people like Romney who want to be president, but who do not want to acknowledge that people are losing their homes, not because of bad mortgages, but because of an economy that is not being addressed properly, we've got people lost in what they want to label as a free market system. It might have been designed as such, but it has become a system of capitalization, whereby the inventors, artists, small business people, the contributors do not get rewarded, but the 1-percenters do. Just as it became time to address the issue of monopoly last century, we have this maladaptive offshoot of what was suppose to be a free and fair market to address.
We have glimmers of people addressing situations. You, for instance, are a fan of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who has said no bonuses for those who work for companies that would be bailed out by the government if they fail. That's a solution that addresses the 1-percenters. But, it falls flat at the blogs. It is conversation swept under the rug as far as anyone running for office is concerned.
The Occupy protesters are out there, and they should come out in Philly again, just as the Vietnam protesters would. The issues should not be ignored.
Back to Harvard. The corporatization of the educational institution as a whole can be extremely damaging. Privatization can be bad enough, with money swaying decisions--for instance in healthcare facilities it can be financially sound to have someone impoverished die and be replaced by someone with money. The overriding issue at Harvard is that Harvard is not there for those who would own Harvard, but like everything else, it exists for the benefit of us all. Otherwise, we can tear it down.
The Occupiers become symbols while they protest. The consciousness is being raised simply for their being there. People who are very conscious of the problems, but feel there would be not enough numbers to do anything about it, or feel that the conversation is far from addressing the important issues, can see through the Occupy movement that others are in the same boat and understand both the damage being done, thus the urgency and earnestness required.
I have no problem with the issues, Rus. I see them being as grave as you suggest. I just don't think they are being addressed in any effective way by what seem to me to be posturing, ignorant clowns. Protest for the sake of protest has no value.
ReplyDeleteWhy do advancements have to be measured solely by the number of seats you win in election? In October, 650,000 Americans joined credit unions last month -- more than in all of 2010. Rising bank fees undoubtedly helped, but that shift couldn't have happened without the Occupy movement.
ReplyDeleteIt's not posturing, Frank. It's effective consciousness raising. It focuses people on the issues, and ultimately will demand our politicians do something creative, instead of perpetuating the problems.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking for articles for tomorrow's Poetry & Poets in Rags, and bumped into this:
MR Zine: Occupy Production by Richard D. Wolff
So I will post the link and get back to work. He talks about democratization of work places.
Here is a page with a video synopsis of where Wolff is coming from:
Capitalism Hits the Fan
There is plenty of video of Wolff on YouTube, so I am not trying to sell his DVD.
Pelosi is attacking Gingrich, and Cain is, well who knows what he's doing. But none of this has anything to do with the issues. The Occupiers are addressing the issues. Romney is blind and Obama is part of the problem. These are the buffoons, not the Occupiers who are protesting the ignorance of the clowns.
Well, gentlemen, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think the Occupy movement will scarcely rate a footnote when the history of the times gets written. As for the politicians, well, anyone who looks to any of them for anything grand, needs to stop and think. You're hiring a guy to do a job and you end up having two choices.
ReplyDelete