Democratic governments in Italy and Greece gutted — central bankers rule

Public assets, pensions, labour laws targetted

No 444 Posted by fw, March 26, 2012

“In September 2011, at a time when the sovereign debt raiders, as some people call them, were focusing on Italy as their next target, the European Central Bank sent a letter—supposed to be secret, but it was leaked. And in this letter it gave very direct instructions, you could say, to then prime minister Berlusconi about privatization, lowering pensions, changing hiring and firing, regulations and laws—all things one would think should be the outcome of the political process within Italy. So what is this about banks telling countries how to govern themselves?”Paul Jay, The Real News Network

Following is a video and my abridged transcript, with added subheadings, of Paul Jay’s interview with Gerry Epstein, codirector of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) and Professor of Economics.   The content of the transcript focuses exclusively on the words of Gerry Epstein.

Banking Technocrats Undermine Democracy, The Real News Network, March 26, 2012.

TRANSCRIPT

Central bankers in Italy and Greece doing bidding of large banks – overruling democratically elected governments, privatizing public services, privatizing water, gutting labour protection laws, cutting public pensions

We have this trend now where instead of democratically elected governments controlling these countries, so-called technocrats, the central bankers, are coming in, taking over as the prime ministers of governments in Italy, in Greece. In Italy we have Monti, and in Greece we have Papademos. These are supposed to be neutral arbiters of economic policy, but in fact are mostly doing the bidding of the large banks. And the other European countries, especially Germany, they want austerity.

And what’s amazing to me about is they’re going way beyond any kind of narrow policies with respect to debt repayment, monetary policy. They’re going into the deep core of social and economic policy in many of these countries. And that letter from the European Central Bank [to prime minister Berlusconi telling him to make deep reforms], went to the highly contested issues that have plagued Italy for many years about labor laws, privatization, and many others.

In Italy, the letter from the European Central Bank to the Berlusconi government said, you have to pursue privatization of public services. And this includes water, privatization of water. And, in fact, just months before, there had been a referendum in Italy about privatization of water, and the voters had rejected it. And now the so-called independent technocratic European Central Bank is coming in and telling them to overthrow what the people have decided and engage in privatization.

Another important goal of these kinds of so-called technocratic policies is to gut labor protection laws. In Italy there are strong protections for—in terms of hiring and firing. And what they’re trying to impose are these so-called labor flexibility, with the idea that this is going to generate more economic growth and more employment. But as David Howell from the New School for Social Research, Dean Baker, and others have shown, labor flexibility does not lead to more employment and more economic growth; it just leads to lower wages and higher profits.

Well, [public pensions] are such a big issue in Europe because for two reasons. One is it’s a big liability of the government, and so there is a big—a high degree of budget impact on that. But the second is trying to undermine the power of labor and forcing workers into the hands of the banks. So if you reduce public pensions, not only do you make it so that workers have to take any job they can get to support themselves and work longer, but it also gives more room for private pension plans. And as we know from the debate over privatizing Social Security here in the United States, that’s been one of the long-term goals of finance. Indeed, the general push of all of these policies is to gut the welfare state as much as policy and return all of these kinds of protections to profit-making opportunities for banks and other private companies.

Orwellian language being used to obscure what is really going on – e.g., “fiscal consolidation” is doublespeak for gutting public services and generating unemployment

Part of what is so evil about this whole approach is the transformation, the distortion of language that is part of it, the use of the term technocrat to hide the fact that Trichet, that Monti, Draghi, all of these people have very, very close ties to the big banks. Most of them worked at one time or another for Goldman Sachs or other big financial firms. We have the same kind of thing, of course, in the United States, where we had Larry Summers, who works for the financial sector and makes millions of dollars doing so, being put forward as a quote-unquote “technocrat”. We have the Federal Reserve that has engaged, as you know, in all kinds of backdoor bailouts of the financial sector again seen as sort of a technocratic solution, but we see the revolving door between the Federal Reserve and the private financial sector, using the term fiscal consolidation for gutting public services and generating unemployment. All of this is Orwellian language, which is meant to obscure what is really going on, which is the takeover of democratic control, which, as you said, is already undermined by money, and putting it firmly in the hands of the financial sector.

Bankers’ anti-democratic policies “infantilize” the people

In The Financial Times, there was an article recently talking about the profile of Papademos, the prime — the technocratic prime minister there, saying that he was heading up a caretaker government, you know, as if the Greek people are a bunch of infants and they have to—we have to wait till they can grow up and exercise their democratic rights.

“There’s a great need for the left forces in all of our countries to really unite to oppose these kinds of policies”

Part of the frustrating thing is that these kinds of elite pushes to control these democratic systems are possible because the left is so divided in the European countries, and divided here in the United States as well, of course. Part of the left in Italy, for example, didn’t protest when this letter came out, because they were so focused on just trying to get rid of Berlusconi, and they’ve accepted Monti as a prime minister because they were just so happy to get rid of Berlusconi. So I think there’s a great need for the left forces in all of our countries to really unite to oppose these kinds of policies. We have to break this whole lock-hold of anti-democratic structures that have been built up by the elites under neoliberal policies over the last 20 years, so that once we have more democratic elections and vision, we actually have the ability to implement them.

RELATED POST

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Global economic forecast dire, no viable pushback from the left

No 254 Posted by fw, August 19, 2011

I think we’re in a moment where the forces of austerity have gained the upper hand. . . . with the debt overhang facing the private and the public financial markets, there’s no source of expansionary pressure in the global economy. In that situation, it leads to political disintegration and economic disintegration. So I think the danger is very real. Unless there’s some leaders, or if they’re pushed from the bottom to take an expansionary stand, redistribute income and wealth to those at the bottom and in the middle, I think that we’re in for at least very significant stagnation if not a very serious economic crisis.” Gerry Epstein

In an interview with Paul Jay of The Real News Network (TRNN), Co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) and Professor of Economics, Gerald Epstein, comments on Nouriel Roubini’s, Aug 15, 2011, Project Syndicate article, Is Capitalism Doomed?  Anyone who’s paying attention is abuzz. Read the article to find out why. Alternatively, watch Jay’s interview, below, with Epstein, which appeared on TRNN today. The interview is also entitled, Is Capitalism Doomed? As usual, the video is followed by my transcript with added sub-headings, Web links and text highlighting.

TRANSCRIPT

“Is capitalism going to destroy itself?”

Paul Jay – The last couple of days a lot of people that follow economics and the blogs have been talking about a piece by Nouriel Roubini. He runs a research think tank in New York and also teaches at NYU. And he’s one of the people generally acknowledged to have predicted the 2008 crash. He’s certainly been acknowledged also as someone who generally believes in markets and capitalism. Well here’s what he wrote just a few days ago:

“So Karl Marx, it seems, was partly right in arguing that globalization, financial intermediation run amok, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct (though his view that socialism would be better has proven wrong). Firms are cutting jobs because there is not enough final demand. But cutting jobs reduces labor income, increases inequality and reduces final demand. Recent popular demonstrations, from the Middle East to Israel to the UK, and rising popular anger in China – and soon enough in other advanced economies and emerging markets – are all driven by the same issues and tensions: growing inequality, poverty, unemployment, and hopelessness. Even the world’s middle classes are feeling the squeeze of falling incomes and opportunities.”

The title of that blog is, Is Capitalism Doomed? Now joining us to talk about this blog and his state of the global economy is Gerry Epstein. He’s co-director of the PERI Institute in Amherst, Massachusetts. So what do you think? Is capitalism going to destroy itself, which is part of what Roubini says?

There’s no effective left-wing collective to counter pro-austerity right-wing forces

Gerry Epstein – Well things aren’t looking too great. I agree with Roubini on that. Of course he used Marx’s name for shock value and to get attention and it’s worked. Marx, of course, wasn’t the only one who has made these kinds of arguments. But there’s no doubt about it. The global economy is having very serious problems now. And some of the ones Roubini pointed out. There has been this huge shift in power and wealth away from the working class and the middle class in many parts of the world. And this along with the financial shenanigans and financial crisis has led to a very serious aggregate demand problem. There’s no set of institutions or agents in the United States, in Europe, and in other economies that has the ability and the interest in spending money, spending income to revive the economy. And the only possible groups that could do this at this point are governments and central banks. And the right-wing forces in Europe and here in the United States are doing their best to make sure that the government and the central banks cannot bring the global economy out of this stagnation and out of this crisis. So things are looking pretty bad.

Paul Jay – I’m not sure how you define right wing because right now if you divide the elite between the liberal neo-liberals and the conservatives or the right left of the elite, they’re all on the austerity train. There are very few elite voices that are talking about stimulus and jobs. I shouldn’t say none because on the financial pages you do see some even investment fund managers saying it needs to be done. But they seem to be very lonely voices.

U.S. and European governments are refusing to play an expansionary role

Gerry Epstein – Well, they’re pretty lonely voices and I think it’s good that people like Roubini are coming out and making the argument to get rid of the austerity push that’s coming from so many quarters. The fact of the matter is, though, with Europe unable and unwilling to play an expansionary role, Obama caving in to the Wall Street forces and the right-wing forces here in the United States, with Japan continuing to be mired in financial and political problems — China’s even cutting back on its demand policies and its economic growth – it doesn’t seem like there’s any place in the world economy that is willing to play an expansionary role. Of course there are plenty of places, including the United States, the Europeans, that could be playing their role but they’re refusing to do that.

Paul Jay – Roubini quotes Marx but he really doesn’t fully quote Marx. Marx’s main point wasn’t inequality and distribution of income. If I understand it correctly it was more that this is the outgrowth of when you have a tiny percentile actually owning the commanding heights of the economy. It’s about who owns the stuff and then the rest falls out if that. And very few people want to talk about that whole issue of ownership. Out of concentration of ownership we’ve all seen what’s happened in terms of financial regulation. The political power that derives from such ownership makes any kind of policy even rational policy that mitigates what’s happening in terms of the crisis, it makes even that impossible.

For the first time in modern history there’s no “strong viable threat from the left”

Gerry Epstein – That’s right. The top 1 percent in the United States has got most of the gains in the economic growth of the last 30 years. And they’ve accumulated more and more political power as well. Marx said that when you had a system that’s run by a very small group of capitalists that’s impoverishing the rest of the economy, the economy is ripe for a revolution. Unfortunately what we’re seeing in this country is the right-wing populous that are taking political advantage of this, partly funded by Koch brothers and other capitalist wealthy business people supported by most of the media. So rather than the workers and the middle class organizing on a progressive or left program that Marx thought would happen to overthrow the system what we’re finding is it’s the right wing that’s mobilized. Of course Roubini said that socialism isn’t an alternative because it was proven to be wrong. That’s certainly not the case. We didn’t have widespread socialism in wealthy countries like the United States. But even if it were true, as Eric Hobsbawm has written, time and time again, it was the threat of socialism and the threat of communism as a viable alternative that forced capitalism to reform. It forced capitalism to redistribute income and wealth.

Paul Jay – In other words, The New Deal you’re talking about and European programs like it?

Gerry Epstein – And not only The New Deal, there’s also the Cold War and the threat of the Soviet Union. This is probably the first time in the history of capitalism where there hasn’t been a strong viable threat from the left in the major capitalist countries. Of course left wing parties have gained important power in some developing countries in Latin America and elsewhere. I think the real challenge facing us is how we can mobilize the working class and the middle class from a progressive direction to really challenge this system as Marx thought would happen.

Paul Jay – How dangerous a moment do you think we are in?

We’re in for significant stagnation if not a very serious economic crisis

Gerry Epstein – I think it’s a very dangerous moment. I think we’re in a moment where the forces of austerity have gained the upper hand. As in the 1930s, that’s exactly what happened. The forces of austerity gained the upper hand in Europe, they gained the upper hand by 1937 also in the United States. In that situation with the debt overhang facing the private and the public financial markets, there’s no source of expansionary pressure in the global economy. In that situation, it leads to political disintegration and economic disintegration. So I think the danger is very real. Unless there’s some leaders, or if they’re pushed from the bottom to take an expansionary stand, redistribute income and wealth to those at the bottom and in the middle, I think that we’re in for at least very significant stagnation if not a very serious economic crisis.

RELATED READING — Can Van Jones save us?

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing