The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive

[nadinbrzezinski]

By Dean Baker (2011)

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.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/books/the-end-of-loser-liberalism

Pesky framing and into my reading list

[pnorman]

1. "This is not true. Conservatives rely on the government all the time"

That's for damn sure!

K & R!

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. Word. The problem is crime and we need to position ourselves against it.

Okay, I'm what some might call a "working stiff". I make enough to live, but I live pretty much paycheck to paycheck. To survive, I have a priority system for where my income goes. Highest to lowest priority, its:
1) Urgent Medical
2) Rent + basic food and gas to hold down my employment
3) Debt + non urgent medical
4) Discretionary spending: Clothes, books, electronics, all the rest.

So the money I have to spend at priority 4 is the money I have LEFT OVER from priorities 1-3. All businesses fit into this scheme at some level. But the issue is, a lot of level 4 businesses are calling for deregulation, which doesn't help them at all. Deregulation helps level 2 and 3 businesses, which consume the income of working people they would prefer to have left over to level 4. A decent example is overdraft fees. This is a form of debt (unrequited) that a bank levees on users which they have to pay out of their next paycheck. That money is removed from the discretionary budget that they would like to buy things like clothes and electronics with. A large amount of money we pay out at level 3 is through loans or services given WITHOUT our consent, but our lack of access )as low income people) to legal services lets this multi-billion dollar criminal industry continue to thrive.

The bizarre thing is when I hear companies like Target, a place where I love to take my left over money for sporting goods, clothes and fun is giving money to right wing groups. Or Carl's junior, a place I love to eat with my leftover money, is talking on Fox on behalf of a party that advocates for companies who take my money before I have a choice where to spend it. Don't they understand that Target, or Carl's Junior are places people WANT to spend their money? Don't they understand that the beneficiaries of deregulation just TAKE our money and no regulation prevents it?

Its time to divide the corporate world into two parts: The part that gives products and services people are happy to buy, and do so with full knowledge and free choice, and the part that tricks through contracts and fine print and the rest. Let the Democratic party be a proud advocate for the former, and a fierce enemy of the latter.

Peace.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. From what I get, this is another take on framing

which is part of what you are addressing and will leave it at that. This subject is not too popular. Book is free, so it will make for some good read.

[JDPriestly]

3. Sounds very interesting.