Why Did David Brooks' Pro-Growth Heros All Support the Policies that Gave Us the Economic Crisis?
|
|
|
Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:39 |
|
I'm just asking. By the way, what measure is he using that shows that the United States has declining human capital? All the data with which I am familiar shows the workforce is getting more educated through time.
(Only one link allowed per comment)
 |
The fixation on supply rather than demand as the problem, including factors like human capital, is better reflected in an earthquake metaphor where hundreds are killed and thousands are left with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
No one starts lecturing earthquake victims about why their living structures should have been stronger for the long run. It doesn't make any difference for the short run what they're given to recover between spoons or shovels. They have no choice but to accept either, but in any case more human capital is useless for the task at hand.
David Brooks, George Will, et al, are effectively lecturing the unemployed that they cannot be like the Pentagon, bankers and privileged others shielded from the deep recession, digging up holes and filling them back up again with spoons or anything else, to justify billions going down ratholes with total immunity from lack of aggregate demand.
In "free markets", the socialized risk of a recession is shifted onto the masses as the privileged few carry on to pursue privatized gains for whom many indeed have about as much productivity of a spoon. Who needs a stimulus under these conditions.