On July 13, 2015, David “Goldy” Goldstein writes on Civic Skunk Works:
I guess it’s too much to expect from a US presidential candidate to give an actual economics lesson in a major economic policy speech, but Hillary Clinton got at least part of the way there this morning in a pre-hyped address focused on the theme of “strong growth, fair growth, and longterm growth.” For far more important than her three-part prescription for raising middle class incomes in America is the way she inextricably links growth and fairness together:
In calling for a “growth and fairness” economy, Clinton explains, “you can’t have one without the other.”
While many pundits will focus on a perceived leftward shift in Clinton’s policy agenda—a new “paleoliberalism,” as Matt Yglesias calls it—more interesting is the apparent shift in the economic thinking that guides it. This is more than a mere rejection of Trickle-Down Economics; Clinton’s linking of growth and fairness signals a profound break from some of the basic economic tenets that have guided our nation’s economic policy for almost half a century.
And no, I don’t think I’m reading too much into this one little line.
We all knew that Clinton was going to call for things like immigration reform, gender pay equity, parental leave, high-quality universal preschool, and affordable daycare. That was made clear from the many previews her staff gave reporters. And as Clinton acknowledges, not only aren’t many of her proposals new, some are downright “battle-scarred.”
But what is new is the confident assertion that these sort of policies are “are essential to our competitiveness and growth” by enabling more Americans to fully participate in our economy. What’s good for the middle class is good for America, Clinton declared today, but not just because a majority of Americans are middle class.
Alas, Clinton didn’t delve into the details, but the underlying principles are clear. Innovation is essential to growth in the highly competitive technological global economy of the 21st century, and it is workforce diversity and inclusion that drives innovation. That’s why most major corporations have offices of diversity and inclusion reporting directly to c-level management. So it’s not just fair to women to provide the support necessary to allow them to stay in the workforce and rise up the ranks on an equal par with men—it’s good for corporate America and our economy as a whole, because we all benefit from the innovation that comes from workforce diversity.
And it is this economic calculus that flips neo-classical economics on its head, by shifting our focus from financial capital to human capital. The old school of American liberalism was largely ameliorative, using government to rein in the excesses of market capitalism through regulation, and to address the market’s inevitable inequities through redistributive programs and a strong social safety net. And sure, a lot of what Clinton proposes does the same.
But by recognizing that these programs are not just fair, they “are essential to our competitiveness and growth,” Clinton transcends paleoliberalism to embrace a more modern understanding of how the real economy really works.
“I believe we have to build a ‘growth and fairness’ economy,” declares Clinton, because “You can’t have one without the other.”
You won’t find this principle stated in any of the usual Econ 101 textbooks. But you will find it in a major economic policy speech from the 2016 Democratic frontrunner. And that’s a huge first step toward crafting an economic agenda that fits the reality of our 21st century economy.
The author of this article fails to see that the essence of the economics portion of Hillary Clinton’s speech today is a carefully worded dodge that is aimed at not offending the concentrated capital OWNERSHIP interests, in the present and the future, of America’s wealthy ownership class, from which she draws her overwhelming financial support.
There is ONLY one way to link growth and fairness together in a system based on private property OWNERSHIP and that is to reform the system to focus on creating OWNERSHIP in the wealth-creating, income-producing capital assets of the FUTURE, the very non-human means that spell doom for the person who ONLY has a job as a means to earn an income. What is necessary is an aggressive program of expanded capital ownership — an economic democracy act for the United States — funded with future savings, not past savings, thereby enabling every single child, woman, and man to own capital that pays for itself out of its own future earnings.
Also necessary features that are absolutely essential are tax reform, monetary reform, and the proper use of the commercial and central banking system.
But Clinton NEVER puts the focus on broadening personal capital OWNERSHIP in the corporations growing America, even though such inclusive policies “are essential to our competitiveness and growth” by enabling EVERY American to fully participate in our economy. But for Clinton, “full participation” does not mean that EVERY single child, woman, and man OWN shares of full dividend-earning stock, which will over time build financial security and steadfastly produce income.
Clinton’s focus is the forever old JOBS focus, but this time JOBS with “diversity.” Yes, technological invention and innovation are essential to growth in the highly competitive technological global economy of the 21st century, and yes, a diversity of the workforce will be necessary, but far, far, fewer people will be necessary in the workforce due to tectonic shifts in the technologies of production that will continue to destroy jobs and devalue the worth of labor. As this is the reality, we MUST institute system reforms that simultaneously grow the economy while broadening personal OWNERSHIP of the viable corporations (and their capital assets) that are actually growing the economy. The immediate effect would result in JOBS creation, necessary to build a future economy that can support general affluence for EVERY citizen. But Clinton NEVER addresses this requirement, but instead issued statements that are essentially “mumbo jumbo,” such as shifting our emphasis from financial capital to human capital (but humans are not “capital,” which is the non-human factor of production, but real human beings who consume what the economy is capable of producing, as long as EVERY human is able to contribute productively either through a job or as a capital OWNER, or both,).
The author of this piece holds that Clinton embraces “a more modern understanding of how the real economy really works.” She does? How can anyone give credence to this notion when Clinton never EVER addresses the issue of CONCENTRATED CAPITAL OWNERSHIP among a tiny, already wealthy capital OWNERSHIP class?
Instead, all Clinton can say is: “I believe we have to build a ‘growth and fairness’ economy. You can’t have one without the other.”
If Clinton and her think tank advisors really want to learn about reform policies that would empower EVERY single child, woman, and man to acquire personal OWNERSHIP in wealth-creating, income-producing capital assets using insured, interest-free capital credit that pays for itself out of its own future earnings, they should thoroughly read the proposed Capital Homestead Act at http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/capital-homestead-act-a-plan-for-getting-ownership-income-and-power-to-every-citizen/ and http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/capital-homestead-act-summary/. See http://cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/ and http://cesj.org/…/uploads/Free/capitalhomesteading-s.pdf.
As well they should understand the agenda of the Just Third Way Movement at http://foreconomicjustice.org/?p=5797, http://www.cesj.org/resources/articles-index/the-just-third-way-basic-principles-of-economic-and-social-justice-by-norman-g-kurland/, http://www.cesj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/jtw-graphicoverview-2013.pdf and http://www.cesj.org/resources/articles-index/the-just-third-way-a-new-vision-for-providing-hope-justice-and-economic-empowerment/. As well as study Monetary Justice at http://capitalhomestead.org/page/monetary-justice.
This is what REAL positive, transformation progressive reform REALLY looks like.
