Thanks to Gar for a really stimulating discussion, and to all our participants. Was great being back at the ‘Lake today.

As the great BevW mentioned, you can find links to anything and everything I write (though it’s a bit more few and far between these days at this Tumblr page. Or on Twitter.

-dave

Excellent. Yes, the resource ratchet has been a problem for growth. This is why we’re getting a lot of happy talk about new “endless” supplies of oil and natural gas in the Dakotas.

cribbed from RFK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/may/24/robert-kennedy-gdp

In 2011, North Carolina passed a bill, at the behest of the telecoms, banning municipal broadband of the kind Chattanooga has. Georgia is now trying to do the same thing.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/georgia-bill-no-muni-broadband-in-areas-with-at-least-1-5mbps-service/

There are lots of rearguard actions that will have to be fought along the way. See the section in the book on “checkerboard strategies.”

There are points in the book where you predict a kind of End of Growth, a sustained stagnation of the economy and wages, and then there’s this other point in the book where you decry the growth imperative, and the need for developing economic institutions that are not required to grow. I actually agree with both points, but I can see where somebody might get confused. Can we disassociate “growth” in the raw terms of GDP and growth in terms of the kinds of personal improvements to people’s lives that can come about if we stop demanding 3% year-on-year advances in value?

And of course, the proposed FY14 Presidential budget seeks to do away with the TVA. An old Goldwater position!

We’re certainly in the midst of a great test case for this in Southern Europe. I’m struck by the persistent chatter of concern over the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece, as if Syriza doesn’t exist and their model for, among other things, more democratized ownership, has no constituency, even though they are far more popular than Golden Dawn!

oops, I responded @ 58.

Well, it all seems like a fantasy scenario to me, and there are lots of forces pushing against any split. That’s especially true at this point, with state finances stabilizing. Honestly, if we’re going to see any kind of breakup it would probably come from the anti-tax right, seeking to build some libertarian paradise. I say good luck with that.

But the representation points that Gar makes are spot-on. I’d rather deal with them by simply abolishing the Senate.

Every year or so, somebody proposes dividing up California; it never comes to pass. But the scale of a 38 million-person nation-state definitely presents problems. Here in Los Angeles County, the districts for our 5-member Board of Supervisors are made up of 2 million constituents a piece, bigger than the populations of several states.

My favorite breakup model for California is the Chilean model – a little strip along the coast, with the rest of the (sparsely populated) state separated. Or there’s the 3- or 4- or even 10-state model.

Could you tease out a bit the linkages between employee-owned co-ops or ESOPs and a gradual move toward community-sustaining economic structures? I see this as possible, perhaps even probable, but not necessary. It’s entirely possible that, like unions, these alternative structures will work largely in their own interests, and those interests may occasionally not line up with the greater public good. Why do you believe that these wealth-democratizing structures hold an opportunity to create a more just society, rather than each individual structure just grabbing for whatever they can in a simulacrum of the lion’s share of late capitalism?

(I recognize that you have some examples of worker-owned co-ops creating sustainable agriculture, energy, etc. in the book. I just would like you to expand on the linkages here.)

Since so much of what you write is targeted at the municipal level – indeed, you argue with respect to banking that “I am not that big on nationalization” and that you prefer regionalized public enterprise – do you believe that Congress and the Presidency should be de-emphasized as a progressive concern, in favor of paying more attention to either municipal elections or the business of governing at the municipal level? And how do we move the massive amount of architecture on the left that points in precisely the opposite direction? Certainly when you look at the ideological profile of most big-city Democratic mayors, you get the sense that a serious lack of vetting has been done.

I think this is a key issue in the book. You have one theme where you say that the growing decay will lead to a search for new solutions. And that’s certainly true to some extent. But what if the mass media response to that decay are precisely the solutions, be they reducing the “unaffordable” safety net or privatizing infrastructure or whatever, that are separate and apart from your vision of the future? I have some concern that the causal links will be so easily recognizable to a mass audience, and they certainly won’t get much help from traditional media.

I guess my read is that the growing privatization at the municipal level was a response to the recession, and the need for quick cash. With our molasses-style recovery, municipal finances have come back up a bit, and that relieves pressure on cities to privatize. However, this doesn’t halt any ideological belief toward privatization or public-private partnerships, which we’re still seeing. And the big financial companies have a very overt role in all this. JPMorgan Chase is financing with $10 million out of their business development funds a project with the Brookings Institution to promote (I would say lobby) public-private infrastructure partnerships, basically borrowing off the “objective” analysis of a think tank to push privatized projects across the country, which are then financed through JPM, which is making a big move in infrastructure financing. This seems like a greater hurdle to get over, connected with the policies in the White House promoting PPPs (the biggest acolyte is the mayor of Chicago). I recognize the slow evolutionary trend you’re documenting, but what if the somewhat better economy and the growing privatization efforts get linked to the degree that a false equivalence is built? What if it’s not seen as the problem but the solution?

Hello Firepups! Great to be back here. And thanks to Gar Alperovitz for his participation.

I have a question about one of the themes of your book. You say that most periods of progressive change had unique characteristics, like the desperation of the Great Depression or the postwar boom that defined the Great Compression period culminating in the advances of the 1960s. Near the end you say that another Depression is unlikely to happen again, because economists understand the economy better, and also because politicians will be held more accountable for economic performance. I’m not so sure about this one – our current mania for austerity seems to preclude any kind of even temporary stimulus spending in the event of trouble, though I could be wrong (maybe we’ll get the kind of unsuccessful tax-side stimulus we saw in the GWBush era). Could you expand on these views? Are we certain that policymakers will do what’s necessary to avoid a deep depression should more crisis strike? Certainly this has not been the case in Europe.

How many times does Ed Case have to lose before he becomes damaged goods?

I don’t really agree, especially w/r/t short sales. Tax insolvency is a harder climb than mere insolvency, and the class affected doesn’t necessarily have the kind of tax counsel that makes such a pleading smooth and easy. It’s a major hassle and people would rather not risk it. The industry knows this; that’s why they’re wrapping up so many short sales as quickly as possible.

I think Jones is a special case – he’s been off the reservation on just about everything. Amash and Huelskamp were specific votes against the Ryan budget from the right, and they were punished. Likewise, Schwiekert said he was told the demotion was a direct results of a few votes against the leadership position.

based on willingness to prosecute beyond her, which I don’t really see.