I noted before the traditional representation of the ISLM is problematic. Yet as I also noted the ISLM model can accommodate changes that incorporate the criticisms of classical-Keynesian, post-Keynesian and other heterodox groups. There is no need for an investment function based on the marginal productivity of capital and the principle of substitution. The accelerator can be incorporated, and the inverse relation with the rate of interest would result from the effects of interest rates on other components of demand. Also, endogenous money can be incorporated easily, and for the most part this has been done in New Keynesian models (the ISMP).
We wanted to establish one point in our June 2013 URPE article, “Capitalist Class Agency and the New Deal Order”: radical economists have been mistaken in believing that a “limited capital-labor accord” existed in the post World War II era and this mistake has had negative political consequences lasting to the present. We understand that class relations are affected (differently) by racial and gender relations. We do not think the latter are “unimportant” and have written extensively on gender and labor elsewhere (Hillard and McIntyre, 2009a, 2009b, 1992). Continue reading
I appreciate the response by Richard McIntyre and Michel Hillard (MH) to my critique of their article. They are quite right in stating that I do not address the main argument of their paper – I began my response by saying exactly that. However I would argue that it is impossible to understand the relations between capital and labor in the United States without recognizing the significance of race, and integrating it into an understanding of US history. This history consists of an account of social relations which consist not only of class relations (between labor and capital,) but also race relations and gender relations, none of which can be understood in isolation from the others. MH disagree. Thus they argue that “both racial and gender discrimination are historically and socially constituted in different ways, but this did not seem relevant to our critique of an accord between capital and labor.” I argue that they are indeed relevant. (As before, I set aside my concerns about gender relations. They seem unimportant to MH, whose discussion of ”individual rights” is carried out entirely in terms of race and its significance for the “white working class” rather than the male workers, or white male workers.)
We first want to say we appreciate Paddy Quick reading and responding to our piece, and we welcome and hope for more discussion and critical engagement. We do find her response odd, in that she is quite critical of things that are peripheral to our main line of argument but she doesn’t address our central point at all.
The most recent issue of the Review of Radical Political Economics (RRPE Vol. 45, No. 2. Spring 2013) included an article by Richard McIntyre and Michael Hillard (hereafter RH) entitled “Capitalist Class Agency and the New Deal Order: Against the Notion of a Limited Capital-Labor Accord.” While the article’s focus is on the existence or nonexistence of a “capital-labor accord” in the post-World War II United States, my criticisms relate to the authors’ treatment of race. Both authors have well-deserved reputations as radical political economists, but on this topic, I find myself in serious disagreement.
This short satirical piece (just 300 words) might be interesting and/or a amusing to URPE members.
Larry Klayman, a lawyer w/ a long list of right wing credentials, declared last week that the explosion of a fertilizer plant in West, Texas — which killed at 14 — was likely an act of “Muslim Terror.” After encountering Mr. Klayman’s claim — along w/ some anti-Muslim commentary following the Boston Marathon, and the speculation that the Boston bomber was a “dark skinned” man — I wrote up this alternative story, which highlights the role of “light skinned” free market extremists.
The “sequester,” a Washington-made $85 billion package of brutal public spending cuts to hit the economy over the next few years, is expected to destroy nearly one million jobs and wreak havoc on working families and neighborhoods. This austerity tsunami comes on top of the calamities of the Great Recession and subsequent economic stagnation, also made possible by a political establishment and an economy largely unresponsive to the needs of the 99 percent. Adding it all together, the near-future outlook for working people is grim, especially for the most vulnerable. This is, of course, if we do not resist and fight back with all our passion and resources.