Nouriel Roubini sees a pattern emerging in Europe:
TOKYO – The recent victory of the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party in Poland confirms a recent trend in Europe: the rise of illiberal state capitalism, led by populist right-wing authoritarians. Call it Putinomics in Russia, Órbanomics in Hungary, Erdoğanomics in Turkey, or a decade of Berlusconomics from which Italy is still recovering. Soon we will no doubt be seeing Kaczyńskinomics in Poland.
All are variations on the same discordant theme: a nationalist leader comes to power when economic malaise gives way to chronic and secular stagnation. This elected authoritarian then starts to reduce political freedoms through tight-fisted control of the media, especially television. Then, he (so far, it has always been a man, though France’s Marine Le Pen would fit the pattern should she ever come to power) pursues an agenda opposing the European Union (when the country is a member) or other institutions of supra-national governance.
He will also oppose free trade, globalization, immigration, and foreign direct investment, while favoring domestic workers and firms, particularly state-owned enterprises and private business and financial groups with ties to those in power. In some cases, outright nativist, racist parties support such government or provide an even deeper authoritarian and anti-democratic streak.
Some would see the increasing influence of Tea Party conservatives in the Republican Party as evidence of the same thing here. They may be right about some Tea Party conservatives. Those I know personally are all libertarians rather than nativist social conservatives.
Some would, presumably, see that in me although I don’t see how they could if they’d read what I’ve actually posted over the years rather than just extracting a few phrases they find problematic. I simply think that both the United States and Mexico would be better off if Mexico’s leaders didn’t regard sending workers to the United States who would send remittances back to Mexico as a pillar of the country’s economic policy. I also think that the preference that some U. S. employers have for illegal workers is because they’re illegal just as the preference that some employers have for H1-B visa workers is because they’ll work for lower wages. I don’t see pushing the wages of U. S. workers down as a benign strategy for U. S. economic or social policy.
State capitalism is fascism. National Socialism is what he is describing. We could ask the Greeks about liberal democracy and see what their opinion is. The central bankers, the EU, the IMF, and the investment bankers are largely in control of the Europeans who are negatively affected by their policies.
These are the true fascists. They are “civilized”, and therefore, they use gilded cages, tasers, and plastic bats instead of damp dungeon, bullets, and wooden axe handles, but they are thugs nonetheless.
They have been able to make “the trains run on time”, and the Europeans have been mollified. Lately, the system is breaking down. They cannot keep the schedule for the second and third class trains, but the first class and private trains never seem to be late. The cars have been shabby for some time, and now, they are overcrowded as well.
The European elites want to keep the existing system intact and unchanged, and unsurprisingly, they benefit under the present system. The unenlightened do not and can not understand that their sacrifice is for the greater good (of the elites).
“He will . . . favor[e] domestic workers and firms, particularly state-owned enterprises and private business and financial groups with ties to those in power.”
I’m try to diagram in my head whom is _not_ being favored.
I assume the demagogue favors domestic workers as against foreign workers, and everyone else against bureaucracies.
“State capitalism is fascism. “
Perhaps that’s why the Teaparty movement might be seen as fascist, simply because it advocates for state rights versus having a large federal government having so much control over education, healthcare and so on.
Through my discussion groups I communicate with a fair number of Tea Party types. Only a couple are nominally libertarian, the rest are nationalistic conservatives, and most of those are also social conservatives. They actively dislike nearly all immigrants (Asians seem to be ok) and dislike minorities. They are perfectly happy allowing the state to be intrusive as it wants (libertarians not so much) and happy to go to war anywhere, anytime, unless Obama had wanted it first. They claim to want to reduce our debt, they talk about it a lot, but never, and I mean never, want to address health care costs. Infinite spending on the military is good. Mostly though, they just seem to have decided that any and all compromise is to be avoided at all costs.
While they strike me as authoritarian, I am not sure it seems like fascism.
Steve
@Dave, I think our views on immigration are pretty close (*), in that they are contextual. If this were 1785 or 1885, the optimal policies might be vastly different in an era of substantial labor demand, particularly for low-skilled workers. My views are certainly more negative on immigration than they were before the Great Recession, and remain very negative.
I’d probably agree to about any immigration policy that could be imagined if it was conditioned on a U6 unemployment rate under 9%, i.e. the policy takes effect when the rate falls below that number and stops when it goes above. For the people who want more immigrants, it would hopefully provide incentives for better choices.
Good column from Reihan Salam, about why the Brooks Brothers Republicans are the real radicals, at least on immigrtion.
(*) = Sound of Dave franticly drafting a post to differentiate his views.
It has been quite some time since there was a rising marginal product of unskilled labor in the United States.
Well, frankly, my condition doesn’t guarantee much of anything other than (a) if a U6 rate above 9% is great, then there is no need to increase immigration, and (b) if people still want increased immigration then they have to seriously consider what to do to lower the U6 rate.
On further reflection though, if the unemployment rate is simply going to rise and fall on the business cycle, does it make a lot of sense to bring in a lot of new labor at the high point of the cycle? Could aggravate the downturn.
simply = mostly
It wouldn’t surprise me. For all of Europe’s progressiveness, there is still a lot of racism.