Blockchain Papers

Tade Oyewunmi, Ivie Ehanmo

No abstract is available for this record.

Scott R. Paeth

The paroxysms of economic pain through which the world has been suffering for the past four years offer any number of possible vectors for analysis—from economic theory, to public policy, to sociology, to international affairs. An examination of the economic crisis through any of these lenses would reveal a great deal both about how we've come to be here, and how we might (or might not) find our way out of it. The “Great Recession” is almost unique in modern political economics: a large-scale, catastrophic global economic meltdown, which may well persist for some time to come.1There have, of course, been other economic crises, recessions of greater or lesser duration, as well as global crises, such as the so-called “Asian Flu” of the mid-1990s, but the Great Recession has come to be so named because its impact has been unlike anything the world has experienced since the 1930s (see Krugman 2008; Reich 2010; Stiglitz 2010). And given the increasingly interconnected and codependent nature of the global economic system, the negative effects of this downturn are affecting a much greater proportion of the world's population than the Great Depression. The reverberations continue, as we see in the ongoing European financial crisis; but the epicenter of the earthquake, in September of 2008, was the result of a conscious set of decisions and policies that led inexorably to a wide-scale economic meltdown. And the singular characteristic of that set of decisions and policies was the belief that economics had surpassed the realm of the merely human, to become a transcendent mode of thought, capable of near-omniscience regarding human actions and their consequences—Issac Asimov's “psychohistory” come to life, and given breath at Princeton and the University of Chicago.2This moment of economic crisis has intersected with another moment, one of renewed interest in the thought of Reinhold Niebuhr. Niebuhr's wide-ranging intellectual curiosity touched frequently on questions of ethics and economics, particularly during the period of his own economic crisis in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash. Niebuhr's insights during that period, which formed the core of what came to be known as his “Christian realist” approach to issues of Christianity and public morality, have something to say to us as we grapple with the questions of justice, economics, and social reform in the wake of the 2008 collapse.In the aftermath of the economic crisis, and in response to its ongoing depredations, two mass movements (each boasting greater or lesser degrees of authenticity) have emerged on the American stage. The first, dubbed the “Tea Party” movement, emerged as a reaction to policies pursued by both the Bush and Obama administrations to solve the financial crisis—in particular, by offering relief to the banking and mortgage industries. Strongly libertarian in its ideological motivation, and often rooted in a particular vision of small government, states' rights, and nationalism, this movement directed its hostility primarily toward the Obama administration, seeing in many of its policies the roots of an incipient totalitarianism.3At root, the Tea Party's ideology is a reaction to what it sees as an overreaching federal government, which is believed to have caused the financial crisis of 2008 by coddling irresponsible and unreliable home buyers on the one hand and subsidizing a venal and corrupt culture of Wall Street traders on the other (see Berlet 2011). There is a vital streak of middle-class resentment that runs through the Tea Party movement, which sees itself as representing “ordinary” Americans who work hard, pay their debts, and don't ask for government handouts.4 Demographically, it is predominantly white, male, and older (Ashbee 2011, 159–60). From the perspective of its adherents, the financial crisis was the result of government redistribution of wealth to the underserving, either in the form of social services and subsidies for the poor or in the form of bailouts to the financial industry (158). Additionally, there is a strong theme of personal antipathy toward Barack Obama and doubt about the legitimacy of his presidency (157).While it is difficult to pinpoint one branch of the Tea Party movement that could be said to speak for the whole, the movement does seem to coalesce around a set of general principles and positions. One concise expression of these positions is illustrated by the “Contract from America” (2009; not to be confused with the 1990s' Republican Party “Contract with America”). The document begins with an expression of a set of very broad principles, encapsulated as “Individual Liberty,” “Limited Government,” and “Economic Freedom,” and then moves on to a set of specific agenda items including requiring all federal legislation to include a statement of constitutional authority requiring a balanced budget amendment, a cap on government spending, and a repeal of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.What is particularly striking about this agenda, given the Tea Party's claim to be a reform movement emerging from outside of the corrupt infrastructure of both political parties, is the virtual identity of its agenda with that of the libertarian wing of the Republican party.5 This is not to suggest that the Tea Party necessarily works well with the Republican establishment. On the contrary, as Edward Ashbee observes: The Tea Party movement is largely drawn from independent conservatives or “debranded” Republicans. The clashes between the movement and the Republican “establishment” around some of the institutional arrangements that govern the party and structure electoral processes have added to the anger and rage that the movement feels towards the Obama administration. (2011, 164) Nevertheless, rather than embodying a movement of the politically disaffected, the Tea Party looks much more like a set of organizations designed to co-opt and appropriate the genuine disaffection of many American voters and channel that disaffection toward the standard issue Republican policy goals—if not necessarily toward the Republican party itself—at least in economic matters.6 Its ability to do this largely relies on the coupling of legitimate economic grievances in the wake of the financial crisis with an essentially libertarian economic philosophy, heavily seasoned with class and racial resentment (Bertlet 2011, 13–14).The second movement, which has come to be known as the “Occupy Wall Street” or “99%” movement, emerged in the summer of 2011 as a direct challenge to the perceived oligarchy controlling the key policy makers in both political parties.7 The Occupy Wall Street movement's origins can be traced to a campaign by editors of the magazine AdBusters, who sought to capitalize on the Tahrir square protests in Egypt to launch a similar movement of nonviolent resistance in the United States. The target of the protest was, as they saw it, the corporate manipulation of democratic institutions (Schwartz 2011).Spreading quickly via social media, the initial Occupy Wall Street protests in Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan gave rise to an expanding circle of protests around the United States, and ultimately around the world. While inspired by the AdBusters appeal, the participants in the Occupy protests did not organize themselves around any set of leaders or institutions, but rather strongly and self-consciously resisted such formal organizational trappings, refusing for the most part to even offer any demands or proposals. Rather, they organized around a widely shared sentiment of a fundamental conflict between the interests of the “99%,” those disenfranchised and excluded from genuine participation in the institutions and structures of governance, and the “1%,” the very wealthy and powerful who have the ears of the president, the Congress, and the economic institutions of society.The refusal to issue demands or to propose particular policies was to a large extent rooted in the belief among many of the protest participants that the ultimate solution to this conflict was to destroy capitalism root and branch, replacing it with … something. What that something might be was, of course, never specified. And the organizational structure of the Occupy protests was such that it almost by definition couldn't be specified, since the kind of consensus required to develop plans for genuine alternatives was to the organizational of what was may a and movement was 2011). social in the of among movements in from around the world. And any participants and small out in a from to public to both and the of 2011, the Occupy protests had to a as the and of the in the financial of many of the of the was with to the protests the and their ability to in large in many the to and on their to they with and that in some led to This is in striking to the Tea Party which both more in and more and to the that in some the the for this in may have been from the perspective of policy it that the of the two in the Tea Party directed its primarily toward political institutions, seeing the of the social as the root of the economic crisis, the Occupy movement directed its anger primarily at economic institutions, seeing and as an of the of the Occupy movement sought to the from particular and sought to itself as an way of as a in modern way of that in to both the economic and political of oligarchy and that they have come to social life, both in the United and the world. There was, in the Occupy movement, a about human social that was in both its organizational structure and its the Tea Party a form of social and resentment in both its and is a of two two strongly movements that have emerged in response to a genuine and both as to the Great ultimately to offer a of either the or the to the economic While of the rooted in very and political principles, both the to both the and the for that are emerging from the moment at is in this way that Reinhold Niebuhr's thought can offer The of the past years has his the public but in to issues of policy and the of the United in the international is not for that one of the key of the has been his of American which the of an American of its own in with the Niebuhr's touched on many of social life, and much of his was given to the of questions of economic in the of the Great of the from that period, with his of human and political life, can offer some possible for a response to the Great many the Great Recession those that are at the of Niebuhr's The Great Recession came about as the result of and on the part of the political and economic who to the and of the and for a life, in to themselves at the time those for a and to for the very they themselves and they to a financial that for those who had the least in the of the the for the mortgage crisis all the themselves from the of their actions through the of (see 2011, a given by on the crisis in the mortgage had been to the on to because the at in the thought they … they all and the for an the of it for Wall Street to their mortgage and ultimately the The … was that most of the participants had much more to the than to the was a of economic and the was the was in had at an and the global financial was on the of 2011, The of the time is in the of a who the financial The is about to the … in the of all these necessarily all of the of those And of course, the did the was never to a that could for any of time in the but to a structure that would the financial services industry to home for it could And this structure was designed to a the to the with the own And the of their in as the banking industry was out to the of was to be to in to in the that they would the of who in of the do they the and it in the of that the financial in the a at in an for the how about their the have to their own as the come is don't of any but the and and to even they are not the or the most with the in to these heavily by American the banking and financial services industry has from the economic of the of the through the period of economic downturn since that the crisis has two movements as similar and as the Tea Party and the Occupy a similar set of at in his own of the from that period, often heavily by is of the of both political and economic in on the of an The political in any is by the which the most of it be economic or the ability to the processes of the the is to to this of an in itself as the government, a and a of it is to the of the of the to its and it The either itself to be or at to the that it either by some or by an of the to the of in and to the of the The ability of a to its political on the of its claim to government and the of to that the Great and the financial crisis from in which economic to claim a of for their of political for their own (see 2010). the intellectual of a of economic and political policy makers has been the of a at by to both and of the since a all the in wealth to the of the past years has been for (see during of and it was to this course, many did during that period, and many came to themselves to be as they their and the of their by and in the aftermath of and increasingly economic crises, in the crisis of September 2008, it was possible to such a that in small to the that both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street the of and the of perceived social with even the and the to a great for as as the could be that a market could not all of us to with of economic it the interests of those who themselves by of the of at the of the great of participants in the that in the of a ideology of the had to be rooted in a vision of both the of human in the social and a of its genuine in response to by to and then claim for an that an industry that such social be as a of for the of the social of our This is a for our of libertarian financial The us is how we may to the of our in to between economic on the one and those that offer ultimately social on the is to of some of the in Niebuhr's work that are of in the of the ongoing financial crisis, and to what they may as we in the of emerging from to Niebuhr's was the of as a in all human social his was an not of human for While may have themselves the to rise their and are for the of human and to the of those of and that form the root of social Niebuhr's of is particularly given the in the to the financial it in The and of There is a of in which the human its and and itself all does not the and of its and itself to be the of its own the of its own and of its own The is in an form in all human but it to greater among those and who have a more than of social to the which to the of either the or some of human and is the for which has as its The does not and for more in to itself does not itself as or or and to its in nature and in The financial crisis is a of the that the of and can do it is that in large on the of of between those with great and those with our is to our own at the of such as large the to the is the of of to the and the toward is much to to more than anything to a movement for financial one that traders for and that they have a financial in the in the of their The ability to become by around with or even for the has us a set of among the most Niebuhr's of the of with the of is the human to that or one has in is the result of own work and the suffering of is never the result of or but is and the result of their own that this is fundamental to the of in The of the and are by and The and conscious of their interests with general interests and … is in the of The are more than is that can be in of the of by that it something to the of the of are greater than could be the of is to the of of the that and that general interests are the they The of this in their own is the belief that the are to for their own the other hand it has been the of to the for the of and then to of what they have been the to was illustrated in the of the Tea Party movement, the by on the of the in that the government was by for policies to their and that the government the to those who can the of the was by many of the traders on the which is given their for the that it was the government and the home buyers who for the crisis, rather than traders who had of such as to be to a in The that these are what the of in the never the for and his the core of is the that it is a to us from the of our own the that those like to the what they to that the crisis was but their their of course, both and there are of from those on the political as its and refusal to many have Occupy Wall Street as a and set of it is possible that the refusal to is rooted in the of in a very many Wall Street traders to their own in the The belief that one even is on the and of the is not a of but of the it be that what and the Tea to is a of legitimate The of by out and was a very issue in the aftermath of the And the has been in a way by the Occupy as the government was on part an this us to another the of the of a economic the of the it is possible to one that is to a greater or lesser in which the and the of are shared in a is not at all that this has been given the it in our political the on economic in the Occupy movement has the for the about this the to such questions be One that form of can be in is because the of are to the which they are the of any particular in the of on the interests and at in the to it. be in What the Occupy movement can be given for is the about what the demands of be the both in the United and While one may at some of the more of social in the Occupy these protests the for the about that was to the of the And this was from by the political of the to and including Barack of Niebuhr's most are at the of with which was during the as this was by to be rooted in and of with the of the human particularly regarding questions of class interest and social While many for the of the poor and a to a more and they believed that the way to do so was through the of rather than through the of in An of The of the to the of to is a of and The that to by the of and that as well as to that that do so than but that the the which is to the has not it but that it has and more that the of the is not in but the to to the and this to the by are politically as as they are the had had and more its approach to the political would have been and to the social never the between and the of an seem to that even in the there is a in his which the that is in his this form of in a political which ultimately that movements for reform and and that the in a that the to in the of even a and could a of in political by specific policies designed to can these of Christianity by the of political that have been at the of much of the Occupy Wall Street all of the movement's its and refusal to any specific demands or it be by one or the other political a the ability to genuine policy agenda to it for political or economic institutions to to or to many of Occupy Wall there to be interest in genuine social reform than in their own fundamental in to the corrupt institutional of government and economic such of may be they ultimately the political and economic structures the movement and the in would be to ask how such a set of one on a more than one who is to a genuine policy even with the of the political and economic with the of a set of social for those who have been by the of the economic While an in us of our for it ultimately the and become politically those who the more of it is to grapple with the of the political and economic as they find theme has to do with the between and the of This is a of which Reinhold was given the of many during the to the of or that the in never their because they are Rather, be through the of by the form of has to with the of the of social and political in on the of an that in political a of is to that even the most political policy to of a conflict of and of interests in which is because are a does not the root of conflict which is to be in the corporate of as the and nature of is not something in human a and more social a more social be to all of and conflict in human This has been one of the of the Occupy Wall Street movement its in a of and has that it has not been to for the of specific policy many of the movement, this has been as a and the it has to the that the of the the Occupy movement has about economic and oligarchy on the movement's ability to itself the the of its and its refusal to with questions of the of its ultimate was a that the Tea Party either quickly or from the The Tea Party was on by powerful political who saw in the ideological of the Tea Party an to themselves or their own a the Tea Party very quickly both among in government is not given that they merely the of the to as well as financial and may be of the Occupy movement to such of out of a not to be such come with a very strong at the of the the movement have been a in the the political to legitimate for social an that can the of in the of a more more and more for the in on the of an of the American class of his become conscious of its and its a to the of and to develop a This of and and is may be for this that a such as the are to have to the The class may many its ultimate because its social has not become and because its is either in or in intellectual ultimately to be we from the Great Recession a more and or and what these two protest movements in that The small toward economic experienced in may us that reform is or that we to with the of the financial services the market may so to and the economic and we do not deal with the of what for the of a we find much time has in the of the another economic The is not but and we the and political to to the of the financial crisis there is to that we be to do so in the