Comments

• Jovan said:
  

  First, I think that the NEW is that it is realized in other time, just now, when the conditions of economiehave similitudes but financially the conditions are distincts, also are diferent factors how technology, culture and social values. How second element, these diferences make think in diferent results that before. For this reason I think that new version of new deal should be complmented with proposes how regulate the financial markets, and also establish an equilibrium between the money and richness created by fiancial system and those creatted by productive activities. For that the investments in productive infratestructure give the results more efficient, is required that productive activities be newly the activities that drive the sense of the economie, is needed establish a more ample barrier between financial capital and productive entreprises and activities. Transalted in actions it means an ample spectre policies not only of develpment of infraetsructure if not redefine less taxes for workers, open new chanels for pay for merchandises and services, change the unidimiensional sense of measaurment of growth of the economie from only NBP for one taht consider sustainability in resources and social stability.

  In adittion, with this reference is evident that the orientation of New deal policies should be the poorest sectors of poblation for dismish the inequality in freedoms, condition needed for reduct the impact of crises, in this sense the lasts proposes have the second goal of reduct this inequality.

  Without framework that consider a new economic ambient that supose a redesign of finacial system and the incorporation of new chanels for the flow of economic interchanges, the potential of policies includind type New new new deal will reduced and in ample horizon of time it will have uper costs.

  -March 14th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
• Bruno Verdini said:
  

  Let’s see…I’ll make this commentary from a film perspective. That does not mean I take the question “what’s new about the New Deal” lightly, on the contrary, the film reference can be quite a concrete tool for the reader to delve into what I will be trying to argue. If you happen to browse through Amazon.com and type in the words “screwball comedies” you’ll be happy to find a list of classics from mid to late thirties starring the beloved ones, James Stewart, Cary Grant, William Powell, James Cagney, Ray Milland, Henry Fonda, Lionel Barrymore, Melvyn Douglas…the names go on and so the recognition by the public…seventy years later, the warmth of the comedies starring Carole Lombard, Irene Dunne, Margaret Sullivan, Kay Francis, Myrna Loy, Jean Arthur, Ginger Rogers, Rosalind Russell or Katharine Hepburn jumps to the screen. No one who has read about the studio system back then can say the system was flawless, to say the least, but it did work as a powerful machine of dreams during difficult times. This was certainly done masterfully and with high moral standards, for the values behind The Shop around the Corner, My Man Godfrey or His Girl Friday still resonate for those who long for a world where dignity is not measured by amassing as much as you can while making a fool on “reality tv” movie spin offs. Hence, I believe one difference between then and now is the emphasis on seeking meaning in life through little things (Capra’s You Can’t take it With You) or challenging the social order from a political stance that is highly critical of the cynic seriousness some officials and media pose with, let’s say as Preston Sturges drew it a bit later, in the 40’s, with Joel McCrea and Veronica Lake in Sullivan’s Travels. Hence, my second commentary: I think such feelings and emotions, which had quite a zest of innocence and romanticism, are not being reproduced these time because, in some subconscious manner, if the image may be allowed, the way USA perceives itself has changed. It is as if now it carries the weight of the world over its shoulders, so that every single step is scrutinized to the point where no answer can be enough. Unlike in the thirties, where the decline of the British Empire was making evident USA would have to fight it out with the USSR for political leadership of the globe, it now has no longer any paradigm to beat but itself. This tends to turn into a serpentine challenge where nothing is ever good enough! Click on CNN and you’ll have the complete assortment of the business, political, and industrial characters stating this or that plan or package is too little, is too much, is somewhat drawn, is not clear at all, it is too much bureaucratic, etcetera. Again, to me, the one aspect that has to change in the psyche, the social psyche, is how enamored we are with a fast-pace, experience as much as you can, the sooner the better mentality that is disparate to the ones in the 30’s. So now, it creeps up into any decision that not only long term perspectives are not politically viable because of electoral consideration, but because it is assumed people expect the world to function as if it obeyed to a magic wand. For if that is not the case, then let’s ask the pundits to stop trying to fix in months what was brewed throughout the years and by thousands still in the same power positions which led to the fateful decisions. Even if Mr. Smith goes to Washington is Obama’s calling, it’ll need sequels, coming from republican and democrats, for decades, in order to achieve the stability and renovation which is so much yearned for.

  -March 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

Trackbacks

There are no trackbacks