"Wes" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:20:11 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: and Wes clipped a bunch 
Today, all of the equations have been changed. Technology was part of it,
but globalization was most of it. But the education idea was not just
about
better jobs. It was about a better life. The percentage of students going
to
college was going through the roof. The expected outcome was better
citizens
and happier people.
The GI Bill was one government social program I truely believe worked.
I believe it had a lot to do with college enrollment going though the
roof.
Capital would be under pressure except for truly entrepreneurial
opportunities; dividends would be reduced because more profit would
return to workers. The gap between returns on capital invested in
mature industries and the rates of return possible for new
enterprise would keep innovation well-funded and expansive.
I cannot see how this logically follows from anything you said.
I'm with Iggy on this one. It would seem to encourage automation.
Since I repair that stuff, good for me, and more education would even
be better for me.
Automation encourages itself. It's a compelling economic fact that can't be
stopped without violence. You can slow it down by paying people wages they
can't live on, and you can squeeze every turnip in sight to compete with
bowl-of-rice-a-day imports, but it's coming at you anyway. 'Always has,
always will.
Tawwwm's argument is one of the oldest, dumbest, and most self-serving in
all of manufacturing. Luddites come in several flavors, but their arguments
are always losers.
I've also noticed a trend to work people longer as in getting away
from the 40 hour work week. Health bennies and capital cost of
equipment means running Saturdays and Sundays during high demand
periods is the least expensive solution.
That's a good argument for universal health care. The fixed part of labor
costs is a blight upon any economy. When almost all of the costs are
variable, you have maximum labor flexibility. And it can benefit both labor
and ownership, if handled thoughtfully.
Labor laws would wind up reducing mean dividends. The only opportunities
for
breakthrough profits would be with innovative products and services that
caught fire.
It was a vision that was similar to European social democracy. It
went to hell in the US for a variety of reasons, and globalization
has given capital the upper hand, basically undercutting the social
democracy model in the US. (It remains effective in Germany,
however, which beats our pants off to this day in balance of trade.)
I cannot make any meaningful comments about Germany.
It's the most successful social democracy in the world.
For how long? Sounds like they have an exploding debt problem also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt
USA 55.9% of GNP
Germany 77.2% of GNP
They do. Now you can see why the arguments against debt are stupid, too.
Debt is a burden on growth, but debt used well stimulates more growth than
it burdens.
There are intelligent arguments against excessive debt. You just won't hear
them from conservative pundits.
So now we're basically stranded with a neoliberal model that's just
taken it in the shorts. Also known as the Washington Consensus, it's
in ill repute around the world. Several European countries are
taking a fresh look at Germany's flavor of social democracy, which
is going to cause a lot of turmoil in international trade and
finance if major trading countries adopt conflicting models.
I do not think that the remedies that you outlined, would do us any
good and therefore I disagree with the above paragraph.
i
The above paragraph is not something you can agree with or not. It's
something that you either know or not -- straight facts, well documented.
It's in the economics literature. If you have a university account or
other
account that lets you get to the professional econ journals, you'll find
it.
You may also find it in the policy journals.
The exception is the idea that it's going to cause trade conflicts. That's
my conclusion, and I've been working on trade issues for the past five
months or so. I see trade conflicts ahead.
Hmm. There was a brief article by a Germany expert in Harper's a few
months
ago. It's pretty light but you'll see the general idea, without the
numbers.
This may or may not be behind a pay firewall -- I'm a subscriber, but it
seems to be accessible without logging in. Give it a try:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/0082859
It is behind a paywall. What I could read indicated that Germany has
a excellent ballance on exports. I can believe it. Many of the
sensors and positioners we use at work are made in Germany. I'm glad
to see it isn't China but would rather see USA content for many
reasons including JIT replacement.
The weakness in Germany's economy is likely to come from an excessive
mercantilism, in which they try to buy their way out of trouble with a
strong balance of trade. This is something that doesn't often work well for
very advanced economies, like theirs. They do have a healthy trade balance,
but a negative one isn't necessarily unhealthy. And bending normal market
forces to effect a better trade balance can do more harm than good.
The strength of Germany's economy is the more interesting part, and the
article points out that it's the relative power of labor and ownership
that's very different from out economy. There are deeper analyses around
than that brief article. The telling point is that getting labor involved in
decision-making at the highest levels hasn't seem to hurt their
international competitiveness. It appears to have strengthened it, in fact,
but I'm not knowledgable enough about Germany's economy to draw any
conclusions -- except that labor involvement obviously has not held them
back.
BTW, I think that John found a link to that article that isn't behind a
paywall. If you can't get it and really want it, I'll download it and e-mail
it to you.
--
Ed Huntress