j_b Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 JayB talks a lot about the power of the peons to earn a decent living but it is uncanny how most of the positions he defends are exactly the same defended by financial/political/media elites who decide policy and benefit greatly from it. For example, the corporate media too behaves as if there didn't exist the People's Budget (raising taxes on wealthy, cut war budget, clamp on tax evasion, ..and much more) put forward by the progressive caucus in the house. jay's monkey scenario is apt enough - the people's budget gets nowhere b/c they have no party - there are only 2 parties, and ultimately they differ on very little - dem monkies are in league w/ each other, and they'll be goddamned if any other monkies gonna hone in our their bananas - even the genuine good ones among them are overwhelmed by the scale of it all I was pointing to the blatant disconnect between JayB’s often rehashed mumbo jumbo about the capacity of unions (who represent a small fraction of workers today) to rig the game and his constant shilling for the real power brokers in society who actually rig the game at every opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) WRT to Germany - they're doing pretty well but that's generally being the case since the mid 19th century - the only exceptions being when they were busy waging war or happened to be stuck behind the iron curtain. They've cycled through a variety of economic regimes since the Iron Chancellor invented the welfare state as a mode of social control (think contemporary communists saw this for what it was more clearly than anyone else) back in the 1870's. Why the dodge? There's no need to resort to foggy generalizations; Germany's record under 30 years of neoliberal globalization is quite clear: rejecting the race to the bottom and free market fundamentalism is working. Germany's method of creating wealth is straightforward: 1. Produce a highly educated workforce. 2. Have that workforce create and make advanced, precision things for high wages. 3. Export the things at a high price and then re-invest that money back into item 1. This is why Germany is the Number 2 exporter in the world despite having only 27 percent of America's population and only 6 percent of Number 1 exporter China. The Germans realize they cannot beat either China or India based on cost. Advanced nations can't compete on cost. America could bust all the unions, get rid of the minimum wage, eliminate all social benefits and taxation and we would still lose jobs to low-wage nations. Germany decided to avoid going down the same path of downward spiral among its middle class that we are in. Instead, they invest in their people and in research. This stands in stark contrast to the America's current policy, which can basically be summed up as: 1. Let the market work by having government not interfere. 2. If the market doesn't work, give the market a bunch of public debt money. In short, America has no industrial policy or framework for future growth. Worse, many American officials don't want one. --more here. Oops? Edited June 17, 2011 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think the actual chronology goes from war-time rationing and price controls, to full-tilt liberalization, to a gradual cartelization/socialization at some point in 10-20 years thereafter, followed by a round of liberalizing reforms initiated under Schroeder. Post War Liberalization: "The German Miracle: Another Look Germany has cut government spending and its economy is growing smartly. It's not the first time that market-friendly policies have led the nation out of crisis." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703369704575461873411742404.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop Schroeder Reforms: "Schröder Reforms Bear Fruit in German Recovery By Christian Reiermann Once the sick man of Europe, Germany is currently enjoying an economic recovery, with fewer people out of work and solid growth. And unemployment is likely to remain low -- largely thanks to unpopular labor reforms pushed through by the last chancellor, Gerhard Schröder." http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,528757,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 "In a March paper for the Council on Foreign Relations, Nobel laureate economist Michael Spence and New York University researcher Sandile Hlatshwayo argue that Germany’s success at building a booming manufacturing sector that constitutes almost twice the share of the economy that ours does is largely the result of “a broad agreement among business, labor and government” to keep wages competitive and high-value-added production at home. Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, also attributes Germany’s overwhelmingly positive trade balance and comparatively low unemployment rate (7 percent) to that tripartite system. David Leonhardt, the New York Times economics columnist, wrote last week that Germany owed its edge in global competitiveness to a range of policies that could not be more different than ours: limiting homeownership, improving education (including vocational and technical education) and keeping unions strong — which is why “middle-class pay,” he noted, “has risen at roughly the same rate as top incomes.” This growing appreciation of the German model is a welcome change from the laissez-faire approach to globalization that has dominated U.S. policy and discourse for decades, dooming many Rust Belt denizens to lives of crystal meth and quiet desperation. But some of these analyses still understate the crucial distinctions between Germany’s stakeholder capitalism, which benefits the many, and our shareholder capitalism, which increasingly benefits only the few." -- Washington Post 6/15/11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think it's pretty clear that while Germany may be making some minor course corrections regarding spending - it has been their long range investment in education, training, and social well-being that has put them way ahead of us. The US - seriously - are we investing in anything execpt cruise missle technology and ethanol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think it's pretty clear that while Germany may be making some minor course corrections regarding spending - it has been their long range investment in education, training, and social well-being that has put them way ahead of us. The US - seriously - are we investing in anything execpt cruise missle technology and ethanol? Trillion-dollar fighter jets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 "In a March paper for the Council on Foreign Relations, Nobel laureate economist Michael Spence and New York University researcher Sandile Hlatshwayo argue that Germany’s success at building a booming manufacturing sector that constitutes almost twice the share of the economy that ours does is largely the result of “a broad agreement among business, labor and government” to keep wages competitive and high-value-added production at home. Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, also attributes Germany’s overwhelmingly positive trade balance and comparatively low unemployment rate (7 percent) to that tripartite system. David Leonhardt, the New York Times economics columnist, wrote last week that Germany owed its edge in global competitiveness to a range of policies that could not be more different than ours: limiting homeownership, improving education (including vocational and technical education) and keeping unions strong — which is why “middle-class pay,” he noted, “has risen at roughly the same rate as top incomes.” This growing appreciation of the German model is a welcome change from the laissez-faire approach to globalization that has dominated U.S. policy and discourse for decades, dooming many Rust Belt denizens to lives of crystal meth and quiet desperation. But some of these analyses still understate the crucial distinctions between Germany’s stakeholder capitalism, which benefits the many, and our shareholder capitalism, which increasingly benefits only the few." -- Washington Post 6/15/11 Given that all of the above were both present and had a more significant role before the reforms introduced under Schroeder were enacted - you'd expect the weakening of them under the said reforms to have undermined rather than enhanced their economic performance. Then it might be worth comparing Germany to another country with a similar set of policies - like Japan - and evaluate the extent to which they've established that they are the magic formula. Then perhaps extend the sample to Europe, or the entire world, and draw correlations between economic liberalism and economic performance.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 2008? Ironic, huh? I've never been interested in simply looking at wishy-washy, disaggregated measures of "economic performance" abstracted from health, education, equality of opportunity, mobility, and other social indicators that do much better at measuring benefits to society and environment as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 The data look the same irrespective of what time period you choose to look at. The scattering of the individual countries about the regression-line will vary over time, but not the fact that when you look across the globe, economic freedom and prosperity are positively correlated with one another. Given the roster of countries at the top of the index of economic freedom - your odds of plotting economic freedom and any of the even-more-nebulous-and-more-difficult-to-reliably-quantify factors you cite above and finding an inverse correlation is quite small - but let us know what you find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 2008? Ironic, huh? I've never been interested in simply looking at wishy-washy, disaggregated measures of "economic performance" abstracted from health, education, equality of opportunity, mobility, and other social indicators that do much better at measuring benefits to society and environment as a whole. right, you want to ignore data that invalidates your conclusions and focus only on those with which to foist your agenda on others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 evil doers asd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 "Economic freedom". Sounds great, what is it exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 2008? Ironic, huh? I've never been interested in simply looking at wishy-washy, disaggregated measures of "economic performance" abstracted from health, education, equality of opportunity, mobility, and other social indicators that do much better at measuring benefits to society and environment as a whole. right, you want to ignore data that invalidates your conclusions and focus only on those with which to foist your agenda on others. Yes, why bother looking at how policies effect actually existing living people and the environment, when you can DO THE MATH?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Yes, why bother looking at how policies effect actually existing living people and the environment, when you can DO THE MATH?! Especially when you can be as subjective as you wish doing the latter and cherry pick both your data set and your "conclusions"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 I think it's pretty clear that while Germany may be making some minor course corrections regarding spending - it has been their long range investment in education, training, and social well-being that has put them way ahead of us. The US - seriously - are we investing in anything execpt cruise missle technology and ethanol? Private prisons and pet care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 "Economic freedom". Sounds great, what is it exactly? -It's clearly subjective. In my personal definition, the less statutory restraints there are on your ability to earn and spend money in ways that don't directly harm anyone else, the more economic freedom you have. -The methods used to calculate the values plotted on the chart above can be found here: http://www.heritage.org/Index/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 "Economic freedom". Sounds great, what is it exactly? -It's clearly subjective. In my personal definition, the less statutory restraints there are on your ability to earn and spend money in ways that don't directly harm anyone else, the more economic freedom you have. I meant specifically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 im looking for investment ideas for the two $5. bills i have left. they are blue color (is that good?). i will try to find more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 I think it's pretty clear that while Germany may be making some minor course corrections regarding spending - it has been their long range investment in education, training, and social well-being that has put them way ahead of us. The US - seriously - are we investing in anything execpt cruise missle technology and ethanol? Private prisons and pet care. the kardashians appear to be doing a damn fine job of taking over the world as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 2008? Ironic, huh? I've never been interested in simply looking at wishy-washy, disaggregated measures of "economic performance" abstracted from health, education, equality of opportunity, mobility, and other social indicators that do much better at measuring benefits to society and environment as a whole. right, you want to ignore data that invalidates your conclusions and focus only on those with which to foist your agenda on others. I forgot to laugh at you about this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 "Economic freedom". Sounds great, what is it exactly? -It's clearly subjective. In my personal definition, the less statutory restraints there are on your ability to earn and spend money in ways that don't directly harm anyone else, the more economic freedom you have. I meant specifically. Specific is one thing, objective is another. We're talking ideas here - so it's not like you're going to get an objective definition of economic freedom that's derived from the atomic radius of zinc and stored in a French vault next to the platinum alloy Ur-Kilogram. Didn't they cover this stuff in your many undergraduate Critical Studies symposia on "Problematizing the Heteronormative Reflexality of Conjunctions in the English Language," etc, etc, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Didn't they cover this stuff in your many undergraduate Critical Studies symposia on "Problematizing the Heteronormative Reflexality of Conjunctions in the English Language," etc, etc, etc? Oh, they most certainly did. We just called it deregulation, privatization, corporate offshoring, union-busting, and tax cuts. Too subjective for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 Nope. The more easy it is to purchase, say, a superior Japanese made car without the Big 3/UAW making it harder or more expensive the more economic freedom I have. Agreed. Very concrete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 Didn't they cover this stuff in your many undergraduate Critical Studies symposia on "Problematizing the Heteronormative Reflexality of Conjunctions in the English Language," etc, etc, etc? Oh, they most certainly did. We just called it deregulation, privatization, corporate offshoring, union-busting, and tax cuts. Too subjective for you? Guessing most of the time was spent parsing the gendero-lexical oppression encoded in the linguistic roots of the character between the words "union" and "busting"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Yeah well, people as dull as you are easy to please I guess. Ten thousand years of human civilization, five hundred years of the Enlightenment, philosophy, literature, scientific exploration, the limits of consciousness and the totality of your vision for society, for politics, ethics, human progress consists of this corny, reductionist, banal horseshit about buying a car? [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VscVP_Gt_s&feature=related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.