RE: [Futurework] Toward a national industrial policy for the US

[Cordell, Arthur: ECOM]

I have been involved in discussions of "national industrial policy "  for more years than I care to think about.   Most of the plans look workable until one or another corporate or political group is involved and realize that their sector is left our or wants a larger share of the action.   There can be days or weeks of discussion but finally someone has to have the political courage to do something.  To make a decision, one that is likely to lose friends and/supporters.   The US seems to have an industrial policy by default: The military industrial complex.   Canada's industrial policy by default turns out to be FTA and NAFTA.   Both in the US and Canada there are sector specifice policies but I haven't heard of an over-all policy.   When Clinton took office he chaired an intensive meeting on the economics of the US.  I thought something would come of that.  Perhaps it did.  I probably missed it.   arthur   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:56 AM To: futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: [Futurework] Toward a national industrial policy for the US Good morning, everyone,   One of the failures of the US government going back several administrations is the absence of a national industrial policy. It was opposed, primarily but not solely by Republicans, on the grounds that the free market would best respond to the challenges that in other countries such a policy addresses. The result has been national outsourcing, a wandering approach to educational support and prioritization, a failure to invest in technologies that seem directly linked to national well-being, national debt history tied to immediate political expediency, and a lack of vision and commitment within the federal bureaucracies. That is the short list, and I am sure other members of Futurework can add to it easily.   The result has been that such issues as employment in the automotive sector, service nets in the transportation sector, technical standards in the communication sector, executive self-seeking in the business sector, price/technology escalation in the medical sector, and concentration in the media sector has all been neglected, with the effect of allowing major dysfunctionalities to creep into each of these sectors.   Will the academic and political leaders of the US have the intellectual courage and skill to tackle the need for an effective national industrial policy? If not, these dysfunctionalities will grow and lead to the large scale impairment of the US economy and society.  If they do come to address these issues, they will have to undo many decades of unquestioning commitment to laissez-faire ideology.  If they don't, we can only hope that the American people some day wake up to the reality that many of the weekly blockbuster bad-news headlines are the result of a lack of societal planning and leadership, rather than an acceptable, natural and inevitable phenomenon.   Those who us who are worried about the shape of tomorrow's US economy might wish to give thought to the matter of a national industrial policy, and what might be some of its essential elements and structures.  I've never designed a national industrial policy, but imagine that it must start with some sort of outcome formulation.   Cheers, Lawry   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Watters Cole Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:00 PM To: futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: RE: [Futurework] Deja vu: Reasons to be skeptical   Yes, to staunch the domestic wounds from the Abramoff, Plame and other minor scandals this year, in addition to the Katrina, Medicare and SS failures, Rove has once again invoked the war time battle plans for midterm elections, 2006. This is critical for them to do early, not just with the State of the Union (SoU) speech in a week and a half, but because there is the Enron and perhaps AIPAC scandals ahead yet to inflict damage.  They also must contend with economic fallout from events unfolding, such as Ford's announcement, perhaps tomorrow.  It's hard to blame the opposition for bad economic policy when there is no 'shadow' government here, when you control all 3 branches of gov't. - KwC   Sound familiar? Rove offers GOP 2006 battle plan: hype national security. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001853.html?nav=hcmodule

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework