It is interesting that only one one of the thinkers (Galbraith) had a specific
proposed policy to "a path to sustained growth" and only one other had a more
general path (Alperovitz). The others relied more on time and the market to
provide a fix for the economy.
Alperovitz pins his hope on "social enterprise" i.e. worker driven
business. Galbraith sees a surplus of labor and would reduce that by lowering
the retirement age to 62 to clear some workers from the scene.
Nor is there much on Pen-l or the left as far as policy proposals, save
more stimulus. Neither is there, on the left, much challenge to the "sustained
growth" route to nirvana. Sustained growth as the rescue of the common man
marries the aspirations of workers to the goal of the capitalists. It could
work for the capitalists but will not for the workers.
Gene Coyle
On Nov 28, 2010, at 11:06 AM, MICHAEL YATES wrote:
> In today's New York Times there is an article discussing the suggestions of
> various thinkers on what might
> sustain a growing economy in the future. (David Segal, "Some Very Creative
> Economic Fix-Its") Here is what one New York University economist had to say:
> _____________________________________
> Perhaps we are entering the era of the self-starter. Prof. Andrew aplin of
> New York University thinks so. He begins with the premise that in the coming
> global economy some people will succeed and others will not, and income
> inequality will grow. While it’s noble to focus on how to spread wealth
> around, he says that it might be wiser to think of ways the poor and middle
> class could cater to the economy’s biggest winners.
>
> “Unfortunately, there will be income inequality,” he says, “but enough people
> will make money that those who don’t would do well, in as much as they
> understand the needs of that group.”
>
> He says he expects a rise in what he call “artisanal services,” like cooks,
> nutritionists, small-scale farmers. He sees services emerging that aid the
> wealthy at the intersection of health and genetic science. He imagines a rise
> in technology services, too — experts who keep clients current about
> technology which can advance their interests in business, in the media, on
> search engines and so on.
>
> Professor Caplin worries that this concept might be caricatured as “cater to
> the rich.” But he suggested that this country could use a lot more
> non-judgmental thinking about the future of the United States economy. Any
> argument on that subject that starts with the word “should,” he said, is not
> nearly as useful as one that starts with “could” and has a firm grasp on “is.”
>
> “If you start with ‘should’ you get arguments where nobody makes any sense
> and where you can claim that some people are good and other people are bad,”
> he said, referring to recent skirmishes over Fed policy, deficits and other
> contentious topics. “With that sleight of hand you’ve ensured that you will
> not discuss anything of substance. You’ve just lined up two camps to fire at
> one another.”
> __________________________________
>
> Is it time to take all neoclassical economists into the woods and shoot them?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
