> full: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01/stiglitz-depression-201201
Stiglitz writes: >The real economy has been in a state of wrenching transition for decades, and its dislocations have never been squarely faced. A crisis of the real economy lies behind the Long Slump, just as it lay behind the Great Depression.< the problem is that a capitalist economy is _always_ in a state if wrenching tradition of one sort or another (except perhaps during the Great Exception, the prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s). But we don't always see Great Depressions or Long Slumps. Sometimes we see wild swings upward... That's the way unfettered capitalism works (with a limited warfare/welfare state to smooth out the bumps). Also, Stiglitz aggregates too much: is _all_ of manufacturing in trouble? does that include Caterpillar Tractor? (no.) Isn't it really the _workers_ in manufacturing who are in trouble (along with those in retail, etc.), trying to survive on depressed incomes? Why is it that so much of the economy was spending 110% of income before the Slump? it's not just the housing bubble: people were trying to compensate for their incomes' stagnation (while trying to be "good Americans," buying every gadget that comes out, etc.) The owners of the bigger corporations aren't in trouble, because they're diversified and don't really care much about what happens to the US economy. Stiglitz is right that monetary policy isn't working (and can't work). It's one of those situations where "you can't push on a string." -- Jim Devine / "In an ugly and unhappy world the richest man can purchase nothing but ugliness and unhappiness." -- George Bernard Shaw _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
