This seems exactly right. Now there is globalization of capital and
capitalist investment in developing economies. There is a race to crush worker
power, to curtail or abolish entitlements, and impose austerity that wreaks
havoc with social programs. Capital can simply flow to those areas with the
lowest costs and most favorable invesmtent conditions. How can the earlier
conditions Krugman speaks of be restored given the quite different situation
now? Only by abolishing the capitalist system, but almost no one talks of that,
especially socalled socialist parties in Europe.
Cheers, ken
Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html
Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
________________________________
From: Michael Nuwer <[email protected]>
To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 7:14:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Very good column by Jim D.'s college roommate
On 11/20/2012 11:00 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
> I believe he's saying that we demean workers more and coddle the rich
> more now than we did in the 1950s & 1960s, but the economy was more
> prosperous (in real GDP growth terms) during that period than now. If
> I remember correctly, the column was quite critical of the 1950s.
>
Nevertheless, Krugman seems to imply that a return to higher taxes and
higher wages would be compatible with a return to economic prosperity.
He is generally unwilling to explore the argument that prosperity in
1950s and 1960s owes itself to the hegemonic power of the United States,
and so made higher taxes and higher wages possible. I'm not sure that
that possibility exists today, which leaves Krugman's argument a bit
hollow.
_______________________________________________
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
