4 ms·

>And yet, this turns out to be the most succesful strategy civilization has used so far. The period in which the American economy was growing most was when it

>And yet, this turns out to be the most succesful strategy civilization has used so far. The period in which the American economy was growing most was when it was also most organized. The post-war consensus was about scientific management of industry and the economy, not about free markets and profit maximization; that dogma only took hold in the 80s (both in business schools and in politics), and it has been a steady downhill since then from the relatively sunnier period of high-level management. The American economy was heavily planned through most of that period (mostly through the military), and the beleaguered stump remains in the form of public funds for research and development flowing into private industry (the Internet, biomedical research, semiconductors, defense, etc). What short-term profit mostly succeeded at doing was producing the largest and most rapid accumulation of private wealth and power the world has seen in a century. http://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Urban.WealthPercentiles1-1024x490.jpg http://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/wp-content/upl... Non-sequitur, I also found this, one of the coolest figures I've seen in a while: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/shirakawa/Global%20Wealth%209.jpg http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/im...

reality_czech 10y ago
A lot of people look back on the period from 1945 to 1970 as a golden age of growth under a more left-leaning economic regime than today. It sounds like you are one them, based on your "let's organize the economy" enthusiasm. The problem with that is that the post-WWII period was much different than today. Pretty much every other advanced economy besides the US had been economically devastated by a long and bloody war. The US didn't have to be competitive to compete against a Germany or a Japan where people were boiling shoes to eat the leather or catching rats for meat. They only had to be relatively competent. Also, both before and after WWII, scientists flocked to the US, fleeing from repressive and doomed regimes. US R&D got a huge boost from these people. Another question is just how "organized" the economy actually was back then. Most of the really complicated regulations like Sarbannes-Oxley were still far in the future in the 1940s. By the time the EPA was created in the 1970s, the US was already well on its way to stagflation and economic incontience. Tax rates looked high back then, but just like today, most truly wealthy people found ways around paying them. Of course the government has a role to play in funding research and moderating some of the excesses of capitalism. But to argue that some bureaucrat can just push a button and bring back the golden years of the 1950s is a leftist fantasy.
- astazangasta 10y ago
  I'm not advocating going back to 1950 or having planned economies (I am rather an anarchist), I am merely pointing out that it is wrong to suggest an orientation to short term profit makes the best economy.
  - reality_czech 10y ago
    Most economic debate occurs in spherical cow land because it ignores the political realities of the debate. Sure it would be possible to have a wise, far-sighted government that invested in exactly the technologies that were needed for the future. But once the government is a source of patronage, politicians have a huge incentive to funnel off the money to their friends and cronies. In the end, it is usually better to leave the government small and accept that there is some long-term planning you'll miss out on. In the same way, if we could have a benevolent dictator, he would certainly govern better than our crappy government. But dictatorship is inherently unstable because the most ruthless person seizes power. So the dictator could not stay benevolent for long. Better not to have the dictator, even if it means having a less efficient government.

reality_czech 10y ago

A lot of people look back on the period from 1945 to 1970 as a golden age of growth under a more left-leaning economic regime than today. It sounds like you are one them, based on your "let's organize the economy" enthusiasm. The problem with that is that the post-WWII period was much different than today. Pretty much every other advanced economy besides the US had been economically devastated by a long and bloody war. The US didn't have to be competitive to compete against a Germany or a Japan where people were boiling shoes to eat the leather or catching rats for meat. They only had to be relatively competent. Also, both before and after WWII, scientists flocked to the US, fleeing from repressive and doomed regimes. US R&D got a huge boost from these people. Another question is just how "organized" the economy actually was back then. Most of the really complicated regulations like Sarbannes-Oxley were still far in the future in the 1940s. By the time the EPA was created in the 1970s, the US was already well on its way to stagflation and economic incontience. Tax rates looked high back then, but just like today, most truly wealthy people found ways around paying them. Of course the government has a role to play in funding research and moderating some of the excesses of capitalism. But to argue that some bureaucrat can just push a button and bring back the golden years of the 1950s is a leftist fantasy.

astazangasta 10y ago
I'm not advocating going back to 1950 or having planned economies (I am rather an anarchist), I am merely pointing out that it is wrong to suggest an orientation to short term profit makes the best economy.
- reality_czech 10y ago
  Most economic debate occurs in spherical cow land because it ignores the political realities of the debate. Sure it would be possible to have a wise, far-sighted government that invested in exactly the technologies that were needed for the future. But once the government is a source of patronage, politicians have a huge incentive to funnel off the money to their friends and cronies. In the end, it is usually better to leave the government small and accept that there is some long-term planning you'll miss out on. In the same way, if we could have a benevolent dictator, he would certainly govern better than our crappy government. But dictatorship is inherently unstable because the most ruthless person seizes power. So the dictator could not stay benevolent for long. Better not to have the dictator, even if it means having a less efficient government.