4 ms·

This explanation doesn't quite convince me, because if this really were the primary issue, USA could have globalized its consumer base not just for low quality

This explanation doesn't quite convince me, because if this really were the primary issue, USA could have globalized its consumer base not just for low quality products and pop culture, but high quality development. I think the root problem is political: recognizing that USA's extraordinarily successful mid-century economic model was the result of a compromise by the ruling capitalists to avoid facing a European-style revolution (e.g. Bolshevism) at home. As the Cold War reached its heights in the early 60s, that delicate equilibrium was destroyed, and the capitalists had a new mandate. State regulation, labor unions went from "necessary evil to avoid revolution" to "evil", and the robber barons could return to their early 20th century form. Thus we got the 70s and endless financialization.

kranke155 3y ago
I think that’s also fairly accurate. I always had a weird feeling on how the Scandinavian countries were in close contact with the Soviet Union and that might have influenced them to follow a more hybrid societal model than other Western countries. I haven’t done enough research to explain it either way. I do think physical capitalism exhausted itself, but it was more in the 90s and 00s that we see more psychological capitalism arriving with the first internet products that have no physicality associated with them - social media and networks. Then we have a real (or apparent) exhaustion of physical capitalism.
- SyzygistSix 3y ago
  It is fairly typical for poor, undeveloped countries to use a more centrally planned economy. The sheer lack of capital, as well as business and industrial know-how dictates that. Socialism and Communist parties were relevant in the 70s and 80s in Western Europe but later on were rejected as they were no longer relevant to their developed economies. It makes me recall one of my favorite cars that was never built, the Norwegian Troll. The government decided not to expend their limited capital to the company as they could trade fish for Ladas to get cars.
  - kranke155 3y ago
    Yes. Economics being at least partially directed by the state is actually a fairly sustainable route to parity with other rich countries (maybe the only one, according to the book How Asia Works).
Animats 3y ago
This is correct, well-documented, and not talked about much. There really was a vast right-wing conspiracy. It started with this memo.[1] Here's the background: [2] Understand that, before this, businesses rarely had lobbyists or engaged in political action. That totally changed in the 1970s. [1] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/PowellMemorandumTypescript.pdf https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Po... [2] https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/ https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arm...
0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
The US economic model has been quite successful recently as well. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=table&time=2009..2019 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=t... As of ~2019, the US had the world's 4th highest median income, even adjusted for cost of living -- easily the highest median income of any large country. And the median income in the United States has been growing rapidly. Sort the table by "Absolute Change" and you'll see that in absolute terms, the US median income grew the 5th most over the period from 2009-2019. Again, the US is comfortably ahead of other large countries when measured according to this statistic. (For example, US workers saw over 2x as much wage growth as Canadian workers did over the same time period.) Speaking as an American here, it frustrates me when Americans fail to realize how good they have it compared with people from developing countries. Americans are some of the world's richest people, yet they still insist on hoarding as many good jobs for themselves as possible. When Americans talk of "reducing inequality" it often seems hypocritical. I genuinely don't understand why it is that the people who are best off also complain the loudest.
- pphysch 3y ago
  Americans have among the highest incomes, yes, but we also have ridiculous cost of living amid a highly predatory financial system. Housing, healthcare, education and other living expenses are astronomical. We can't just look at the high incomes. Successful for the elite, yes. Not for the median American.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    The stats I linked are adjusted for cost of living. As stated on the "Chart" tab: "This data is adjusted for inflation and for differences in the cost of living between countries." People who earn the median income are hardly elite.
    - pphysch 3y ago
      The data you linked only goes to 2019. That's cherry-picking, if anything. Bad economics. Median income earners will never own a home in current conditions. That's a significant downgrade from past generations. We are not better off.
Animats 3y ago
> I think the root problem is political: recognizing that USA's extraordinarily successful mid-century economic model was the result of a compromise by the ruling capitalists to avoid facing a European-style revolution (e.g. Bolshevism) at home. Yes. Communism was a competitor which kept capitalism from acting like a monopoly. Once communism was no longer taken seriously, capitalism was unrestrained. When the USSR finally ran down, there was no stopping the push to plutocracy. It's not that communism was a better system. It was that the existence of an alternative kept capitalism from getting out of control.

kranke155 3y ago

I think that’s also fairly accurate. I always had a weird feeling on how the Scandinavian countries were in close contact with the Soviet Union and that might have influenced them to follow a more hybrid societal model than other Western countries. I haven’t done enough research to explain it either way. I do think physical capitalism exhausted itself, but it was more in the 90s and 00s that we see more psychological capitalism arriving with the first internet products that have no physicality associated with them - social media and networks. Then we have a real (or apparent) exhaustion of physical capitalism.

SyzygistSix 3y ago
It is fairly typical for poor, undeveloped countries to use a more centrally planned economy. The sheer lack of capital, as well as business and industrial know-how dictates that. Socialism and Communist parties were relevant in the 70s and 80s in Western Europe but later on were rejected as they were no longer relevant to their developed economies. It makes me recall one of my favorite cars that was never built, the Norwegian Troll. The government decided not to expend their limited capital to the company as they could trade fish for Ladas to get cars.
- kranke155 3y ago
  Yes. Economics being at least partially directed by the state is actually a fairly sustainable route to parity with other rich countries (maybe the only one, according to the book How Asia Works).

Animats 3y ago

This is correct, well-documented, and not talked about much. There really was a vast right-wing conspiracy. It started with this memo.[1] Here's the background: [2] Understand that, before this, businesses rarely had lobbyists or engaged in political action. That totally changed in the 1970s. [1] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/PowellMemorandumTypescript.pdf https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Po... [2] https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/ https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arm...

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago

The US economic model has been quite successful recently as well. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=table&time=2009..2019 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income?tab=t... As of ~2019, the US had the world's 4th highest median income, even adjusted for cost of living -- easily the highest median income of any large country. And the median income in the United States has been growing rapidly. Sort the table by "Absolute Change" and you'll see that in absolute terms, the US median income grew the 5th most over the period from 2009-2019. Again, the US is comfortably ahead of other large countries when measured according to this statistic. (For example, US workers saw over 2x as much wage growth as Canadian workers did over the same time period.) Speaking as an American here, it frustrates me when Americans fail to realize how good they have it compared with people from developing countries. Americans are some of the world's richest people, yet they still insist on hoarding as many good jobs for themselves as possible. When Americans talk of "reducing inequality" it often seems hypocritical. I genuinely don't understand why it is that the people who are best off also complain the loudest.

pphysch 3y ago
Americans have among the highest incomes, yes, but we also have ridiculous cost of living amid a highly predatory financial system. Housing, healthcare, education and other living expenses are astronomical. We can't just look at the high incomes. Successful for the elite, yes. Not for the median American.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  The stats I linked are adjusted for cost of living. As stated on the "Chart" tab: "This data is adjusted for inflation and for differences in the cost of living between countries." People who earn the median income are hardly elite.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    The data you linked only goes to 2019. That's cherry-picking, if anything. Bad economics. Median income earners will never own a home in current conditions. That's a significant downgrade from past generations. We are not better off.

Animats 3y ago

> I think the root problem is political: recognizing that USA's extraordinarily successful mid-century economic model was the result of a compromise by the ruling capitalists to avoid facing a European-style revolution (e.g. Bolshevism) at home. Yes. Communism was a competitor which kept capitalism from acting like a monopoly. Once communism was no longer taken seriously, capitalism was unrestrained. When the USSR finally ran down, there was no stopping the push to plutocracy. It's not that communism was a better system. It was that the existence of an alternative kept capitalism from getting out of control.