At 01:23 PM 4/8/98 -0400, you wrote:
Barkley writes: >... Maybe it is just "faith," but I do think that we are
going through a Schumpeterian qualitative technological transformation, and
I see these as the key to long wave upswings. Do they generally lead to
their own demise, often through demand-side blowouts? Indeed, and 1929 is a
very good example. But this suggests that the downswing is probably a ways
off.<
Yeah, while you were off gallivanting around Europe, I posted a message to
pen-l saying that according to the "history repeats itself" criterion
(which long-wave partisans cling to), a new 1929 won't happen until during
President Gore's first term (probably while he's in the hospital being
treated for a termite infestation). BTW, if my theory is right, the more
that the new collapse is delayed, the worse it is, as imbalances are
allowed to accumulate in the US and world economies.
>But then, besides all my weirdo chaos/catastrophe stuff, I also buy into
Keynesian uncertainty. Anything can happen. We could have a Great
Depression tomorrow. Some on this list have told scenarios erupting out of
East Asia that could lead to it. I don't rule it out, but I wouldn't "bet
the farm" on it either. <
Luckily or unluckily, I don't have much of a farm to bet. But instead of
arguing that "anything can happen," it's better to deal with competing
scenarios. "Anything can happen" hardly helps us decide what to do.
BTW, on the never-ending leftist debate about the Dems. vs. the GOPs, it
seems that the best analogy comes from cop shows, where the "good cop" (the
Dems.) and the "bad cop" (the GOPs) mess with the mind of the prisoner (US
voters). They differ, but are unified in a goal, getting the prisoner to
confess (accept the status quo).
Like even the best analogies, this one leaves something out, specifically
divisions _within_ the two parties. But those divisions can only be
exploited if we put constant and growing pressure on both parties from the
outside, i.e., extra-electoral action. Even the GOPs improve when mass
discontent becomes overt: remember that it was Nixon who instituted both
OSHA (the occupational safety law) and the EPA (a dose of eco-sanity). He
did so partly to try to undermine the anti-war and other
anti-establishmentarian movements. (Neither of these programs were as good
as they could have been, but that simply tells us that more pressure is
needed. BTW, the example of Nixon should remind us of how pitiful Clinton
is.) Rather than hoping that the "good czar" ("Free Willy" Clinton) will
shower us with gifts, we have to keep up the pressure.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
