Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
> The rest,
> including technology, is guesswork, IMO.
>
> mbs
>===
>
>What would need to happen to get adequate metrics for the other factors?
I've just been reading some papers estimating the contribution of
trade to widening wage inequality. The estimates range f
>From Douglas Dowd's newly published "Capitalism and its Economics: a
critical history" (Pluto Press):
"One need not be enamored of corporate profits to believe that within the
framework of a capitalist economy profits going to those involved in
production are more likely to be positive for the e
lower environmental/regulatory standards [4%]
Max,
I guessed at this being above zero on the odds that firms litigate their way
to exemptions which have a cumulative effect of hollowing out enviro. regs.
despite their being formally on the books.
Ian
The rest,
including technology, is guesswork, IMO.
mbs
===
What would need to happen to get adequate metrics for the other factors?
Ian
weakening unions [8%]
globalization[6%]
lower environmental/regulatory standards [4%]
financial shenanigans (i.e., manipulating pensions) [30%]
new technology [15%]
better management [37%]
please tell me I'm wrong, Ian
o.k. You're wrong. Lower standards implies that
there we
Ian, you win the prize.
>
> If, in the US, then
>
>
> If you were to estimate what caused the increasing rate of profit during
> the last decade, how much credit would you give to
>
> weakening unions [8%]
> globalization[6%]
> lower environmental/regulatory standards [4%]
> finan
