Ok, I’ve promised an all over the place post on economics. I’ve never had a minute’s formal Economics education in my life, most of it has come from reading history, the broadsheets and the occasional stint of reading the Economist etc. I’ve done a bit of Finance work and as some may have guessed work in a job that involves numbers and some applied microeconomics.
There’s a few strands to what I want to say, and maybe each deserved their own post, but my ego won’t have it.
Is Fordism dead? Or about to be?As resources are apparently getting scarcer and more of the world accepts we have to consume less, unless we have a few new juicy technological breakthroughs, that model of mass production and paying the workers enough to consume the production in a virtuous circle is surely bust?
And linked to that, I read something that suggested that the post 9/11 recession that never really materialised was because there’s now such a large class of the super-rich who could just afford to just keep on spending that in a vulgar Keynesian way (my term – a better one no doubt exists) kept the economy pumping. Seem fair enough? And did the economic Vietnam of last year thin their ranks out a little so that this hasn’t happened this time?
Which leads me onto the stagnation of Japan over the past fifteen or so years. I’m sure there are all kinds of contributory factors, but I’ve read a few times that Japan’s econmic success after WWII had an awful lot to do with the Korean War and its proximity to this warzone. Demand for munitions, Jeeps being the main item singled out, helped with a vulgar Keynesian bellows effect that had the economy roaring and roasting chestnuts. As this started to wear off, the Vietnam War got it going again. So, did this then wear off as the Nineties got under way?
And so, could it be argued that it may well suit the British national interest (a term I’m not happy with for all kinds of reasons, but you know what I’m getting at) for some kind of major war to take place which the UK (I know, not the same as Britain) could produce goods for etc.? You know, as the UK, as I understand it, is broadly in decline relative to other industrial nations and this would be slowed if WWIII is not that much of a European affair. Not that I’ve got my fingers crossed or anything, I’m just a bit interested in this type of thing.
And finally, as they used to say, maybe still do, there’s that idea that the masses tend to make gains as far as freedom and economic well-being go after major wars – say the NHS after the Second World War, but other examples exist. Partly due to increased “muscle” and radicalism, partly due to a coming together of classes and recognition of a blood debt, that type of thing. Does this stand up to any kind of intellectual rigour?
And that as we move further away from the conditions that cause these gains, from that side of the fence, the gains are eroded, with yer Thatcherism and so on?
Scalpels and cold water at the ready.
There’s a few strands to what I want to say, and maybe each deserved their own post, but my ego won’t have it.
Is Fordism dead? Or about to be?As resources are apparently getting scarcer and more of the world accepts we have to consume less, unless we have a few new juicy technological breakthroughs, that model of mass production and paying the workers enough to consume the production in a virtuous circle is surely bust?
And linked to that, I read something that suggested that the post 9/11 recession that never really materialised was because there’s now such a large class of the super-rich who could just afford to just keep on spending that in a vulgar Keynesian way (my term – a better one no doubt exists) kept the economy pumping. Seem fair enough? And did the economic Vietnam of last year thin their ranks out a little so that this hasn’t happened this time?
Which leads me onto the stagnation of Japan over the past fifteen or so years. I’m sure there are all kinds of contributory factors, but I’ve read a few times that Japan’s econmic success after WWII had an awful lot to do with the Korean War and its proximity to this warzone. Demand for munitions, Jeeps being the main item singled out, helped with a vulgar Keynesian bellows effect that had the economy roaring and roasting chestnuts. As this started to wear off, the Vietnam War got it going again. So, did this then wear off as the Nineties got under way?
And so, could it be argued that it may well suit the British national interest (a term I’m not happy with for all kinds of reasons, but you know what I’m getting at) for some kind of major war to take place which the UK (I know, not the same as Britain) could produce goods for etc.? You know, as the UK, as I understand it, is broadly in decline relative to other industrial nations and this would be slowed if WWIII is not that much of a European affair. Not that I’ve got my fingers crossed or anything, I’m just a bit interested in this type of thing.
And finally, as they used to say, maybe still do, there’s that idea that the masses tend to make gains as far as freedom and economic well-being go after major wars – say the NHS after the Second World War, but other examples exist. Partly due to increased “muscle” and radicalism, partly due to a coming together of classes and recognition of a blood debt, that type of thing. Does this stand up to any kind of intellectual rigour?
And that as we move further away from the conditions that cause these gains, from that side of the fence, the gains are eroded, with yer Thatcherism and so on?
Scalpels and cold water at the ready.
Comment