Just a quick question, I'm currently taking an industrial economics class, why the hell would going back to a secondary economic structure (according to Rostow's model of modernization) be considered a good idea; because literally the only solution would be lowering wages and workers rights exponentially, just to be able to keep up with other countries where they have literal slavery. So why are there so many people here who want to resort to an economically unsound idea. Rather, why don't we put support towards the professional class, that way we gain manufacturing advantages over other countries – due to automation – and can economically bargain with them from a higher point to encourage further development among them.
Now, as for the second issue, lets assume that there is some great communist revolution in the US that succeeds(which it won't), has anyone even given thought to the fact that we have no sustainable input for our manufacturing in the US, and would mostly likely lead to agglomeration of factories near what few inputs we do have, resulting in an environmental catastrophe.
Did Gerschenkron write about industrial economics?
Luke Evans
but anyway, to answer your question, communism isn't just about state or worker control of factories. we're also not interested in making everyone an industrial worker. the 20th and 19th century fixation on the industrial worker was only a matter of pragmatism, as they were the driving force of western economies.
if a communist revolution did occur in the US, it would almost certainly lead to the creation of global communism for one fundamental reason, the US and US citizens currently holds the largest amount of capital in the world. if this capital was rightfully given to the labor that uses it, then that also includes laborers all over the world. After all, we DO need labor in China to produce our goods. Certainly, trade would still be necessary even in global communism and there would be some levels of specialization and division of labor, but so too would the objective of trade change from existing to create the most profit to creating the highest output.
Ethan Edwards
the economics of development.
Hudson Williams
well, first of all, it's highly unlikely that the US would at any point become communist. But, going along with the scenario of global communism, wouldn't it be close to impossible for a single unitary government to actually manage all of that trade? Wouldn't that result in a federalized system of government? And, the federalized form of government would almost definitely give way to a market, just as it did in china.
Hudson Jackson
Read the FAQ.
Jack Sanders
Even if the US doesn't become capitalist, I think a socialist economy in the US would be much more efficient than what we have now, considering the massive under utilization of capital and general over leveraging.
I don't know, tbh. The creation of a global set of rules for trade would probably make things much easier, though I wouldn't trust an attempt to make such standards under capitalism.
I'm not sure how you're linking federalization to the use of markets in china.
Aaron Rodriguez
maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're arguing for here, but if you try to pursue a comparative advantage in sectors typically worked by the professional class (like software, medicine, etc.) you will have a problem - people who aren't smart enough to work these jobs will be mostly unemployed and it will only get worse with more automation. See: USA, which basically does already through its university system and trade deals to protect its IP rights in exchange for access to US consumer markets.
Logan Clark
ok so based off what I could gather from a quick google, Gerschenkron basically said that life is awful in economically backwards countries(low level of technology, low income per capita, etc), there is going to be unsustainable growth due to the takeoff of a few industries–such as cocoa in either Gabon or Cote d'Ivote(not sure which one off the top of my head)– which will lead to general suck, and becoming economically dependant on first world countries, sounds kind of similar to Wallerstein.
Bentley Brooks
well, there's a bit more to that. basically what he said is the later a country tries to industrialize, the more the government will have to do in the economy for it to industrialize.
Matthew Watson
Federalization leads to more devolutionary forces, which lead to more individual freedoms, whcih will eventually lead to a market. Or at least, that's my thinking.
Jordan Powell
I'm talking about automation in factories(given that that's where we are under present circumstances), those people will still have a place in the service industry because we simply aren't at the point where we can replace a carpenter with a robot.
Hudson Peterson
that's not really what happened. the economic liberalism occurred from the top down in China, and while we're at it individual freedom =/ freer markets. china is just as dominated now by a small clique of party insiders and financial elites as they were before by Mao and previous regimes.
Asher Diaz
Won't we have to greatly expand the service industry, though? Unemployment and precarious employment are still pretty high in the US especially in rural America.
Leo Sanchez
Oh yes I agree 100% that our system isn't working well, I'm not a libertarian in any sense of the word, but I still think that we need competition and freedom of choice in the market.
Robert James
well, wouldn't that sort of happen on it's own because of mass consumerism, and if we raise wages, then people will just generally put more money back into the economy, most likely the service industry(fast food chains like McDonald's, Wendy's etc.)
Xavier Wilson
you're probably right. Would it be useful to cut the work week to get more people employed without having to go crazy with fast food outputs?
Tyler Reyes
Right now the consumer base is disintegrating, as workers are increasingly able to do little more than subsist. To preserve the consumer base, wages would have to go up at a greater rate than the cost of living rises. The bitch of it is that if wages were to rise at a sufficient rate then profit margins would go down. That is not just a petty matter of rich people being forced to accept a bit less of the global economic pie. It causes a reduction in the flow of capital, which means that growth stops. A capitalist economy where growth has stopped cannot sustain itself. Society would begin to spin apart. The last time that happened, it took a World War to bring at least parts of the capitalist world out of it.
James Young
You can have markets and individualism without capitalism, actually. co-ops breddy gud xddd
It being profitable for one company to drop wages doesn't mean it's profitable when every company drops wages, so it cutting into profit margins for one company to raise wages again doesn't always mean that it's unprofitable for every company to raise wages.
Joseph Powell
Industrialization is more appealing because it has a more equitable internal distribution structure, because of the number of employees required and the potential for strike action. Compare that with knowledge economies where few are employed and distribution flows to an ever concentrated minority.
