* "The stock market has been dormant since before the War." To a very great extent this was true. I would change the language a bit, and point-out that the Equity Markets had become predictable and stable by 1961. It really was a golden age in many ways, with Markets and Governments existing in a form of equipoise.
* "Keynes fits in with patrician values." I have been trumpeting this fact all along.
* The men of 1959 "remembered the crash of 1929." This is probably the greatest problem with contemporary capitalism - no one recalls the devestation of The Great Depression. My parents lived through it - and what they taught me, I can never forget.
* The "myth of indefinite growth" continues on of course; the Large Coporation I work for is now enamoured of "productivity" benchmarks. That is: Total Sales or Total revenue divided by the total number of employees = productivity.
It is our new metric. Can you guess what the greatest costs are? (hint: "Soylent Green is People!")
This is probably the greatest problem with contemporary capitalism - no one recalls the devestation of The Great Depression. My parents lived through it - and what they taught me, I can never forget.
As did mine. It was always a vivid part of their formative years and we were accordingly inculcated not only with the value of thrift and other such “old-fashioned” virtues that they’d been habituated to during their youth, but also with high degree of skepticism about the supposed virtues of unfettered capitalism and a foreboding sense that the edifice of material wealth could come suddenly crashing down at any moment as a consequence of economic forces completely beyond one’s control.
The "myth of indefinite growth" continues on of course; the Large Coporation I work for is now enamoured of "productivity" benchmarks. That is: Total Sales or Total revenue divided by the total number of employees = productivity.
That’s a pretty hamfisted way of determining “productivity” it seems, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Now the big buzzword of course is “sustainable growth” but I don’t think most people have the foggiest idea what that actually means. I suspect in most cases that it’s actually just “indefinite growth” of stock market fabulists repackaged to sound more appealing and somewhat less delusional. Personally, I’m coming more to believe that we need to question the whole notion of “growth” itself and I seriously wonder if the premise of this idea isn’t perhaps somehow deeply and fundamentally flawed. Maybe there’s something to be said for the inherent prudence of zero-growth equilibrium, after all. To be honest though, it’s not something I’ve given much serious thought to, more just a visceral feeling that none of the prevailing economic models really make a lot of sense at the end of the day.
Yeah, well me career came to a slight stall a few years back becaue I dared to question the wisdom of believing in perpetual growth.
The problem with the current "productivity model" that you rightfully refer to as "hamfisted," is that a drop in sales/revenue will mean a necessary drop in employees in order to maintain the alignment with the target. The target is considered sacrosanct. The "target" must be maintained - at what cost? We shall see in 2008-9 as the North American economy contracts.
* "The stock market has been dormant since before the War." To a very great extent this was true. I would change the language a bit, and point-out that the Equity Markets had become predictable and stable by 1961. It really was a golden age in many ways, with Markets and Governments existing in a form of equipoise.
ReplyDelete* "Keynes fits in with patrician values." I have been trumpeting this fact all along.
* The men of 1959 "remembered the crash of 1929." This is probably the greatest problem with contemporary capitalism - no one recalls the devestation of The Great Depression. My parents lived through it - and what they taught me, I can never forget.
* The "myth of indefinite growth" continues on of course; the Large Coporation I work for is now enamoured of "productivity" benchmarks. That is: Total Sales or Total revenue divided by the total number of employees = productivity.
It is our new metric. Can you guess what the greatest costs are? (hint: "Soylent Green is People!")
An unrelenting race to the bottom.
This is probably the greatest problem with contemporary capitalism - no one recalls the devestation of The Great Depression. My parents lived through it - and what they taught me, I can never forget.
ReplyDeleteAs did mine. It was always a vivid part of their formative years and we were accordingly inculcated not only with the value of thrift and other such “old-fashioned” virtues that they’d been habituated to during their youth, but also with high degree of skepticism about the supposed virtues of unfettered capitalism and a foreboding sense that the edifice of material wealth could come suddenly crashing down at any moment as a consequence of economic forces completely beyond one’s control.
The "myth of indefinite growth" continues on of course; the Large Coporation I work for is now enamoured of "productivity" benchmarks. That is: Total Sales or Total revenue divided by the total number of employees = productivity.
That’s a pretty hamfisted way of determining “productivity” it seems, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Now the big buzzword of course is “sustainable growth” but I don’t think most people have the foggiest idea what that actually means. I suspect in most cases that it’s actually just “indefinite growth” of stock market fabulists repackaged to sound more appealing and somewhat less delusional. Personally, I’m coming more to believe that we need to question the whole notion of “growth” itself and I seriously wonder if the premise of this idea isn’t perhaps somehow deeply and fundamentally flawed. Maybe there’s something to be said for the inherent prudence of zero-growth equilibrium, after all. To be honest though, it’s not something I’ve given much serious thought to, more just a visceral feeling that none of the prevailing economic models really make a lot of sense at the end of the day.
Yeah, well me career came to a slight stall a few years back becaue I dared to question the wisdom of believing in perpetual growth.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the current "productivity model" that you rightfully refer to as "hamfisted," is that a drop in sales/revenue will mean a necessary drop in employees in order to maintain the alignment with the target. The target is considered sacrosanct. The "target" must be maintained - at what cost? We shall see in 2008-9 as the North American economy contracts.