zuzu on 26 Oct 2007 22:20:13 -0000 |
On 10/26/07, Matthew Rosewarne <mrosewarne@inoutbox.com> wrote: > I am well-aware of what is often said about the economics of globalisation. I > don't agree with all of it, however. "Top heavy" economies (high commerce & > invention, low manufacturing) have a strong track record of suddenly falling > over. We and the Soviets rose above the tatters of the post-imperial > European economies in large part because of our overwhelming ability to > produce material goods, despite the dominance the Europeans previously had > over us in terms of banking and education. We will encounter a similar fate > if we don't heed the lessons of history, no matter what Wall Street analysts > might say. Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong, but unfortunately I don't have > very high expectations of that happening. could you elaborate on this since I'm not familiar with the specifics of what you're generally appealing to here? when have "top heavy economies" as you describe "fallen over" and from the consequences of what human actions precisely? imperial economies fail because they merely transfer wealth rather than create it. the soviet command and control economy failed because of the economic calculation problem, which includes their (and the USA's) military-industrial complex. the problem of command and control also extends to central banking and fiat currencies. ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|