tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post3907284032876380602..comments2024-03-28T06:49:24.930-04:00Comments on International Political Economy at the University of North Carolina: A Brief Theory of the Great StagnationThomas Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14092437150746625670noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-89096679397086039152013-06-18T18:49:33.895-04:002013-06-18T18:49:33.895-04:00Vladimir, I agree that policy plays a big role in ...Vladimir, I agree that policy plays a big role in this. But it's not just policy.<br /><br />Anon and Chuck, You should understand that my story isn't just about the U.S., nor is it only about battle deaths. Even considering only the U.S. there was a greater than 35% jump in the number of under-19 year olds from 1950 to 1960 (from 51 million to 69 million, if Wikipedia can be trusted). Part of that is battle dead and part of that is the baby boom. The point is, by the end of the 1960s all those kids are grown up and entering the labor market. You really think that wasn't going to impact wages? 35% increase in the supply of eligible workers entering the market? Probably even more, when you consider greater integration of women and minorities during the same period. Remember that the employment-to-population ratio was going up at the same time: more potential workers + greater % of population working = big increase in the supply of labor. <br /><br />Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-44963551924190122982013-06-18T18:28:12.338-04:002013-06-18T18:28:12.338-04:00Wonks Anonymous is correct.
US deaths in WWII: 4...Wonks Anonymous is correct.<br /><br />US deaths in WWII: 450,000<br />Russian deaths in WWII: 25,000,000<br /><br />UPSHOT: US deaths 1/55th that of Russia. This is a superficial and erroneous argument.CrocodileChuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10762442097044797842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-44539790555682812162013-06-18T15:01:24.148-04:002013-06-18T15:01:24.148-04:00The casualties in WW2 were largely Russian & G...The casualties in WW2 were largely Russian & German (that's what the war mostly consisted of). Also Japan & China, who had begun fighting even earlier. America got off relatively lightly. I don't think the casualties were enough to significantly impact the price of labor here.Wonks Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-43470918538292048812013-06-14T09:16:57.740-04:002013-06-14T09:16:57.740-04:00"Michael Jordan didn't become a multimill..."Michael Jordan didn't become a multimillionaire by extracting the surplus value of anyone else's labor. He did it by selling his own labor to millions of people simultaneously.." Yes, the defining change in the structure of production is the ability of one individual to satisfy a multitude of customers....of course there is a political economy to this. When it comes to sports think about baseball and the reserve clause (a victory for a different kind of organized labour); the invention and then protection of intellectual property -would Spielberg be as rich without it?; Goldman Sachs-well what are the tax rates on investments and persistence of "carried interest" all about?. While a technological change has occurred that gives people the potential to earn enormous amounts of money-a political framework has been shaped to legitimize and indeed enhance that potential. Case in point. The "Great Gatsby" was written in 1924, it should have left copyright in 1999, Disney if you recall was living in fear that Mickey Mouse would soon enter the public domain so the Hollywood President Clinton worked with congress to expand copyright protections. Gatsby may still be in copyright (a windfall passed down through the generations) and Disney et al get theirs. The system is redistributing money up the socio economic scale. So yes , maybe the right and the left don't get it. A dose of laissez faire applied to IP may play a part in reducing inequality and raising real incomes of the lower and middle classes. Vladimirhttp://cirovskiv.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com