|
Excellent questions and points. But properly handled immigration gives us a way of combating declining fertility that most of our competitors do not have. There is no good reason why education cannot be improved.
Of course, it will take some changes of attitude, but great challenges can often elicit unexpected changes. Never give up, I say. From: Mayraj Fahim <fmayraj@yahoo.com>
Woker shortfalls pinching so even want to bring disabled into workforce https://www.route-fifty.com/workforce/2024/05/invisible-no-more-states-move-hire-people-disabilities/396414/ ‘Invisible’ no more: States move to hire people with disabilities On Sunday, May 12, 2024 at 05:05:50 PM GMT+5, Mayraj Fahim via Salon <salon@listserve.com> wrote:
In 19th century US had capable workers. The Prussians/Germans were a great strength; And they also improved the ed system so could have skilled workers. Can past be prologue
when demographic change underway and less capable and educated will be young? https://hbr.org/2017/03/when-america-was-most-innovative-and-why When America Was Most Innovative, and Why
On Sunday, May 12, 2024 at 04:33:10 AM GMT+5, Clyde Prestowitz <presto@econstrat.org> wrote:
Those are very good points. I would not discount them. However, we did become the world’s leading steel producer
in the late 19th century via a combination of high tariffs and domestically subsidized investment combined with a rapidly growing market. I don’t think there is any reason, in principle, why we could not repeat this. We should be able to adopt or
steal Chinese technology, we have a large market that could grow rapidly for EVs. We would need to put a timetable in place as the Chinese have, and we would need to change the union situation, and we would need to reduce the power in congress of the Auto
industry leaders by greatly limiting what they can do by way of political donations. Challenging demands, but not impossible under the right leadership I think. Clyde From: Mayraj Fahim <fmayraj@yahoo.com>
In the past, US had owners' capitalism now it is sinking further into grifting managerial capitalism. On Saturday, May 11, 2024 at 07:47:30 PM GMT+5, Chas Freeman via Salon <salon@listserve.com>
wrote: I agree. We did industrial policy very successfully until we developed an ideological allergy to it. That
didn't happen spontaneously. It had a lot of help from corporate lobbying and propaganda. That was then. This is now. The same is true, I believe, with protectionist measures. When applied to a developing
technology in an infant industry they can enable the industry to grow and --if there is domestic competition -- innovate and become more competitive. But industries dying because they are no longer competitive or very innovative because they are operating
in an oligopolistic environment do not become more vigorous if protected from foreign competition. They can be kept alive but only at considerable public expense. Our automobile industry is a case in point. Loss of competitiveness, followed by protectionist
quotas and tariffs, followed by bailouts. The way to preserve a healthy domestic auto industry proved to be to encourage foreign producers to produce here. We are attempting to replicate this approach with our moribund semiconductor industry. I am skeptical
that this will work -- for reasons you and I have discussed. But I am quite sure that shutting Chinese EVs may allow our automakers to survive but it will not revive their competitiveness and we will simply lose access to a technology that will become everywhere
else ubiquitous. Chas On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 12:50 AM Clyde Prestowitz <presto@econstrat.org>
wrote:
--
--
|