An epic failure of public intellectuals was Francis Fukuyama's theory on the end of history, published first in the "realist" journal, National Interest, in 1989. He argued that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free-market capitalism of the West signaled the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and will become the final form of human government.
This was a great interview. This is the first time I heard Michael Lind speak. One of his important insights was the 3-party analysis - donors, the selectorate and general election voters. There appears to be an insurmountable contradiction in the Republican Party between the pro-labor base in the general electorate and the anti-union commitment of big donors and the selectorate.
Rather than "picking winners and losers," a bipartisan approach to industrial policy should target public investments in key sectors. The goal should be to de-risk and catalyze private sector investment in areas like semiconductor manufacturing, critical materials mining and clean energy technologies that are critical for economic growth and national security.
Nice to see you guys talking about what I call populist fusion. I had not realized the FDIC was a WJB idea but having thought about it, it makes sense. Fusing the non-Establishment wings of the two parties into a least a working coalition is a natural for industrial policy. Most attempts at bi-partisanship try to fuse the Establishment wings of the two parties which guarantees more of the same failed policies. I am beginning to despair because of the traditional partisanship inertia. I suppose it takes a crisis.
Is there an article (or book) of Mr. Lind's where he fleshes out the ideas of "rigging the market" to drive wages and use utilities commissions to cap costs? My instinctual reaction is, Sure, great in theory, but aren't we going to get stuck with a slew of knock-on effects including lower production, less innovation, worse service, etc? Or is this too simplistic?
Perhaps one could call collective bargaining "rigging the market" compared to requiring each worker to negotiate their salary separately. However, collective bargaining supported broad-based economic prosperity from the 1950s through the 1970s. Economic regulation of monopolies like electric utilities is hardly innovative, it has been the norm in states across the country for a century. Expanding such economic regulation to some commonly used pharmaceuticals would benefit working families.
Oh I'm very supportive of collective bargaining but I don't see the connection between that and keeping prices down. If anything I see a correlation between it and raises in prices, and a potential drop in efficiency (thinking of the numerous examples put forth in Marc Dunkelman's "Why Nothing Works). I suppose some of that could be mitigated with well crafted legislation and regulations but given the last couple decades I'm not sure we can rely on that to actually happen.
An epic failure of public intellectuals was Francis Fukuyama's theory on the end of history, published first in the "realist" journal, National Interest, in 1989. He argued that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free-market capitalism of the West signaled the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and will become the final form of human government.
This was a great interview. This is the first time I heard Michael Lind speak. One of his important insights was the 3-party analysis - donors, the selectorate and general election voters. There appears to be an insurmountable contradiction in the Republican Party between the pro-labor base in the general electorate and the anti-union commitment of big donors and the selectorate.
Rather than "picking winners and losers," a bipartisan approach to industrial policy should target public investments in key sectors. The goal should be to de-risk and catalyze private sector investment in areas like semiconductor manufacturing, critical materials mining and clean energy technologies that are critical for economic growth and national security.
Nice to see you guys talking about what I call populist fusion. I had not realized the FDIC was a WJB idea but having thought about it, it makes sense. Fusing the non-Establishment wings of the two parties into a least a working coalition is a natural for industrial policy. Most attempts at bi-partisanship try to fuse the Establishment wings of the two parties which guarantees more of the same failed policies. I am beginning to despair because of the traditional partisanship inertia. I suppose it takes a crisis.
Is there an article (or book) of Mr. Lind's where he fleshes out the ideas of "rigging the market" to drive wages and use utilities commissions to cap costs? My instinctual reaction is, Sure, great in theory, but aren't we going to get stuck with a slew of knock-on effects including lower production, less innovation, worse service, etc? Or is this too simplistic?
Perhaps one could call collective bargaining "rigging the market" compared to requiring each worker to negotiate their salary separately. However, collective bargaining supported broad-based economic prosperity from the 1950s through the 1970s. Economic regulation of monopolies like electric utilities is hardly innovative, it has been the norm in states across the country for a century. Expanding such economic regulation to some commonly used pharmaceuticals would benefit working families.
Oh I'm very supportive of collective bargaining but I don't see the connection between that and keeping prices down. If anything I see a correlation between it and raises in prices, and a potential drop in efficiency (thinking of the numerous examples put forth in Marc Dunkelman's "Why Nothing Works). I suppose some of that could be mitigated with well crafted legislation and regulations but given the last couple decades I'm not sure we can rely on that to actually happen.
Everything is great in theory but it is implementation that is the key.