RE: Krugman's IQ drop..

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: [PEN-L:26553] Krugman's IQ drop..

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Murray
To: pen-l
Sent: 6/3/2002 10:32 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:26553] Krugman's IQ drop..

[Jim Devine, did PK ever take an ethics class? Or a political theory
class? Has he ever *worked* in a Fortune 500 firm?]

I don't know what courses he took, while I doubt that he ever worked for a F500 firm. I know he worked for the US Postal Service for awhile...

I don't see why the headline assertion "Krugman's IQ drops" applies. This column isn't dumber (or smarter) than usual. He's pointing to a real change, but misinterpreting it. The fact is that old-style corporations _were_ fatter and nicer than the new ones. The difference was not that GM was "generous motors" though: back in the 1950s & 1960s, GM and its ilk had to deal with a much more powerful labor movement, combined with lingering memories of 1929 and massive class struggles. They used to follow a paternalistic strategy of giving job security, real pensions, etc., as a way of getting employee loyalty -- and thus encouraging production. That strategy is largely dead. I don't know if it would be as profitable today as it was back in the 1950s & 1960s because of the intensified competitive environment corporations face. Back when GM acted the role of being "generous," it was the dominant firm in an oligopolistic industry protected from most foreign competition and thus could follow a long-term strategy (or take advantage of its situation to rest on its laurels and let the future go hang). Now it's hard to think of anything but the current quarter's bottom line.

Of course, things could change as new oligopolies develop, not to mention new class struggles and new financial collapses.

JD