Re: Gintis: TINA

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

You're not telling me anything I don't know. But would the German mixed
model exist if it hadn't been for the presence of reds and pinks making
far more radical demands? Would the modern Japanese labor market exist in
its present form had it not been for the extreme radicalism in the 1950s
and early 1960s? Why are we seeing the near-univeral crisis of social
democracy today, and the dismantling of many of its features in Sweden?
Why have "socialist" parties become the agents of pro-market reforms in
Spain, New Zealand, Australia, and France? The death of Communism has not
exactly been to the benefit of the "mixed" economy. If it's so
self-evidently successful, why is this happening?

Doug

Doug Henwood [dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)


On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Wolfgang Blaas wrote:

>
> >To Doug Henwood
>
> Mixed Economies are more successful than "less mixed" ones in terms of long-run
> economic performance. If you look at some of the very successful nations in the
> period after WW2, than you will see, that in these economies (e.g. Japan,
> Germany, etc.) there is a strong public sector, intervention, regulation and
> so on. But for ideological reasons most of the time these economies are
> simply called "market economies", and the extremely important role of the
> state is being played down.
>
> (For reference see also W. Blaas/J. Foster (eds.), Mixed Economies in
> Europe. Edward Elgar 1992).
>
>
> Wolfgang Blaas, Vienna
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Blaas
> Research Unit for Socio-Economics
> Austrian Academy of Sciences
> Postgasse 7-9/1/2
> A-1010 Vienna
> Austria
> Tel.: ++43 1 51581-567
> Fax: ++43 1 51581-566
>
>