More TINA at Jul 21, 94 10:33:34 am

[Herbert Gintis <gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Doug Henwood writes,

>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?

	I don't know if you are correct. I suspect not. But that is
not the point. If you are correct, then you are saying that there is
no alternative but we should pretend that there is so the people to
the right of us can make the current system work better. This is a
reasonable position, but it is quite abhorrent to me, probably for
personal reasons. I consider myself a plumber, not a preacher. I like
to fix pipes, not raise consciousness. While I recognize the supreme
importance of preachers and consciousness-raisers, I think it is
counterproductive if more than a small percentage of economists fall
into that catagory, since it turns us into pseudo-plumbers (pseudo-
scientists, if you prefer). Moreover, are think there ARE solutions
to problems, and we should be looking for them.

Herb gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx