The New Great Depression
Topic: the u.s. economic crisis
Prediction-- we are in for a total reorganization of modern corporate capitalism such that the world of finance will control the global economy.
Prediction- we will see a shift back to manufacturing and agriculture as the source of GDP growth, but a new kind of agriculture-- more small scale, local and organic.
Manufacturing will move away from economies of scale to producing fewer goods but less junk.
And finance will become heavily regulated not to mentioned partly owned by the government.
Billions or trillions of dollars have been wiped out almost overnight-- stock, houses, and other investments.
But most these loses are on paper-- it's not like people's savings have been wiped out. Which is why it doesn't appear on the surface that things are so bad.
But soon, paper losses will translate into real hardship, starting with unemployment. When that shoots up past 10% we will see things grinding to halt.
One can hope that the current Euro-American policies will help stablize things-- but short of a total reorganization of capitalism, this will be the end of the way of life as we once new it.
But creative destruction in capitalism may again prove to be just what the doctor ordered. More on the new capitalism in future blogs.
Posted by srosen5
at 5:46 AM EST
Updated: Monday, 2 March 2009 6:05 AM EST
The Moral Economy and the Sociological Perspective
Topic: The Credit Crisis
The current global economic crisis is starting to inflict misery around the world, but for the social scientist it is a rich source of material for trying to understand a host of different social, economic and political phenomenon- globalization, finance capitalism, American hegemony, trade balance, and more. For the economist, 3 key questions call out for an adequate answer: Why did it occur? Why did few see it coming? And finally, what can be done? The sociologist asks these questions, too, but also deeper ones about the nature of economic life and economic decision making and their affects on the larger society and economy. For example, if the Madoff scandal shows that financiers can defraud investors out of billions, if major banks like Citibank can be bailed out for incompetent or irresponsible management of funds, and if automakers can receive billions even though they are guilty incompetent management and manufacturing, what impact does all this have on the moral stance of the average citizen? Specifically how does it affect their own economic decision making especially with regard to whatever debt obligations they may have? Will the average citizen feel the need to fulfill their debt obligations, to borrow carefully and spend frugally if the elites of society waste money with such careless abandon? These are important socio-cultural questions which will be tackled in future blogs….because no one else seems to be addressing them.
Posted by srosen5
at 7:27 PM EST
Updated: Tuesday, 30 December 2008 7:28 PM EST
U.S. Economic Problems: The Credit Crisis
Now Playing: The American Economic Situation
Topic: The Credit Crisis
The American economy is fundamentally weak because:
American manufacturing has either dried up or moved off-shore and now the economy is dominated by the service sector, mainly banking and finance.
GDP growth is largely driven by consumer spending but for products made abroad.
Also, while productivity has been rising, people’s wages have been stagnant.
Healthcare costs have been rising, too, creating huge debt burdens on not only American households, but corporations which provide health benefits. Also states (N.Y., N.J., Calif.) among others have budget short-falls because of their debt obligations for entitlements/social services.
Globalization has helped bring cheaper products to the American consumer, but the downside has been the decimation of the manufacturing base, the loss of good unionized jobs and job security, the flow of capital across borders BRIC countries.
The crisis now:
This is a credit or liquidity crisis in the banking/finance sector--- too much risk was taken for short-term profits; when economic growth was high (for example the housing bubble), this was not a problem. Financial institutions could give credit and make a lot of investments and balance sheets looked good because with an expanding economy, returns would be good. (Of course, there seems to have been a lot of creative accounting going on as well, and what looked like profits on paper, were just that, paper profits only—nothing in real hard cash).
Financial players took huge risks, putting people’s pensions at risk, as well as other forms of investor equity.
As the housing and various other bubbles burst, and the price of oil rose, and economic growth slowed down, the cracks in the system broke wide open. The mountain of debt was revealed and venerable financial institutions went under, bring down the whole financial system.
The case of Japan:
Banks are flush with cash, but that’s because people are afraid to spend. Japanese banks don’t pay much interest and don’t lend much (and the economy is in recession, so there’s not much worth buying—except American banks!). However, Japan is an export driven economy—and this sole dependence on exports is a fundamental weakness…..as the global economy and the dollar sinks, Japanese export industries find themselves losing money, and quickly going into the red. Since the Japanese government debt is about 140% of GDP (only Italy is worse), it doesn’t have the ability to inject cash into the system like German or the U.S. or China can.
So, as the population ages here, Japan will have to come up with some radical solutions. The problem is, the country isn’t good at radical solutions (except when they started war in the Pacific, which is not likely to happen now, because the military power is not there).
Posted by srosen5
at 8:57 PM EDT
Updated: Saturday, 11 October 2008 9:06 PM EDT
New Jersey
Mood:
incredulous
Just got back from New Jersey and NY....that area is rich and they don't know it. Even the people of Trenton which is rather run down are rich compared to most of the people in the world. I think if you live in places like NJ or the industrial northeast which is sort of the center of the economic world, it's all too easy to miss the fact that most of the world is iimpoverished.
Another point to be made is that, if NJ represents the height of advanced industrial civilization, we have much to lament. The malls and shopping are great, prices cheap, much of NJ is quite beautiful.....yet people are rushing around disconnected from themselves and nature.....striving for ever more goods and thrills....
Posted by srosen5
at 7:05 PM EDT
Updated: Saturday, 11 October 2008 9:04 PM EDT
teaching evolution and morality in Texas
Mood:
cheeky
Prof. Binder who teaches sociology at UC San Diego suggested in a Post Editorial today a compromise between those who want to teach evolution in schools and those who don't. She suggested that biology teachers give a moral caveat when teaching survival of the fittest in Darwian evolution. I would like to respond as follows to her editorial:
I’d like to suggest with the following comments that your proposed compromise is very dangerous.
1) My students here in Japan are mostly shocked to hear that evolution is controversial. Like most Europeans as well, they learn Darwin and don’t feel any conflict between social morality (rooted in Buddhist and neo-Confucian ideology) and biology theories about our origins. America has become a bit of laughing stock on this as well as other issues…but especially on this one.
2) I don’t think there is any evidence that the teaching of evolution or a naturalistic explanation of human behavior leads to immorality or moral relativism (is moral relativism so horrible???).
I grew up in New Jersey and had the usual course in evolution and the Christians and Jews around me (about 40% Jews actually) never felt any threat to their moral system or moral compass in thinking we are animals. Nor did it ever occur to our rabbi’s or teachers that this information might in anyway steer us away from moral development. The notion that biological theories might be a threat to either Christian or Jewish morality would have seemed absurd. And I think it still is that way in New Jersey; it is my understanding that the American science educators association gave NJ one of the highest ratings for the adequate teaching of evolution. [I think Texas is at the low end of the scale]. I don’t believe many people in NJ see any peril for moral development is learning that we are animals with animalistic impulses.
3) The state of Texas has been funneling millions of dollars into abstinence education even though the research shows it is not effective and indeed Texas has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STD’s. This may seem like a different issue and it is…the point is that Texas seems to pursue educational policies which don’t feel the need to conform with rational thinking as we understand it since the 18th century Enlightenment which lies behind all European education. To put it rather pejoratively (OK I’m an elite east coast intellectual snob if you want), why compromise with such a whacky state? That’s sort of what you are asking it seems…
The humanist appreciates universal moral values which are articulated in the multiple religions and cultures around the world. The totalitarian believes that their moral code is the only correct one and requires that everyone must follow it. I think your compromise will lead us down a very dangerous path…compromising with moral totalitarians.
I imagine a lot of scientists and others will be making the same point in e-mails to you.
I do believe that the burden you suggest placing on the biology teacher will be excessive and unreasonable and certainly impractical. Is a high school biology teacher capable of teaching some sort of moral caveat to counter biology’s scientific interpretation of human nature? Are they then to teach that moral relativism is wrong? Is moral relativism wrong? Does it really lead to immorality? Is there such a real and present danger in Darwin. I doubt it.
This is the worst sentence of your editorial: “But it's understandable that parents could be concerned that evolution entices their children to think unconsciously of themselves as creatures with animalistic impulses, to lose faith in their religious traditions” But we are creatures with animalistic impulses! Does that in anyway constitute a threat to morality? No—it is in fact the whole reason for human moral systems, that we do have these impulses [in my own case, learning that these impulses were normal and natural was a kind of release]….Of course evangelicals do tend to believe that animalistic impulses are immoral (see comments on abstinence only above)…..and their political positions viz gay rights, abortion and birth control indeed seem to reflect a fear our animalistic desires.
You can see what a thorny road we are going down if we take your compromise seriously.
I think you are making a problem moral complicated then it need be with your compromise. The simple solution is simply to teach biology in biology class and teach morality at home and in church. Keep morality out of science class.
Posted by srosen5
at 8:55 AM EDT
