Stiglitz

[Woodsman]

Re: Stiglitz

no, when i say "it's not clear" it certainly isn't clear to me. perhaps it is clear to you?

Not particularly, no. And my mistake, thanks.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Stiglitz

that's an interesting observation. knowing the growth rates, though, doesn't tell us their total value by sector, i.e. growth on what base? but maybe it is that "manufacturing" growth is being driven by pharmaceuticals and... what? monsanto gmo seeds, i suppose. whatever, the sum is that u.s. manufacturing is going up the value chain to a kind of post-industrial industry. bottom line, as you say, is not a whole lot of job generation.

in the 19th century a huge part of the population was in the agriculture sector. by mid-late 20th century, very few. i think mid 20th century a huge part of the population was in the industrial sector. by mid-late 21st century, probably very few.

I simply don't take a dialectical view of technology and history like that. Further, I don't agree that worldwide manufacturing jobs are declining. The data I see--admittedly a few years old old--say otherwise.

Plus I mean, despite robots, somehow we're seeing 65 million + new manufacturing jobs pop up in China and India between 2000 and 2010. Now, yes, robots--where they work--are more likely to replace a higher wage worker than a lower wage one. But if the technological revolution were putting manufacturing workers out of the job, it certainly didn't send the revolutionary memo to China and India.





So again, US "only" loses 9 million jobs (about half of all of them) since the manufacturing peak in 1980. China and India gain over 100 million during that time. That just doesn't seem like the work of robots to me.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Stiglitz

Hudson
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/...and-soros-too/

http://michael-hudson.com/2016/11/the-wash/

hudson joins max about half way through.