impossibility of soc dem in U.S.

rc-am rcollins at netlink.com.au
Fri Sep 17 01:05:00 PDT 1999


Doug Henwood wrote:


>I haven't read the paper yet, but it sounds like an argument I've
made myself - that U.S.-style capitalism, with strong pressures coming from impatient stockholders for profit maximization, puts downward pressure on wages, makes life very difficult for unions, and disperses political responsibility for the labor-unfriendly state of affairs. Bank-centered systems, paradigmatically the German, are more stable and more amenable to political pressure to be a bit friendlier to labor. But I haven't read the paper, and abstracts are often a poor guide to what's inside.<

so, let me get this right: by 'bank-centred systems' you mean what? a central govt bank? the US does not have a central govt bank, ever had? only treasury? is this what you see as the key or rather that in combination with (as the astract alluded to) the degree of connection between ownership and control, the extent of public enterprises (i was unclear about which of these was being referred to or highlighted)?

Angela _________



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list