> I'll reverse the order of Dennis' points:
>
> >The other issue which needs to be mentioned here is that East Asia is
> >piling humongous resources into R & D and scientific research. Japan's
> >science spending is now something like 2.9% of GDP, the highest in the
> >world; the US spends maybe 2.5%, but at least a fifth of this is
> >military-related.
>
> Quite misleading. Since the US economy is quite a bit larger than Japan's,
> the gross US sum is greater which given increasing returns to research
> means the US can continue to maintain, if not strengthen, its industrial
> leadership (see Scherer). The corporatism or semicorportism of the
> keiretsu structure that you have extolled in a kind of reverse
Orientalism
> (which has all along really simply been neo Listian economics) is not
> faring well. But it has its supporters, the Left Listians: Chalmers
> Johnson, Fingleton, Fallows, Martin Kenney.
>
Certainly. One of the contradictions of MITI's industrial policy in the 80's was that, as Japan became less of a "follower" in the realm of developing technology, it also began to shed MITI's support/surveillance, because, despite some kinds of marginal cooperation in industrial consortia, there was fierce competition among firms who didn't want to be forced to cooperate. That left those firms behind, and without one of their largest sources of financial support at the beginning of the 90's. They've been playing catch-up since, without much of an industrial policy behind them. (Scott Callon's interesting book _Divided Sun_ gives a lot of interesting detail on this.)
Second, Japan is not exemplary of Asia. The differences between Taiwan, South Korea and Japan on this score defy any simple Asian model. South Korea is no where near being able to do what Taiwan has done in microchip production--although that's not to say it's economy is unsound--its GDP grew 10% last year.
> To me instead of denying the existence of a US technological monopoly, we
> should get on with the business of analzying the distortions and
> disequilibriums its 'excessive prices and profits' may be creating.
> Galbraith opened up this line of investigation.
Is this in the earlier book, or some article somewhere?
>
> Maybe Enrique could throw in here, or I can call my father or one of his
> friends. It does seem to me that they'd probably agree with what's in the
> California Management Review piece by Mowery and Hodges (an EE prof at UC
> Berkeley), Langlois, Scherer.
Reference for the Cal Man Review piece?
> I don't get your criticism of Eisner.
I thought Dennis' point was that he agreed with Eisner--there's nothing to fear from debt held to countries with lower interest rates than we have at present. And besides, why would Asia and Europe want to call that debt in at the moment? It would be suicide.
All best Christian