New Economy

Jim heartfield jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk
Tue May 2 02:37:39 PDT 2000


In message <p0431012ab533a80f30e7@[216.254.77.128]>, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> writes
>Yeah, but a U.S. crash is not a foregone conclusion. Also, say the
>U.S. does crash, and the EU suffers recessionary fallout. What do you
>think would be the Euro-elite reponse? Boosting public spending?
>Acquiescing in raising wages? Or "belt-tightening" in the name of
>recovery? And who better to accomplish this agenda than the SocDems
>who run Europe? Ok maybe I'm lost in 1980s paradigms, but it'd be a
>mistake to rule it out.

All the financial press I'm looking at says that the conflict between America and Europe is between New Economy (US and Britain) and Old (Germany). The distinction supposedly that the new economy is about services and dot com etc, while those Germans insist on investing in industry, and shoring up the French who will keep a bloated public sector yada yada yada. And this is why the ECB wants to keep the Euro weak so that it aids exports, while the dollar (and to a lesser extent the pound) are strong because of booming stock markets.

So what's the truth in all this? Hard to say. My instincts say that the booming US and British economies are booming with speculation - as evidenced by the reduction in UK industrial base (though of course Charlie Leadbeater would say that this is a useful reorientation). US is harder to fathom, since as much as all the talking down of productivity sounds reasonable, still productivity increases. Not all speculation, I would say, especially indicated by the low unemployment.

And can it really be true that Germany is so different from Britain and the US? I heard a French finance minister saying that of course France was into the new economy - we have a huge service industry (most of it publicly owned!).

-- Jim heartfield



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list