First, Schweickart notes that his economic model would generate a less insistent impulse for economic expansion, since workers would have an incentive to maximize profit per worker rather than profit per firm. He then argues that a lower-growth economy would generate fewer negative externalities, allow for more leisure, etc. than capitalist economies. But how would this look after, say, 50 years? What if you have one set of economies organized a la Schweickart and another set of capitalist economies. After 50 years of the capitalist economies growing at say, 1% per year faster than the workers-democracy economies, will the folks in the democratic economy value the increased leisure of the previous two generations enough to accept the loss of income with equanimity? And what if the externalities are global (e.g., global warming)? Then workers in the democratic economy will have sacrificed to minimize externalities, but will benefit no more than workers in capitalist eco! no! mies. (More generally, I think Schweickart is weak on open-economy questions).
Second, I think Roemer has at least one good point in his critique of Schweickart-style models. Workers in those models bear an extraordinary degree of risk. When their firms fail, they lose the benefit of a large portion of the firm-specific skill they have accumulated. Schweickart waves a hand in this direction from time to time (retraining, etc.), but doesn't say much about it.
And yes, "commie" is a diminutive. But now that I don't have to explain that "commie" doesn't mean that I support the USSR, I can throw it around with a bit more good humor. And in the context, say, of an IPE course where I start by presenting the Heckscher-Ohlin Stolper-Samuelson framework, then start to take it apart, piece by piece, clearly identifying myself as a commie does, at least, give my students the idea that you can be a commie and not resemble the folks who shove the Socialist Worker in your face outside SAC.
MM
>>> jkschw at hotmail.com 05/11/02 20:23 PM >>>
>
>Hey Justin, I read your paper and about 95% agree with it
Which 5%?
>
>For some reason, I notice that I keep identifying myself to my students as
>a commie these days (in those terms) - something I never would have done
>when the communist movement was still alive and kicking. Just contrarian I
>guess?
>
Probably. Anyway, "commie," is a cute diminutive. "Communist" is something else again.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com