"Peter K." wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/12/books/review/12JUDIST.html
>
> Although it's a thought-provoking review of Kevin Phillips's "Wealth and Democracy:
> A Political History of the American Rich," I don't agree with either John B. Judis's conclusions or
> even some of his premises. A few choice paragraphs:
>
> "The Netherlands was felled by European tariffs against its textiles, British discrimination against
> its ships and its vulnerability to military attack from its neighbors. Britain declined in the early
> 20th century because it lagged behind the United States and Germany in making the transition from
> owner-operated manufacturing companies to large-scale corporate capitalism. In the late 1980's, it
> did seem that the United States would suffer a similar fate at the hands of Japan and West Germany,
> but just as they began to catch up in basic manufacturing, the locus of growth and innovation
> changed from industrial to postindustrial capitalism -- from hardware to software (much of which is
> misleadingly labeled services). The United States was better suited for this new phase of
> capitalism, and has once again pulled ahead of its rivals."
>
> There seems to be more to the story.
>
> and
>
> "Very similar conclusions can be drawn about the Clinton years. Phillips says that ''the top
> percentiles became richer than ever while the lower portions of the society lost ground.'' The first
> part of this statement is correct, but the second isn't. During Clinton's second term, real wages
> finally began to rise, the result of low unemployment and of Clinton's earned income tax credit.
> Clinton was certainly not in T.R.'s class as a reformer, but he was by no means a friend of
> plutocracy..."
>
> Howbout the "era of big government is over" statement? Can Clinton really take credit for low
> unemployment in the late nineties?
>
> "Phillips's division of American politics among plutocrats, progressives and radicals is not
> altogether mistaken. It's just that the tripartition has been going on since at least 1992 and has
> been central to every subsequent presidential election. The two Bushes and Bob Dole represented,
> with appropriate reservations, the party of business and the market; Clinton and Gore were, for
> better or worse, representatives of a new T.R.-style progressivism; and Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot
> (and to some extent Ralph Nader) represented an angry economic nationalism..."
>
> And the gratuitous Nader bash.
>
> Peter
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu