>
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Eubulides quoted Alan Freeman:
>
> In about 1965, a long slowdown set in
>>
>
> Compared to what? The 1930s? Growth averaged 2.7% from 1930-1940. The
> average U.S. growth rate in the 1910s was 1.4%; in the 1920s, 2.9%. From
> 1900-65, it averaged 3.5%; from 1965-2008, 3.1%. For the high neoliberal
> era, 1982-2008, it averaged 3.2%. Growth has slowed since 2000, yes -
> average 2000-2008, 2.2%. But really. If the long slowdown began more than 40
> years ago, this is really a silly periodization.
>
> Doug
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Eh, but Nicholas Crafts, apparently one of the world's most eminent economic historian, actually engaged with Brenner recently in NLR. He was highly critical of Brenner's overall thesis - although I detect a certain amount of misunderstanding. He claimed that we should refer to the '73 - '05 period as the "great moderation".
However, he readily admits that there has been a massive slowdown of productivity growth in the Western economies. He writes the following:
"Clearly, there was a big growth slowdown after 1973. Growth of real GDP per person in the countries of western Europe averaged 4.06 per cent per year in the years 1950 - 1973, but only 1.86 per cent from 1973 - 2005, while for the US growth in these two periods was, respectively, 2.45 and 1.91 per cent."
I think the argument is cast in terms of long-term capital dynamics rather than random and arbitrary periodisation. Hence the fact that Brenner concludes that growth is tailing off after the post-war bump and that we're all fucked, while Crafts maintains that this bump itself was an anomaly and the system is now (or was, or whatever) trying as best it can to level itself out ("great moderation").