Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New discoveries on how Reagan/Bush I and Bush II cooked the CPI!!!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 09:34 PM
Original message
New discoveries on how Reagan/Bush I and Bush II cooked the CPI!!!!
Edited on Mon Jan-19-04 09:35 PM by DanSpillane
I can hardly believe what I found!

...
Going back many years, the costs of running large energy-consuming homes (like categories related to energy, gas, and utilities for the home) have been slowly and mysteriously removed from the CPI inflation index, starting in the late 1980s, under Reagan/Bush I, and now, the same trend has picked up anew under Bush II. This change is unexplainable in light of census data compilations (and thermodynamics) over the same period--which would call for the opposite from a demand model. Energy costs and demand are "hidden" as a result of the Reagan/Bush I and Bush II changes, even though we are all paying them. Of particular concern are changes made recently under Bush II to hide energy costs in the CPI index.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
supercrash Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. ?
What ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Apparently I am an idiot
Could someone please explain this to me? My brain no is function good.

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedEagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Enron Bookkeeping
How to fudge the books to make the economy look better than it is while you and your cronies steal the country blind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Basically the numbers are all made up
Cost of Living and Price Increases are numbers which Bush has said are not increasing. No inflation he said.

However, they are reweighting the numbers to make sure they reflect no inflation.

i.e. Health insurance is now at a weighted at pre 1995 levels. Moved up to offset health in this category are pets, recreational books and toys.

Energy, same thing.

Of course all this is hidden from us, and our creditors overseas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Thank you
Well put
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. What do you mean when you say the numbers are "weighted"
I don't understand. They are putting out a chart or something that says what the price of everything is? And some things count more than others? And some get left off the list that really should be on there?

Be patient, some of us don't know anything about this stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Yes, you are right
The government choses items that best reflect the increase in price categories. However, the items they have been chosing has been slanted in the government's favor.

For example, in the category of housing, the cost of new houses are not in the equation. The cost of rent is included. So, the housing boom is not reflected in inflation. With these low interest rates, more people are opting to buy rather than rent. There are more rental vacancies so rents are coming down. Therefore, there is no inflation in housing costs.

There is also a weighting system where in each category some things are given more weight because it would have more effect on the general population. In the example I gave above on health care insurance, it use to have a heavier weight than books and toys, but now it is further down on the list and the increase in insurance premiums does not get its full weight when totalling up that category.

Did this make sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. It's worse than that
They weight houses as apartments!!!!

Now that there is a housing bubble, this really screws things up, because both houses and apartments show up as apartments. But there are too many houses. Yet people just keep borrowing to build more houses AND apartments, which makes the inflation look like less, because houses are in the CPI as apartments. This means for the first time, the actual prices of houses are going way up, and apartments are going down.

So there is no factor for the real cost of houses in the CPI! They could all go up to a trillion dollars worth tommorrow, and inflation could go down1

And people are taking fancy loans against their houses, but no "thing" is actually sold.

And they buy more SUVs when mileage is at a 20 year low.

Yet houses use much more energy, but this gets hidden since houses show up as apartments.

BUT IT MEANS MORE ENERGY DEMAND, all else aside!!!

Brilliant?

As complicated as the Enron transactions. It took me a while to get a firm grip on the mess.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ctex Donating Member (354 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. They've always treated houses as apartments (i.e., rented housing)
It's called "owner's equivalent rent of primary residence." The cost of buying a house is not directly a part of the CPI since the CPI excludes all investments and home ownership is an investment, not consumption.

The "equivalent rent" is what it would cost an owner to rent a property similar to that which he owns. This amount is usually less than his mortgage payment, property taxes and maintenance costs, but it could be more if one has owned their home for many years in an area where prices have appreciated. For example my neighbor and I own comparable homes (current tax assessments about equal), but I paid 5 times as much for my house in 1986 as he did for his in 1970. His mortgage payments are a mere fraction of mine, but our "equivalent rents" are the same.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. No no 1983 Reagan
We started doing this in 1983

Other countries don't do this, I think. i would have to check.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ctex Donating Member (354 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. Wrong -- the CPI has never included the cost of buying a home
Only the cost of renting housing.

What other countries do is not germane to this discussion, but if they do it any differently than the US BLS, they're doing it wrong. Confusing investment with consumption gives bad results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. EAT YOUR WORDS The change was made in 1983 READ Ronnie R
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 01:58 AM by DanSpillane
Check your references--REAGAN DID IT

Owners' equivalent rent
The concept of owners' equivalent rent used to measure homeowner shelter costs was introduced in the CPI-U in January 1983 and in the CPI-W in January 1985. The owners equivalent rent index measures the change in the cost of renting housing services equivalent to those services provided by owner-occupied housing.

Prior to the introduction of owners' equivalent rent, homeowners' shelter costs in the CPI were represented by five elements: (1) House prices, (2) mortgage interest costs, (3) property taxes, (4) homeowner insurance charges, and (5) maintenance and repair costs. These constitute the major costs associated with purchasing and maintaining the physical asset of a house.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch17_c.htm


 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #28
35. hee hee
ha ha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. WELL THEN
If confusing investment with consumption IS BAD

How do you feel about CONSUMING THE INVESTMENT of a house--with cash out refis (see fed report on my web page). By the way, without putting anything on a real market!!!!

Naner nanner nanner
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gulf Coast J Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
38. Where did you hear that?
I'd be interested to see the various weights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. Good Catch, Dan
Every time I learn something about the CPI, it makes it less reliable.

The thing that I can't understand is: economists, stock analysts, and businessmen all need reliable numbers. Do any better measures of the CPI exist that include some of these things?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. There is another big part to this.
What Dan has also found is that this cookbook number practice started back during poppy Bush time. It continued throughout Bush I, Clinton, and continues now under Bush II.

So while we have been told for the last 17 years that inflation has been low, it has not been.

Now, under Bush, the cook booking is intensifying where the increase in the cost of energy has been taken out of the equation.

I think you are asking why is this not being reported? Does the economic world know this? Some probably do, some do not want to know. The damage is catastrophic. The only reasonable option now would be to try keeping the balls moving while slowly and quietly bring the numbers back to reality. However, Bush is moving the numbers farther out in fantasy land.

All our financial matters both domestic and foreign rest on CPI/PPI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. So there has secretly been inflation this whole time?
Even under Clinton? And that's why families need two salaries to live in the same comfort that our parents did on one salary. That's why even though they say there is no inflation, families are just scraping by, going into debt, living paycheck to paycheck?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-19-04 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Yup, exactly right.
And yes, under Clinton also.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I'm surprised somone didn't notice these problems earlier
Even economists have been puzzled, until about a month ago. No one has been looking at the figures like they should have been. We just hear the numbers, and accept them.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. How did you find this out?
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 01:04 AM by RandomKoolzip
And why isn't this in the news? A story like this could really blow the lid off of the administration....have you alerted any major media outlets?

On edit: I'm still trying to untangle the jargon here, but basically, what you're saying is the last four administrations cooked the books, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. It looks to me like under Reagan
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 01:27 AM by DanSpillane
They apparently changed how they fit in home costs in 1983 under Reagan. The CPI got the screwed up inflation part (20 percent of it!) put in then. If the Reagan thing wasn't put in there, we would have a normal inflation rate--probably like 5 percent right now (guess).

It looks like the ship has been sinking since then. but very slowly, almost imperceptibly. The move has apparently been to de-emphasize costs like energy in order to keep the inflation overall number low. Then more people borrow thinking inflation is low for big houses and big SUVs, and the cycle repeats. How I caught it is I found a statistic saying square footage in homes was way up over the past decades--but the energy weighting was going DOWN in the CPI!!!! That rang a bell, even if prices vary, demand should go up over the long run!

And then in December, they moved Christmas into July! A first. (see my web page)

But people really cannot afford these things, because they are getting eaten by the costs of running the things they borrow for.

And then there is global warming.

But I think it is really coming apart at the seams now. The interest rates can't go lower, and people simply can't afford the house prices, and for the first time, rental prices are dropping while houses are skyrocketing, even though people don't have jobs.

And then let's not forget the corruption at Fannie Mae, who is buying up some of the packaged mortgages. And the poor Japanese and Chinese, who will eventually see the whole thing blow up in their faces.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. How? You just have to study a ton of tables and trends
I am also a computer scientist, with a minor in economics
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. Have you told anybody besides us yet?
Are you the first to discover this or what? I mean, this is a shocker, you know....I guess my question is: So what do we do with this information? Who are you going to tell this to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. I am still learning more
I only just tonite discovered the trail going back to Bush I and Ronnie.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedEagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Not Sure About Clinton
"The only reasonable option now would be to try keeping the balls moving while slowly and quietly bring the numbers back to reality."

Seems I've heard that Clinton could have had Bush I hung out for what he was doing "cooking the numbers." What he got was one huge mess and the fear everything would fall if he did something like prosecute Bush I. So he shut up and went to work. Now Bush II is undoing it all again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. But the problem goes back to Reagan
It actually looks like the shifts during the Clinton years were more "normal"
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. So what Clinton did was keep the status quo on Bush I's weights
and what he did was just not make it any worse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. One of the energy weightings
appears to have conveniently dropped a large amount as Reagan handed to Bush I!!!!

I could do more of a study to see if the Clinton years were more or less in line. Even so, I don't see how the numbers could have drifted down over the years.

The medical insurance premium number is set now below 1995.

You can look at the numbers yourself at BLS. One guy already helped verify my findings. But there are some confusing twists in how the data is set up. The CNN story might even have a mini-mistake in it.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. Everyone used to trust corp balance sheets
Should we be surprised to find problems in the CPI.

I agree, a lot of people use it, and just take it as "right."
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. KICK
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. If this becomes widely known, the whole ball of wax collapses, right?
We currently are supported by the cheerleading and foreign investment in our debt. Could fear of collapse be why there was no interest in the CNN article?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. I was involved in another issue last year called BBV
Last year,about this time, i was involved in another issue they wouldn't cover in the news.

It takes a while.

Ask Bev Harris.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Yes, I read that on your site
And thanks for your work. Really, thanks.

But for BBV, there is a solution to the problem.

For this, if the CPI was adjusted all at once to correct levels, we lose our creditors both foreign and domestic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. But they will bitch and moan
I don't think they will do that--restate the CPI. Though it could be quite embarrassing. Just the one little detail about the health insurance premium being off by so much is scary

What it does mean is exactly what I said. There is a big black hole in the economy. Economics isn't something where you can just ignore major costs to the public at large, and shoot out loans right and left at low interest rates. Oops.

I do think Congress needs to look at this.

By the way, who else on here noticed the little error in the CNN article? It's actually an interesting one, though it doesn't change the overall story.

Dan
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
34. Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. The link is the libertywhistle in Dan's sigline
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
37. I find it hard to believe that no one has noticed this before
if it's been going on for 20 years. Nobody has looked at these numbers? Or it's just tacit agreement that everyone will keep quiet about it?

Have you sent this to Krugman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gulf Coast J Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. Krugman: CPI overestimates inflation
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ratrace.html

Well, at least most economists believe that CPI overestimates inflation. For simplicity, say the 'basket' contains five shirts, three apples and two computer games. Say the cost of shirts goes up and computer games go down. A normal person would then buy less shirts and more computer games. He might end up spending the same amount of money, but since the 'basket' isn't adjusted for changes in price, the CPI will end up going up and be overestimated.

Also, I'd be interested to know how much influence an administration has in determining the specifics of different measures. I know Bush stopped one measure altogether before political pressure demanded it be restarted. But as far as actually changing weights or something, I'm not sure the President even could do something. There is one political appointee at the BLS - the commissioner - and a career civil servant would have no reason not to report political meddling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yella_dawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
39. I didn't know this was a big secret.
One of the first things Ray Gun did when he took office was change a whole bunch of numbers to make the Carter era inflation go away. It was news back then, long before the internet let dirty little secrets get out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banana republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
41. US Census Bureau
collects the data and it is then sent to DC. A Friend of mine who works there told me that the method of collecting the data has not changed that she knows of...

any cooking of the books ( and I think there is) comes from the appointees...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cryofan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
42. yep...and now just dig these exposes of our faked-up GDP & productivity
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 12:00 PM by cryofan
from:
http://faculty.insead.fr/fatas/econ/Articles/Chasing%20the%20Leader.htm

....

America's much-trumpeted “productivity miracle” in the late 1990s created the misleading impression that Europe significantly lags America in the productivity league. It is true that, since 1995, American GDP per hour worked has risen by an annual average of 1.9%, compared with only 1.3% in the European Union. However, over any longer period, up to half a century, Europe's productivity growth has outpaced America's. Since 1990 American productivity has risen by 1.6% a year; the EU's has risen by 1.8%. Since 1950 America's productivity growth has averaged 2%, Europe's 3.3%. According to figures from the Conference Board, an American business group, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands all now boast higher output per hour than the United States. Average productivity in the EU is still 7% less, largely because of lower productivity in Britain, Spain, Greece and Portugal—but the gap has continued to close over the past decade.

....

Mr Gordon does not stop there. After adjusting GDP per head for extra leisure time, he then attacks GDP itself. Mr Gordon argues that GDP comparisons tend to overstate America's living standards and understate Europe's. For example, America's climate is more extreme than western Europe's, so more has to be spent on air conditioning and heating to attain a given indoor temperature. This extra spending boosts GDP, but does not enhance welfare. More of America's GDP is also spent on home and business security—largely because of a higher crime rate. In most of Europe, such spending is less necessary. The huge cost of keeping 2m people in American prisons (a far bigger proportion of the population than in Europe) also bolsters America's GDP relative to Europe's, but not its welfare.

Another factor is the greater dispersion of America's population in vast, sprawling metropolitan areas with few transport options other than the car. This is partly the result not of private choice but of public policy, such as subsidies to suburban motorways and a starving of public transport, or local zoning laws that limit the minimum size of residential developments. It leads to higher spending on roads and energy, and hence higher GDP. In Europe the convenience of more compact cities and frequent train and bus transport does not count towards GDP figures.

...

Taking account of how Americans waste a chunk of their income on heating, air conditioning, prisons and the like, while also attaching value to Europe's superior public transport, Mr Gordon suggests that perhaps half of the current gap in living standards between America and Europe, as measured by GDP per head, is illusory. Add in the value of their extra leisure time and Europe's living standards are now perhaps only 8% behind America's, he suggests, not the 23% suggested by official data. Indeed, on Mr Gordon's broader measure, Europeans' productivity may have overtaken that of their poor American cousins.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Also, from:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/AmericanProsperityMyth.html

The American Prosperity Myth: Everyone knows the story by now. America may have its social problems, but its highly productive, job-generating, innovative economy is the envy of the world. Europeans, on the other hand, are in a despond of high unemployment and economic sclerosis. Europe's addiction to welfarism-its overcooked social contract-is killing the economic goose that lays the social egg. Americans may pay a price in inequality for their economic vitality, but when you take the country's extraordinary social mobility and opportunity into account the price is worth paying. You might want to reverse Bush's tax cuts for the very rich, but nobody sane is going to tinker with the essence of the great American Business Model that delivers so much wealth.

I contend-unfashionably and, I know, incredibly, given the consensus-almost the opposite. The American economy has great strengths, but it is not so all-conquering. And the American Business Model, with its ruthless focus on shareholder profits, has profound weaknesses. Indeed, American industry is at its strongest where it has not observed antistate, pro-greed precepts and operated in more European ways. Smart action by the state, a viable social contract and efforts by companies to harness human capital and serve a purpose larger than short-term profit maximization turn out to be indispensable components of successful American capitalism as well-though America's public conversation hardly concedes these points. It's a gaping omission that is costing the country dearly.
Signs of trouble are everywhere. For a start, the United States is experiencing an alarming and unsustainable growth of international indebtedness. By the end of this year the country's net liability to the rest of the world will approach $3 trillion, and it is growing exponentially. At the current rate, liabilities will double again over the next five to seven years, taking the United States into banana republic territory. At some point foreigners will cease holding dollars and instead buy the alternative world currency-the euro. The dollar will crash and interest rates will jerk upward in response.

America has been running a trade deficit for so long that it has ceased to be worthy of note. Yet the consistent inability | of so many American companies in so many sectors to compete against their foreign rivals surely exposes faults in our approach to investment and productivity. From cars to aerospace, industrial gases to cell phones, American companies lag behind their European competitors in technology, production savvy and rate of innovation. Ford and GM are a decade behind Volkswagen in the sophistication of their production techniques. Nokia has 39 percent of the world mobile phone market, more than twice that of Motorola, its nearest rival- despite Nokia's being based in the highly taxed, highly unionized, generous welfare state of Finland. Boeing's government subsidies through its military contracts, grants and tax breaks comfortably match the diminishing support proffered Europe's Airbus, but it is Airbus that is pioneering the next generation of civilian aircraft and whose market share is larger. British Rolls Royce is the trailblazer in aero-engines. And so on. Beyond the sheltered world of America's defense industrial complex, where fat Pentagon contracts helped create outstanding technological leadership in weapons and the Internet, there is scarcely a high-tech sector where US companies can claim systematic leadership over their European competitors-a truth you would scarcely know from a casual inspection of the American business press.

America's once proud culture of business building has given way to a culture of financial engineering,
a doctrine of shareholder value maximization and a cult of the takeover. The game is to keep the share price up, and every sinew-of the organization is bent to that end; shortcuts are ever tempting, and inevitably some companies resort to straight fraud. Nevertheless, the conservative inclination is to overlook one or two bad apples like Enron and WorldCom and to celebrate the rule of America's capital markets. It is Wall Street constantly holding corporate managements to account that drives up innovation and productivity, or so runs the conventional argument, with companies that fail to keep up facing a takeover.


....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC