tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6278187001510968654.post9191472923586185212..comments2023-09-23T09:33:10.979-04:00Comments on Marx, Baseball, and Rum?: Financial Capital and the Collapse of General MotorsJames Miehlshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261174841136456316noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6278187001510968654.post-46390467734595202642010-04-27T13:01:01.624-04:002010-04-27T13:01:01.624-04:00Are you familiar with the argument of Alex Field t...Are you familiar with the argument of Alex Field that the Great Depression was paradoxically a period of great technological innovation and competition? I haven't read the paper that closely, but it might offer an alternative explanatory model for the difference in business climate between the GD and today. <br /><br />The idea is this. If competition and technology was relatively fluid during the GD, even during a period of enormous output growth, it still would provide conditions conducive to GM being able to at least scrape by with the kind of cost-cutting measures you mention. And since the competition was within the country, presumably tech diffusion was not that important of an issue. <br /><br />Now, in today's situation you have increased competitiveness, but on a global scale, where institutional differences (in terms of union bargaining, shopfloor organization etc.) are so great that while competition may have been fierce, it was much more difficult for GM to compete through cost cutting measures. <br /><br />OK, so what I just argued is an alternative explanation for the thesis you propose. I'm interested in whether you're familiar with the Field argument, whether you think it's applicable to your case, and how you would respond in terms of the argument you're proposing.Daniel MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07546752099879983120noreply@blogger.com