mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
The New Bad Deal
Can Latin America Weather the Death of the Blue Model?
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Anthony

    Blue Model/Fordist Model contrast may give background but there are numerous economic/societal factors that may have influenced South America’s economic arrangements and perforce her economic 21st century transformations (difficulty and all). Perhaps, the greater impact for South America is that globalization creates opportunities for goods, capital, investments, and labor to successfully integrate into a world market more intertwined via transportation and communication. Comparing blue model components may overlook the point that no region taking part in the global economy can escape technological change. Arrangements (societal and economic) must be both contemplated and implemented by South America (globalization favors all participants who liberalize) – change is hard.

  • Josephbleau

    South America should have followed Mexico as a low wage high investment Latin Tiger, but was bypassed in favor of China and the asian rim.. Revolutionary politics and deep corruption of the “Red” model cheated a generation of double digit growth.

    • http://thevailspot.blogspot.com/ Rich Vail

      that’s because their fascist leaning governments in the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s through the late 70’s were too busy looting the public fisc to make any real investments within their own borders. Once the revolucione came, no one was willing to make those inviestments. the one country that had something to offer (Venz) flushed it down the toilet of social services…and then refused to reinvest anything into the infrastructure to maintain what they had…eventually even oil money runs out when the pumps stop working…

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Once again the Luddites raise their ignorant heads, and demand their boring, repetitive, back breaking, and poorly paid jobs back. A simple look back through history will show you that machines don’t take human jobs, they free up human resources for more valuable work that only a human can perform. Someone must design, program, repair, maintain, and supervise all these machines, the fact that this will mean much higher productivity means every thing will cost less.

    • Mike55_Mahoney

      I have been hearing this like a Greorgian chant for 25 years. We have Yet to see the plus side in a macroeconomic sense. For every productivity gain and resultant increase in profit or decrease in costs (both good) there has been human displacement that has not even come close to balancing the scale.
      I have never once read or heard just exactly what these new jobs were going to be. Globalization, technical advances, productivity gains are eating into the highest echelons of the job markets. If a robot can do the work of five and takes the work of six to make it go then it is not a productivity gain. If it takes four where does the fifth worker go?
      The answer can be found in the higher education bubble problem. Applicants for post secondary education have increased demand for that service so that the cost of it is prohibitive in the nominal. Balancing the costs with the payoff in today’s job market tips the scales even further to the negative.
      The problem is the theory behind globalization and productivity gains due to technical advances has hit a wall of reality that discombobulates the theory. No one has yet done more than reiterate the theory; the Georgian chant. That’s not good enough. A new paradigm needs to be developed.

      • ljgude

        Clay Shirky points out that the advent of the industrial revolution lead to a decades long collective gin bender until we developed the modern city with institutions such as democratic voting and public libraries and education and so on that brought order out of chaos and made the great cities into wonderful places. We are just at the beginning of that adaptive process and, as you point out, don’t have much idea what to do. Shirky also theorizes that instead of gin we have been watching TV since the mid 20th century trying to soak up all that free time that mature industrialization brought and suggests that the collective human effort required to create the Wikipedia project is just a tiny fraction of the time we are putting into watching TV and lol cats. Be that as it may, put education system is preparing people for a world that wont exist much longer and driving the kids nuts and their parents broke in the process. I don’t buy Shirky uncritically, but he is working on trying to discern the emerging new patterns and therefore is more interesting than the old paradigm muck that dominates our academies. Meanwhile some researcher put an ATM like computer on the streets of India which the street urchins figured out how to interact with and then managed to learn quite a bit of human biology it had been programed to teach. Which is to say that the new paradigm probably will emerge from and take root in unlikely paces.

  • Fat_Man

    Almost everyone who thinks about or comments on foreign policy spends their waking hours worrying about the Middle East, or Ukraine, or the South China Sea. I say they are wasting their time. The most important foreign policy issue, and the only one certain to affect every American where he lives, eats, and sleeps is the prosperity of Latin America, particularly, Mexico and Central America. I include the islands of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico here.

    Some of the things the United States needs to do will produce loud howls from college campuses and news rooms about Imperialism. Ignore them. We must do what we need to do. We need to remove dictatorial (Castro, Venezuela, Nicaragua) and corrupt regimes. We need to ensure respect for the rule of law, private property, and the sanctity of contract, everywhere in the hemisphere, even at the US Supreme Court.

    Some of the things we need to do involve changing our domestic priorities, such as ending the war against drugs, ending the Fanjul family’s reign of terror over American consumers, and abolishing barriers to trade.

    Some of the things we need to do are expensive, We need to finance the creation of first world infrastructure in the Americas. But, every cent we spend there will come back to us immediately in the form of higher wages and lower unemployment for American workers.

    If we do not make Latin America as prosperous and free as the United States, we will be over run by waves of illegal immigrants bring drug gang wars, depressed wages, and unemployment to our cities.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service