For Promarket: 2023-02-07: The only truly live argument in Schultze’s "Industrial Policy: A Dissent" is: "It is not possible in the American political system...
I'm terrified of disagreeing with an economic historian, but I think that Hamilton was fine with "agriculture first." Indeed, the US economy was "agriculture first" for almost a century after Hamilton. What Hamilton fought against (and Jefferson for) was "agriculture forever." Hamilton supported economic dynamism, although he thought it could be embedded in the patroon system. Economically, Jefferson was a man of stasis, preserved by agrarianism. However, his notions of mass (guided) democracy and (limited) mass education subverted his own agrarianism.
The kind of economic dynamism that Hamilton & Jefferson fought over is not quite the same thing as technological dynamism. But industrial policy must support both, because monopoly power and embedded institutions are as much an ally of stasis as are technological externalities. (Our health care system is a marvellous example of both.)
Maybe the problem is that we need not "industrial policy" but industrial "policies," sector by sector examination of what ever is constraining investment and risk taking. Ezra's wondering about construction is a meta example. [Looking at the zoning process in WDC, its amazing that anything gets constructed.] Health care is another. (No this does not mean abolishing health insurance.) Expense investment. Reduce the structural deficit and ;et the dollar depreciate.
A fascinating read on what FDR and Congress was worried about can be found the reports of the Congressional investigation of US industrial policy and industrial structure in the 1930s. The Temporary National Economic Committee reports:
I'm terrified of disagreeing with an economic historian, but I think that Hamilton was fine with "agriculture first." Indeed, the US economy was "agriculture first" for almost a century after Hamilton. What Hamilton fought against (and Jefferson for) was "agriculture forever." Hamilton supported economic dynamism, although he thought it could be embedded in the patroon system. Economically, Jefferson was a man of stasis, preserved by agrarianism. However, his notions of mass (guided) democracy and (limited) mass education subverted his own agrarianism.
The kind of economic dynamism that Hamilton & Jefferson fought over is not quite the same thing as technological dynamism. But industrial policy must support both, because monopoly power and embedded institutions are as much an ally of stasis as are technological externalities. (Our health care system is a marvellous example of both.)
Maybe the problem is that we need not "industrial policy" but industrial "policies," sector by sector examination of what ever is constraining investment and risk taking. Ezra's wondering about construction is a meta example. [Looking at the zoning process in WDC, its amazing that anything gets constructed.] Health care is another. (No this does not mean abolishing health insurance.) Expense investment. Reduce the structural deficit and ;et the dollar depreciate.
A fascinating read on what FDR and Congress was worried about can be found the reports of the Congressional investigation of US industrial policy and industrial structure in the 1930s. The Temporary National Economic Committee reports:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_National_Economic_Committee