Yes. We know the right policies for globalization and accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Biotechnology, too except human genome manipulation. Artificial intelligence may be tougher, but it cannot be disruptive without creating great wealth, making 1870 more relevant than 2010.
"Is 'modernity' really a progressive state of mind that values rationality, science, democracy, and human rights? Is that too Eurocentric a view? Or, conversely, is that too universalistic a view?"
One's view depends on one's altitude. At a low altitude, this view is way too Eurocentric. Japan, for example, values experience and technology at the expense of rationality and science. They're not quite the same thing. Singapore doesn't think too highly of democracy, although they care a lot about satisfying popular opinion. China--well, China.
At an appropriate altitude, this view of modernity seems to make sense to me, although "human rights" is a bone of contention between positive and negative rights.
"Was neoliberalism was a necessary and beneficial response to the stagflation and economic crises of the 1970s and 1980s?"
It could have been but was fatally contaminated by the largely successful attempt to turn it into an anti-redistributionist movement while fending off tackling externalities effectively. Tax cuts for the rich and deficits is antithetical to rapid inclusive growth.
"productivity ... be eaten up in the attempt to neutralize the damage that will be done by global warming."
Or not or more than depending on whether we cost effective attempts and if the resources for the attempts come from consumption or investment. [I do not recall that being a conclusion of STU??]
"Is DeLong simply high on his own supply in viewing the U.S. role in the 20th century as largely that of semi-benevolent hegemon?"
No, he is not. And long live Charlie Kindleberger (and his students ;) ).
"will global warming, artificial intelligence, an biotechnology..."
This is where the Sesame Street song, "One of these things is not like the others..." starts getting played.
Yes. We know the right policies for globalization and accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Biotechnology, too except human genome manipulation. Artificial intelligence may be tougher, but it cannot be disruptive without creating great wealth, making 1870 more relevant than 2010.
"Is 'modernity' really a progressive state of mind that values rationality, science, democracy, and human rights? Is that too Eurocentric a view? Or, conversely, is that too universalistic a view?"
One's view depends on one's altitude. At a low altitude, this view is way too Eurocentric. Japan, for example, values experience and technology at the expense of rationality and science. They're not quite the same thing. Singapore doesn't think too highly of democracy, although they care a lot about satisfying popular opinion. China--well, China.
At an appropriate altitude, this view of modernity seems to make sense to me, although "human rights" is a bone of contention between positive and negative rights.
I like the trench line idea. The dependency on other people's categories is lessened.
If growth economies are associated with export economies, then what is the role of currency which facilitates this?
"Can we be optimistic about the human potential ... ?"
What's the alternative policy? :)
"Was neoliberalism was a necessary and beneficial response to the stagflation and economic crises of the 1970s and 1980s?"
It could have been but was fatally contaminated by the largely successful attempt to turn it into an anti-redistributionist movement while fending off tackling externalities effectively. Tax cuts for the rich and deficits is antithetical to rapid inclusive growth.
" rethink our values and goals "
Reaffirm them.
"productivity ... be eaten up in the attempt to neutralize the damage that will be done by global warming."
Or not or more than depending on whether we cost effective attempts and if the resources for the attempts come from consumption or investment. [I do not recall that being a conclusion of STU??]