[Marxism] Baran and Sweezy

michael perelman michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Sun Apr 3 15:19:37 MDT 2005


If you look at the chart the 1920s don't look good either.  TThe 
depression that began in 1929, took some of the bloom off of the 1920s, 
also lowering the base for the 1930s.  There were also periods of growth 
during the late 1930s and beginning of the defense buildup.  In fact, in 
many ways the 1930s was a period of rather intense innovation.  One 
recent article claimed it was the most vibrant decade in US history in 
terms of productivity growth.  That claim might sound counterintuitive 
but intense competitive forces made corporations scramble become more 
efficient.e depression that began in 1929, took some of the bloom off of 
the 1920s, also lowering the base for the 1930s.  There were also 
periods of growth during the late 1930s and beginning of the defense 
buildup.  In fact, in many ways the 1930s was a period of rather intense 
innovation.  One recent article claimed it was the most vibrant decade 
in US history in terms of productivity growth.  That claim might sound 
counterintuitive but intense competitive forces made corporations 
scramble become more efficient.

Louis Proyect wrote:

>  It shows in somewhat counter-intuitive fashion that the US economy 
> was more dynamic in the 1930s than in the 1950s. I always associated 
> the 1930s with stagnation but the numbers would demonstrate the 
> opposite--or so it would seem. As it turned out, Henwood's chart dealt 
> not with GDP growth but per capita GDP growth.



-- 

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901





More information about the Marxism mailing list