If there was a lot of coverage of this speech by George Shultz at the Economic Club of New York, I missed it. Here’s a sample:
I also think it is fair to say that there has been created a kind of global commons in economic and security terms. And the leading role in creating that commons has been that of the United States.
We’ve benefitted tremendously from it and so have most of the people around the world.
Now we are at a time of tremendous change, seismic change in many ways around the world, that needs coping to try to create the right kind of global commons for this new world. And right now the United States is, to coin a phrase, leading from behind. To a certain extent, it reflects our economy, to a great extent. You can’t lead if your economy is in the doldrums as ours is.
So what I thought I would do tonight is two things. Number one, to briefly suggest to you some of the underlying deep changes that have the world awash in change. What are they? And then I want to tell you what I think should be done to get our economy back on track. And I’m going to use two stories from my own experience to draw on in that set of prescriptions.
There’s a lot of good stuff in the speech including some remarks on demographics, partisanship, and bailouts. Unfortunately, it appears to me that he does a better job of laying out the challenges than proposing solutions but it’s an interesting speech nonetheless.
Well. As a grad of U of C, a Reaganite and long time follower of “Schultzian” speak, whats not to like?
I encourage all commenters to read the transcript, especially including the Q&A. If some do, they will understand basically where I come from in my comments. I especially like, from an organizational viewpoint, the comments on czars. This is just adminstrative crap and incompetance.
Dave, I must observe and take some exception to your comment about it being short on detail or prescriptions. There is policy, and there is mechanics.
So I sit on these company boards. We don’t go down the top ten customer list and say well, pricing for this guy and that guy. We don’t look at the #3 production line and say well you need to turn the dial a pinch and this guy Eddy, get rid of im, etc.
No. We talk about the general environment from a competitive or supply point of view. What about capital? Acquisitions? Overall pricing posture? Credit environment? Need to explore alternative supply; hedging?? How about HR, where are we wrt staff? Its overall policy setting. That’s why we have day-to-day managers. To expect Mr. Schultz to walk on stage and show his tool kit – screw driver, hammer, wrench – is I think an overreach.
Just one man’s opinion
PS – I can’t resist this. In the 80’s there was an MIT economist named Lester Thurow who was the anti-Schultz. Japan was the model. They were going to own all our assets and make all our goods. Government had to dictate all. Look him up. He looks like Bozo the Clown. And he was. Now he’s on the trash heap of economics. Fast forward……..Paul Krugman. Bozo redux………..
Japan was the model. They were going to own all our assets and make all our goods.
Yeah, that was crazy. Everyone should have realized it would be China.
Whenever George Schultz comes up, I always think of the following anecdote from Charlie Munger:
“You’re locked in this system and you can’t fix it. You’re going to go to a tragic hell in a handbasket, if going to hell involves being once the great leader of the world and finally going to the shallows in terms of leadership.—
That’s a defeatist attitude that I have no knowledge of ever having practical merit. Its the same argument previously made by buggywhip manufacturers, abacus makers, brick and mortar retailers etc……
The world doesn’t stop just because some people think narrowly.
Yes, Drew, Charlie Munger is clearly a simple defeatist. Oh, what? He’s much much better at what he does than you are? Did he get that way being a defeatist?