Quote:
Originally Posted by Luce
So what you're saying is that there was no growth in the 40s and 50s?
|
Perspective. If viewing from the late 1940 to 1950s, then growth existed. However that growth was only restoring what was lost in 1938 to 1945. Restoration continued until 1970.
How do business school graduates make money by doing harm? They see work this year as a profit this year. They do not see work done four years ago as resulting in growth years from now. As a result, companies like GM, Acme, Sears/Kmart, and Enron claimed profits why actually destroying growth. Their perspective was microscopic - only quarterly and annually.
In the case of General Electric, Sears and GM, they have been doing this destruction of growth by downsizing to claim profits. Then calling that growth. Anyone can measure those companies, on retail shelves from 30 years ago, to see negative growth. So why were they claiming so many profits? Top management was reaping massive bonuses, using spread sheets that claimed growth, that did not exist.
An irony not understood if using soundbytes. Growth exists when each company does same with less people every year. Then an economy is creating more jobs. Soundbyte logic says that means less jobs. And soundbyte logic is wrong. Again, perspective. A nation creates more jobs (and growth) when every industry does same or more using less employees. (Another example of why innovation is so critical to growth.)