ࡱ> ikhc zjbjbSS 11t]TTTT8<T&&(NNNNNN,\NNNNN4(NN.NNN8N:z,UTT4  POLICY SECTION . For the past fifty years, US government policy has played a major role in enabling America to lead in developing information technology --- and just as importantin creating the conditions for America to lead in the use of information technology throughout the economy. Over this long period, the US Government has largely gotten policy right. And not just by blind luck. Applause is due. . (Need to set up this review as a prelude to the next section. Something like: Reviewing the policies that have brought us this far, is consequently, a reasonable start at defining what needs doing next. In that case, make it a new paragraph.)Government got policy right under two important headings: resources -- the intellectual, human, and financial capital needed for the development of information technology -- and rules systems of public and private governance and market organization to make the market for information technology work Resources: 1) Fundamental Research and Advanced Education A significant number of scientists and engineers had to be educated, again at the major research universities. before we had the human capital needed to develop advanced versions, and then real world applications, of these basic technologies. Over the years the research and advanced education budgets accumulated to substantial sums. Consider the case of bio-tech, a major branching of information technology. Its history so far has been relatively short and spectacularly successful. For the first thirty years, bio-tech research remained at the level of the fundamentals and was financed overwhelmingly by government grants. No private company --especially one subjected to the discipline of modern capital markets -- could have made such long-term risky investments. (Indeed these werent investments in technology, but really in science first The technology was later derived from the basic discoveries, and no company could seriously indulge a business strategy based on the uncertainties of basic discovery.) First, it is extremely difficult to keep fundamental results and principles the intellectual property of a single organization. Second, even if a company could have known in advance that the research would yield such extraordinarily promising commercial results, (an impossible condition) modern investment allocation models would have assigned an extremely low value to the very-long term payoffs. Only government or giant, enduring monopolies like the old Bell System largely immune from capital market discipline can undertake long-term, open-ended investment program in fundamental research that will generate not rapid technological applications but basic principles that will then become part of the general knowledge base. Yet the pay-off from NIH and other publicly-funded basic bio-tech research is proving to be spectacular, both in simple economic terms, and in terms of major improvements in the length and quality of life. Lead User Should this come here? My thought was that it comes laterOR, alternatively, the category could be for both basic research and lead useInvesting in and Implementing Technology. Otherwise there is a logical break here.) In the electronics heart of information technology -- chips, computers, software, communications -- government not only played a crucial role in financing the earliest fundamental research, but also acted as a critical lead user. As we all have heard, ENIAC the grandfather of all computers, measured some 150 feet in length, cost millions of 1946 dollars and is now hugely exceeded in computing power by PCs that cost $1000. Who paid for it and for the other first computers? Who paid for the first micro-chips? That role of key, launch user, is largely past.The commercial sector has grown to be so much larger and to move so much faster than the military sector, Governments principal actor in electronics. Numerate and Literate Americans: The third major commitment of government resources was to education.The GI bill and large scale, sustained Federal support for the build-out and build-up of our Universities in the 1950s and 1960s, provided America with a large cohort of scientists, engineers and educated managers who developed the technologies and moved them into the economy. In the 1950s and 1960s the United States had the highest proportion of our labor force educated in college and beyond of any nation. But, as has repeatedly been called to the nations attention, we failed to analogously improve the quality of American education in grades K to 12. RULES For the past two generations US Government rule making and rule eliminating despite ups and downs, ins and outs, kept a strategic focus: create and preserve institutional and market openness and lively competition. Creating and preserving competitive markets I: Deregulation Innovative launch clients are as important to the development of a new technology, especially a new fundamental technology, as innovative producers of that technology. (Do we need to define why. It is not simply the early demand, it is also the matter of adapting the product to the market needs and honing it technically.) Competition-enhancing US government policy played a key role in creating big, innovative lead clients for IT, by deregulating telecommunications, and such big user industries as finance and air travel. (do we want to put dates with these developments)Once telecommunications were deregulated, deregulation in finance, (banking, brokering, insurance) and air travel suddenly freed major companies in those giant industries to experiment with new applications of computing and telecommunications. The newly competitive environment in their own industry gave them every possible incentive to try to gain advantage on their competitors. The other companies had to imitate the innovators, or leap-frog them by developing still newer applications usually in conjunction with IT producers. It provided a big market of eager experimentors for IT firms to innovate new applications. How do these two paragraphs link. They cover some of the same ground with similar words. Suddenly the new economy is equated with networks, which is something that steve wanted avoid. How do we fix that? A quick explanation as to why the US jumped ahead in (actually the issue here is networked information technology) information technology in the past ten years, while others technologically powerful nations such as Japan seem now to have sputtered and lagged behind, must give an important place to the critical role of lead users. In the US eagerly sought new competitive tools and experimented with new organizational forms and new products and services. Ten years ago Japan was whomping (very colloquial) America in the production of advanced consumer electronics, TVs, VCRs, Camcorders, recorders, watches, microwaves. They also dominated memory semiconductors and semiconductor equipment. But Japan, thus far, has lagged way behind on the rush into the new economic landscape. It is not that they did not have access to the basic science, or that they lacked good engineers. But Japan kept its regulated monopoly in telecommunications, so that established companies, and entrepreneurial groups, could not experiment in how they used telecommunications. They could do only what The Phone Company set out for them to do. Japanese banks and brokerages remained regulated, so there was little competitive pressure to seek out new information technology applications to transform their businesses. In brief, both the possibilities of experimenting with new uses for telecommunications and the supply of the lead users eager to do that experimenting were absent. The market was limited, and so was innovation and diffusion. Creating and Preserving Competitive Markets: II: Anti-trust This now has a very repetitive feel. Can we write a grouping paragraph at the beginning of both and then write a story line across all of themright now it is a bit logically choppy. In the very beginning, it was anti-trust that moved the infant transistor technology into the competitive realm. The then-monopoly AT&T was forced to make the new technology -- invented at its Bell Labs -- available to all. Had the transistor remained under monopoly control as AT&Ts developoment review process tried to think of uses for it, recent industrial history would be fundamentally (but unknowably) different. It is highly likely that innovation and diffusion would have proceeded more slowly and narrowly: both fewer innovative products and fewer innovative competitive technoogy firms. It was new companies such as Fairchild, Intel, AMD, National Semiconductor that took the new technology and lead the process of innovation and risk taking that has brought prices down further and faster, and performance up further and faster than with any other major new technology in history. Most of the big, integrated companies that dominated vacuum tubes and consumer electronics RCA, Philco, Sylvania were soon by-passed by the new companies that were born and grew with the new technology. The new, and some re-born, technology producers, often working closely with innovative users, , created new applications, many of which were not, initially, obvious: from automobile door locks and ignitions, through medical imaging and surgical equipment; to ATMs , personal computers and gene sequencers. There probably needs to be a stronger anchor, transition, here. Why and how do we go from the past policy to the present. PolicyLooking ahead This now becomes the third iteration in six pages. Useful to repeat but sequence. American policy has focused its resources on fundamental research and advanced education and its rule making on creating and preserving open institutions and open competition. It has been extraordinarily successful. This choice of focused direction is likely to provide a wise roadmap for policy in the immediate future. Should this come at the beginning? States the whole thing. And in fact it is a restatement of some of it here But the terrain is changing rapidly. There are new conditions, new dimensions that policy will have to address in order to assure that America traverses the new economic landscape successfully, that is, as the world leader and in such a way to bring the benefits of this enormous economic and social transformation to all Americans. Keeping to that path will require considerable political effort and skill, of the kind the previous two generations of Americans were able to muster. Right now there are signs that we are wavering in both our commitment to that effort and perhaps in our understanding of why such an effort is still needed. This strikes me as repeating what came at the beginning. Its Not Like We Have A Choice Ditto. Why dont we do this once. Clear statement of the overall thing. America no longer has a decent choice about making the effort to stay ahead in technology leadership. Over the past twenty-five years we have substantially restructured our economic strengths (in the terminology of economics, the structure of our comparative advantage). Now, we not only enjoy the advantage of technological leadership, we depend upon it. To remain prosperous we must stay significantly ahead in creating and introducing new technologies.Today American firms no longer have the masswive comparative productivity advantage in high-volume mass production that they hed for the first three quarters of this century. Over the past twenty-five years, at great pain to many Americans, we have shed major elements of our ability to compete in the routine production and commercialization of mature technologies. Other nations have moved into that role and we would be poorer like themif we fall back to where we have to slug it out with them on their terms. In brief, we have redesigned our economy, to our great advantage, to specialize in the permanent frontier of new technology. But in so doing, we have signed-on to a path of constant effort, investment and innovation. Resources: Three kinds of resources -- intellectual, human and financial- nourish technological development: Government policy necessarily effects all of them in important ways. Intellectual Capital is built on Fundamental Scientific Research: Basic research creates the next technological frontier. Being close to basic research having a constant flow of personnel back and forth -- is a powerful aid to firms seeking to live on the technological frontier. Financing basic research is necessarily the responsibility of government. Private firms under the discipline of modern capital markets simply cannot do it. . Though it may be difficult to imagine, we are only at the beginning of the technological revolution that is propelling our economic transformation. Right now we are using up our seed corn in so far as investment in research is concerned. Funding for research, outside the biological sciences, has not increased with need and opportunity In most areas, it has fallen as the discretionary spending part of the budget has been squeezed.. Sustaining investment in advanced research may be the necessary first effort, but assuring the quality of that research is just as important. The core strength of American research has lay in the workings of our unique system of research universities. That system had three characteristics that nations around the world are now trying to imitate. 1. Peer Review. Selection of projects for funding is made by committees of scientists (peers). Bureaucrats and politicians keep clear of project selection. This system is beginning to be undermined by politicians who treat major research efforts as pork to be distributed by politicians on the basis of political geography. ((( ????? Openess to Business: American research universities work closely with business to quickly move new technology and young research-trained students out of the university lab and into commercial development. Other nations like France and Germany with distinguished scientific traditions are now attempting to break down the barriers that have separated their research communities from their business communities. ) Open to talent from all over the world: It was, arguably, the arrival of refugee scientists fleeing Hitlers Europe beginning in the late 1930s that launched great scientific research at American universities. We have grown more international since. A visit to the physics, molecular biology or electrical engineering programs at our best universities would find talent professors, researchers, graduate students -- recruited from all over the world. They are not just (?) complements to the program; the premier place in international quality of these programs now depends upon them. Our dependency on foreign educated talent Companies that produce and that use advanced technology and that is just about all of them -- have, or will soon have, the same dependency. The more advanced the technology the greater the dependency on recruiting talent world-wide. Americans are pleased to note the flow of foreign money financial capital -- investing in American high technology companies. We should also note the inflow of human capital highly educated scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs bringing with them their costly, formal scientific education. This is not a flow of cheap labor displacing Americans from the jobs they could fill. Rather they are the critical scarce resource necessary to maintain the quality of Americas leading Universities and the leadership of our technology producer and technology user firms. As is often the case in technology and economic development in the process of doing one thing something else and more important emerges . Highly educated scientists and engineers came to study or to work in the US to fulfill their own dreams of opportunity and excellence while they filled our needs. The numbers have grown. In the new globalizing economy, where companies can design or produce theirn products in almost any country in the world, the ability to attract human capital becomes a critical competitive advantage. And the more human capital you attract the more attractive you become. Make this a positive statement. Americas competitive advantage is based on.our unique ability Americas competitive advantage in advanced technology is less and less based on having more financial capital: there is a global flow. Nor is it based on having superior airports and telephone service: these are rapidly equalizing. It is more and more based on our unique ability to attract the best technology talent. If you want to work with the best, no matter where you are now, you come here. This inflow of human capital does not displace jobs; it creates them. First it is critical to our ability to invent, develop and deploy new applications; but also a new generation of start up firms, who are hiring hundreds of thousands of American workers, is being created by these foreign born scientific entrepreneurs. Americas unique combination of laws and rules plus social and business culture (not to mention the universal dominance of the English language) has given us this critical advantage. Making Americans numerate and literate: When this pops up a second time, it really appear repetive.My view is it should all be integrated America has not invested enough or sufficiently well in education. . In the age of the E-conomy the consequences are more handicapping than in the past. . There are two basic reasons. First, only a relatively small number of scientifically educated people are needed to launch a scientific revolution. But very large numbers of literate and numerate people are needed to apply that technology in just about every area of the economy and work with it. The differences in wages between those with more formal education and those with less has been growing rapidly over the past years. It is one indicator of change and of the severity of the problem. The second major reason is that what was sufficient twenty five years ago as an average level of educational attainment no longer is. Elsewhere in the world, people have made deliberate, enormous and successful investments in education. Planning, design, production for the same products of the same companies can be located anywhere in the world. A high wage country must have an exceptionally productive work force. In a globalizing economy, you cannot stay rich and powerfulwhen you are dumber than the next The Idea Economy What is the transition or structural point hereIs there a header that is missing? If not, it is beginning to driftOr is this a sidebar? The E-conomy is an idea economy. It is not an idea economy because development is now driven by ideas. Economic growth has always been motored by ideas: moveable type, steam engines, power looms. But two important changes make the E-conomy an idea economy in a new sense that poses new challenges to policy. The first is the increasing specialization of the US economy on innovation, our newly created dependency on on, staying at the frontier of innovation. We now have an economy that is specialized in the high-value added role of creating and commercializing ideas. The economics of ideas now matters to us in an extremely serious way. Since the economics of ideas stretches both our traditional ways of thinking and the boundaries of many of our legal/economic institutions, we risk making serious blunders. Second, the ideas that the US creates are less and less likely to be embedded in expensive, specialized equipment and processes. True, we continue to make huge investments in dedicated, equipment for the production and distribution of information technologies: it now costs about $2 billion to set up a semi-conductor plant., But increasingly, in the E-conomy the ideas that contain both the costs and the value added, are disassociated from expensive plant, equipment and process. The ideas -- the intellectual property-- that drove the steel, electricity and even auto industries were neither accessible nor of much use to anyone who did not already have giant steel, electricity or auto plants. More often than not the technology was embedded in giant pieces of equipment that could only be used for that one purpose in that one kind of plant. The established companies that dominated an industry in each country worked out ways to share their technologies, but not their markets. When combined with the protections of traditional patent and copyright law the problems of intellectual property, if not fully resolved, were managed quite adequately. There were of course, some problems. The texts of books or songs, and even economics textbooks, could be, and were, copied. -- a shocking disrespect for law and for the proper order of things, but not a serious problem for a major economy. Things are quite different now. Books and songs are still easily copied. But in the digital age it is performances that are copied, and so are movies, molecules and software. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a complex software application or a library of cells for chip design. They can be copied easily, quickly and at virtually zero cost;, and they can be distributed instantly, thanks to the internet, to vast numbers of people at almost no cost. What constitutes and what assures the respect of intellectual property therefore takes on a vastly new importance, especially to the US economy. Furthermore, what kinds of ideas and information should be owned, is neither clear nor the object of a broad consensus. We are reaching a point where new definitions and new rules for property must be made authoritatively, that is, by government. There have been such points before. Past economic transformations have necessitated redefinitions of property rights, economic institutions, and the rules that govern economic activity. I am now very confused. Reading straight through. Consider an example from the early days of mass-production. A little more than a century ago the combination of the telegraph, the railroad and the refrigerated boxcar made possible cheap, mass-produced meat. Chicago based corporations invented the assembly (or rather disassembly) line, mass- dressed the beef in Chicago, shipped it dressed to Boston, and undercut local small scale Boston-area slaughterhouses by a third at the butcher ships. The productive power of mass production could thus be realized -- unless the Massachusetts legislature required for health and safety that all meat sold in Massachusetts be inspected live and on the hoof by a Massachusetts meat inspector in Massachusetts immediately before slaughter. Without changes to get the rules right in this case federal preemption of health and safety regulation affecting interstate commerce America would not have developed a high productivity, mass production Chicago meatpacking industry. Nor without similar changes in rules that govern economic activity would the other mass production industries made possible by the new technology telegraph and railroads been able to transform our economic landscape one hundred years ago. Structural change need enabling changes in the rules that define property and govern economic activity. The economies of scale that could be realized at the end of the nineteenth centurybecause of railroads and the mammoth national market required large-scale investments in mass production factories. But who would commit their savings to a mammoth enterprise over which they had neither control nor the protecting shield of limited liability? Limited liability was an exorbitant new privilege for investors, yet necessary if the possibilities for economic organization opened up by the new technologies were to be realized. Ensuring the national market required preemption by the federal government of local governments regulatory authority. Anti-trust was needed to balance the efficiencies of mass production with those of the competitive market. The E-conomy has advanced to the point where we must reconsider the definitions, protections and limits of intellectual property, as well s many rules that govern economic activity. It is not an easy task. To make the matter even more difficult, this time redefinition cannot be successfully done in one nation alone. This needs to be explained. The section above isnt anchored. GlobalizationPolicy You know we could anchor the whole thing around globalizationPolicy for an E-conomy in a Global world. Flexibility and Inclusion Important, but not quite set up. The E-conomy is about structural transformation, about doing new things and doing old things very differently in different organizational structures It demands flexibility in order to generate prosperity and rewards adaptability. Many observers in Europe and Japan credit the superior performance of the American economyover the past ten years to its superior flexibility. In the US, government aims at keeping markets open and competitive. New companies can be created quickly and easily. New institutions, such as venture capital firms, can assess risk and provide capital. Stock options and other forms of payment via ownership rights make it possible, with very little real money, to recruit a work force willing to share the risks of a new venture in exchange for a share in the potential gains. Dense networks of supplier firms permit access to key materials, components and capabilities, ranging from financial management right through manufacturing itself. But this new flexible system for structuring and restructuring business, best exemplified in the Silicon Valley system, is only the tip of the flexibility iceberg. For the big benefits in productivity to be realized, flexibility has to characterize the organizations that use or should usethe new technologies; that means the entire economy. Flexibility is discomforting; it is, by definition, up-setting. Institutions and people resist change. Flexibility must be based on inclusion. At best all Americans should see the benefits of this transformation and share in them. If the benefits are neither broadly understood, broadly seen as accessible and broadly shared, the transformation will be stunted, at whatever economic price. Policy aiming at flexibility must, therefore, aim at inclusion. Effectiveness demands fairness. Good point, but lost by the time we get here. Needs to get stated clearly and upfront. Three policy areas are critical for for inclusion/flexibility.. The first is education. Formally educated Americans find it easier to adapt to new organizational forms and the need for new skills as their jobs change, or to switch companies. Education is the key to productivity, flexibility and inclusion. It starts at the quality and orientation of education in our public schools serious achievement in math, reading, writing; hands-on experience with Internet based research and communication. It extends through specialized training and life-long training and education programs. The second is full-employment. Nothing makes flexibility easier than full employment. Our economys ability to sustain full-employment rests on correct macro-economic policy by our government. Finally, there is a broad set of specific policies that aim at removing obstacles to flexibility and inclusion such as portability of pensions and health insurance. END END END END END --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then:Flexibility/onclusion. Why need flexibilityand how others are , with great difficulty, trying to get to where we are in ability to move resources into new activites and transform exisitng ones.. Flexility if it is to suceed over time, and be worth its real costs, must be built on inclusion. At best;, all americans should see the benefits of t his transformation and share in them. If they dont , the results will be both inefficient and unfair. For if the benefits are negihter broadly understood and broadly shared, the transformation will be halted, at whatever ecnomoic price. Access is key. There are the areas of small, useful poltical actions. Getting information technology into the hands of all school kids, so that they can both beennfit from it as students and learn how to use it. There is t he need to make pensions and health insurance and the like portableso that americans can contemplate changing jobs wit hout sacraficing their personal security. But the major hopes for inclusion lie in education and macro-economics sustaining a full employment enviroment and improving education.. The all come together in the idea of maintaiining flexiblility thorugh inclusion..ecuation, macro..makes transistions so much easier. Macro eduication Problem of funding for experiment and development medical technolgoies as leadiang research hospitals find their high cost structures needed for training and research under severe pressure from new medical financing systemonly hope in medical area is precisely new developments and on cusp of major breakthroughs .. Note: small change in rules for pension funds years ago, uncorked a relatife flod of pension funds into high trisk, high return, new technology Risk takaing in companiesmaintain and improve system, employees share in risks and in potential gains..stock optionscertainly for technology employees level..diffused into companies. PAGE 1 PAGE 7  Oecd should have this, probably late 60s volume..  somethng about bell labsoff budget, nice and steady.  Try to find a pr sheet from MIT where they claim that MIT faculty and students have created the 10th largest economy in the world or something like that  cite among others saxinian for Public Policy Inst. Of Calif.  Need footnote and slide here  footnote and a second exmple: say for fibre optic backbone orsomething like tht..global crossing.  Ask barad.  Need a bunch of references here, even a quote or two.   Z ] pyz4"#))6*?*w*{*|**..333P44a7b7-9;9::L;M;#<I<q>>[F\FHHJJZR[RZ&b'b ceTeffxx j0JU Wr9Fj0J5U W5CJ j0JUcHdh"9fgH5cHdh"9fgHcHdh9fgHcHdh9fgH56C  ] qdCEƀ9dhd  ] q4""#+),)))))W+-..333N4O4446,9:| t'WXmntjk35!"t] BMN04""#+),)))))W+-..333N4O4446 d !dd6,9: <!<q>> @A!DHHH;I,KFMGM d&dd&dDC$Eƀ d !dd: <!<q>> @A!DHHH;I,KFMGMMOQQRUlXYYZ]__ cjddddeeeeeTeUe}zwtqnhe yz\v1,h.X 6]^Pg 'GMMOQQRUlXYYZ]__ cjddddeeeeedddeTeUe>ffi|jllmmooppppqqqqddDC$EƀUe>ffi|jllmmooppppqqqqqrQst^u_uuuuu9w:w=wwxxxxxxxxxxxxyyy zqz~zzzz  G(/BLKL|>QPH5qqrQst^u_uuuuu9w:w=wwxxxxxxxxxxyyh&`#$ddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyyvyxyyyyy zzqzrz~zzzH* j0JU0JmH j0JU0Jyy zqz~zzzzd/ =!"#$% cache.lck絳bҳbLOCKMSIE' [(@(NormalCJmH :@: Heading 1$d@&5@@@ Heading 2$d&d@&5@ Heading 3$d@&C$EƀS9 5W9F<A@<Default Paragraph Font, @,Footer  !&)@& Page NumberDC@DBody Text Indentd&d0+@"0 Endnote TextCJ6*@16Endnote ReferenceH*ya3L7[BFZN&^bv4lGg      v!               ] %,2w9!@,GMlT[`ek^qv_&z     xz?I6GMeqyz@BCEFHJ:UezADGUnknown Brad DeLong !t!t !!####,,,,8-;-66T?Z?k@q@oDwD IIKKh\v\bbhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm:nCnnnAoIooooo}pppppp9qCqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq5rArErMrssssssss0tC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of policydraft,tuesdaypm.asd John Zysman>C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of policydraft,tuesdaypm.asd Brad DeLong(Macintosh_HD:Desktop Folder:JZ macedoineJly  4ʝhho(.hho(.Jly 4@&*$RP&&Pv`@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial"ph)9f)9f99`1!20dvt`Go: Steve Cohen Brad DeLongAGNet]  Oh+'0l   ( 4 @LT\d'Go:o: Steve CohentevNormalo Brad DeLong2adMicrosoft Word 8.0d@F#@.X7@ @ `/<<-LblrtDFVz~lzt"v"'n(((((**>.@...../*/,/X/n/t/v/333344466~8$<6<====@@dBBBB\E^EEE^FdFfF6CJ5CJ$OJQJ5CJ j0J.Uj0J.CJUCJ0J+mH6Q 00P/ =!"p#$%  h        ......... In Germany this political alliance is often seen as marked by the 1879  marriage of iron and rye : the imposition of tariffs on imports of British steel (to protect the positions of German manufacturers) and on imports of American grain (to protect the positions of German landlords). Urban merchants, wage earners, and consumers were implicitly taxed to benefit the dual eli~'''((((((****++..*/n/v/346~8(;*;===<<- 00P/ =!"p#$%  h        .........ostile to political democracy:  and vote, but nothing changes, 214 nightmare214 | HH@R),, P `,-^&'214  ՜.+,D՜.+,4 hp  'BRIEitl1v: Go: Title 6> _PID_GUID'AN{A17890E8-66C5-11D3-BA3B-080009C1632E}ng resources for war and then demobilizing them after war are interesting, but are hard to relate to debates and ideas about how the  normal economy functions in peacetime. But wars play too big a part in the twentieth century for this to be a satisfying way of proceeding. And large pieces of the political history surrounding this century s world wars are very important background without which understanding the economic and political dynamics of the interwar period is next to impossible. 219 ====@BBBB B BBBBBBBBBB`BbBdBBBBBBB$<<louch_WWI10.doc Brad DeLongTPwrbk 1400 HD:From old powerbook:Website:TCEH:1998_Draft:eleven:Slouching2_11wwi.doc Brad DeLong=Pwrbk 1400 HD:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Slouching2 Brad DeLong=Pwrbk 1400 HD:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Sloucha@z@ a``aa"a$a|aaaa``B`aRaXaZ``B`aaaaaa2a4aVaaaaa*a*a^a*apa a a a a a aaaaaD`FaJazaaaaaHaJaaaaa2aTaZaHaNaPaaaaaaaaaaa^a^a^a``aa a aa8adafananaaa. a0 a a a a!a !a(!a!a!a!a!a!at"`v"`x"`z"a"a"a"a:#a<#aH#aJ#aJ$aJ%af%ah%ah&aN'aP'aR'ah'`|'a|@ a~'a|@ a'a|@ a'a}@ aa<a>a@ araaaa @ `'`B`'aƉ@ `Baȉ@ aaa@ aF aaDaFaF `F`F aHaNan(aF a(a(`(`(aF `(`N aK`LaN a@ aBa\BaX@ `^B``B`dB`B`(a(aʠ@ a(a0@ a)aZ)a@ a\)  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_abcdefgjRoot Entry F, l1TableLWordDocumentSummaryInformationL<(=LXDocumentSummaryInformation8`CompObjXObjectPool, ,  FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8Helvetica? Courier New"HhfQ&f)&Pdh5!