[Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revival
This is a forward from PEN-L CB ^ * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revival * From: Carl Remick [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 11:40:56 + [Pretty remarkable column for a guy who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan.] The Vicious Downward Cycle of the American Economy: Resurrecting Karl Marx By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS Libertarians and free trade economists don't realize it, but they are pulling Marx out of his grave. Free traders are resurrecting class war, not because they are Marxists but because they confuse free trade with global labor arbitrage. Free traders turn cold shoulders to US job losses from offshore outsourcing, because they mistake the losses for the beneficial workings of comparative advantage. Committed to a 200 year old theory that they no longer understand, free traders are cheering on the destruction of middle class jobs and the dismantling of the ladders of upward mobility that make large income disparities politically acceptable. The destruction of the stabilizing middle class is occurring simultaneously with an extraordinary increase in income inequalities. Not so long ago CEOs were paid 20 times more than the average employee; now some are paid hundreds of times more. The gilded age is returning while the value of a college degree is declining. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' 10-year jobs forecast, the majority of US jobs that will be created in the coming decade will be in domestic services that do not require a college education. This is a strange job outlook for a high tech economy allegedly benefitting from free trade. Domestic services are nontradable. The US economy has not created a net new job in tradable goods and services in the 21st century. Free trade economists have forgotten that not all trade reflects the beneficial workings of comparative advantage. For comparative advantage to function, a country's capital must stay at home and be allocated to activities in which the country has comparative advantage. The other necessary condition is that countries have different internal cost ratios of producing different goods. When the principle of comparative advantage was discovered, capital was mainly kept at home under the watchful eye of the owners and protected by the country's laws. Tradable commodities were primarily products influenced by climate and geography, guaranteeing that the cost of a yard of wool in terms of a bottle of wine would vary among countries. Today capital is more mobile than tradable goods. Modern production functions are based on acquired knowledge and produce identical results regardless of location. When a US corporation closes a factory in Ohio and relocates its production for US markets to China, the loss of US jobs is not the result of a Chinese firm gaining a comparative advantage over the Ohio one. It is the result of US capital seeking absolute advantage in lower cost Chinese labor. Free trade economists have completely forgotten that the flow of resources to where they have absolute advantage does not result in mutual benefit. The country that receives the resources gains and the other country loses. When capital and technology flow from the US to China and India, the productivity of labor in China and India rises. In the US it falls. Outsourcing is eliminating entire American occupations in engineering and information technology. As there are fewer jobs for graduates, engineering enrollments in the US are declining. Libertarians and free traders are so emotionally enamored of the market that they have forgotten that markets can as easily work against a country as for it. In the US, markets are working to reduce the supply of American engineers as US corporations lay off their American employees and replace them with cheaper Chinese and Indians. Product development, or research and development, follows manufacturing. As US manufacturing moves offshore, so does RD. Innovation follows RD, with the consequence that US science is also in relative decline. In brief, the US is developing the labor force characteristics of a third world country in which jobs are available only in lower productivity, lower paid hands on domestic services. For engineering and IT jobs that remain in the US, fewer are filled by Americans. US firms have learned that they can pay foreigners on H-1B and L-1 work visas lower salaries, force their American employees to train their foreign replacements, and then discharge their American workers. Consequently, there is double-digit unemployment among American software engineers, IT professionals and computer programmers. As Lou Dobbs exposed recently on CNN, the US Department of Labor is currently reserving some 52,000 high tech job openings in US firms for H-1B visa holders. Bodyshops use the visas to bring in
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revival
Mr. Roberts should read some of this Marxist stuff. In a developed state such as is the US (at least in theory in light of recent events) the rate of profit is in a steady decline, first, by replacement of productive labour by more developed, efficient? means of production, and, second, by the rising costs of development in general. The decline in the sources of variable surplus value that characterises developed industrial states forces them to look for new sources of the kind of surplus value that brings profits. Cheap, well-trained Indian, Chinese, Malayan labour is just what is needed to resuscitate the rate of profit for serious capital enterprise. Globalisation is exactly this process of transferring production from expensive developed countries to cheap developing countries. Need I add that Marx told you so? Victor - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 13:56 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revival This is a forward from PEN-L CB ^ * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revival * From: Carl Remick [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 11:40:56 + [Pretty remarkable column for a guy who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan.] The Vicious Downward Cycle of the American Economy: Resurrecting Karl Marx By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS Libertarians and free trade economists don't realize it, but they are pulling Marx out of his grave. Free traders are resurrecting class war, not because they are Marxists but because they confuse free trade with global labor arbitrage. Free traders turn cold shoulders to US job losses from offshore outsourcing, because they mistake the losses for the beneficial workings of comparative advantage. Committed to a 200 year old theory that they no longer understand, free traders are cheering on the destruction of middle class jobs and the dismantling of the ladders of upward mobility that make large income disparities politically acceptable. The destruction of the stabilizing middle class is occurring simultaneously with an extraordinary increase in income inequalities. Not so long ago CEOs were paid 20 times more than the average employee; now some are paid hundreds of times more. The gilded age is returning while the value of a college degree is declining. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' 10-year jobs forecast, the majority of US jobs that will be created in the coming decade will be in domestic services that do not require a college education. This is a strange job outlook for a high tech economy allegedly benefitting from free trade. Domestic services are nontradable. The US economy has not created a net new job in tradable goods and services in the 21st century. Free trade economists have forgotten that not all trade reflects the beneficial workings of comparative advantage. For comparative advantage to function, a country's capital must stay at home and be allocated to activities in which the country has comparative advantage. The other necessary condition is that countries have different internal cost ratios of producing different goods. When the principle of comparative advantage was discovered, capital was mainly kept at home under the watchful eye of the owners and protected by the country's laws. Tradable commodities were primarily products influenced by climate and geography, guaranteeing that the cost of a yard of wool in terms of a bottle of wine would vary among countries. Today capital is more mobile than tradable goods. Modern production functions are based on acquired knowledge and produce identical results regardless of location. When a US corporation closes a factory in Ohio and relocates its production for US markets to China, the loss of US jobs is not the result of a Chinese firm gaining a comparative advantage over the Ohio one. It is the result of US capital seeking absolute advantage in lower cost Chinese labor. Free trade economists have completely forgotten that the flow of resources to where they have absolute advantage does not result in mutual benefit. The country that receives the resources gains and the other country loses. When capital and technology flow from the US to China and India, the productivity of labor in China and India rises. In the US it falls. Outsourcing is eliminating entire American occupations in engineering and information technology. As there are fewer jobs for graduates, engineering enrollments in the US are declining. Libertarians and free traders are so emotionally enamored of the market that they have forgotten that markets can as easily work against a country as for it. In the US, markets are working to
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] U.S. relations of production acting as fetter on produc
Pardon, my misquoting your definition of an epoch. An epoch in the Marxist standpoint is a historical period of time distinguished in its geenral framework on the basis of the mode of production, rather than by more than one generation. In my estimate this more accurately pays homage to the spirit of Marx. Again, I apologize for my misquoting. Sorry. Waistline ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revivalVictor
victor : Mr. Roberts should read some of this Marxist stuff. In a developed state such as is the US (at least in theory in light of recent events) the rate of profit is in a steady decline, first, by replacement of productive labour by more developed, efficient? means of production, and, second, by the rising costs of development in general. The decline in the sources of variable surplus value that characterises developed industrial states forces them to look for new sources of the kind of surplus value that brings profits. Cheap, well-trained Indian, Chinese, Malayan labour is just what is needed to resuscitate the rate of profit for serious capital enterprise. Globalisation is exactly this process of transferring production from expensive developed countries to cheap developing countries. Need I add that Marx told you so? Victor Victor, Your analysis sounds good to me, but Roberts is also saying, in his own way, that Marx told you so . But unlike u , Roberts is a rightwing , anti-Marxist, which makes it kind of noteworthy, no ? Note the note at the beginning: [Pretty remarkable column for a guy who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan.] In the legal evidence, we call this a (sort of) declaration against instance. When someone makes a statement that is against their own interests, it is an indication of high veracity. Why would they lie about something against their own interest, and in this case against his ideological interest ? Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 13:56 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revival This is a forward from PEN-L CB ^ * To: PEN-L at http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis mailto:PEN-L at DOMAIN.HIDDEN http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis * Subject: Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revival * From: Carl Remick carlremick at xxx http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis mailto:carlremick at DOMAIN.HIDDEN http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis * Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 11:40:56 + [Pretty remarkable column for a guy who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan.] The Vicious Downward Cycle of the American Economy: Resurrecting Karl Marx By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS Libertarians and free trade economists don't realize it, but they are pulling Marx out of his grave ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] U.S. relations of production acting as fetter on production
Waistline2 Pardon, my misquoting your definition of an epoch. CB: No problem ^^^ An epoch in the Marxist standpoint is a historical period of time distinguished in its geenral framework on the basis of the mode of production, rather than by more than one generation. In my estimate this more accurately pays homage to the spirit of Marx. ^ CB: Well, the mode of production can just be referred to by naming the mode of production. The feudal mode of production. Epoch or age refers specifically to the time aspect. The epoch of feudalism. The word epoch is used to draw attention to the fact that it is a _long_ period of time, not a shorter one. It's true that we decide when the epoch begins and ends based on the beginning and end of a m. of p., but the word epoch is used to get at the fact that it's a long period of time. What does long mean ? Long relative to what ? I'd say one key thing is that it lets us know, hey , the rev may not come in our lifetime , buddy . Otherwise, we could just say the feudal period of history, which could be short or long. It's an important emotional issue that the rev may not come in our individual lifetimes. It's a philosophical issue, too. In sum, I'd say we use epoch to connote a long time relative to individual human lifetimes. Charles ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revivalVictor
CB Your right on. No arguments here. Just finished reading Thompson's book Making of the English Working Class (origins of English working class consciousness from late 18th c. Jacobinism to the Reform movements of 1831-32). It describes the critical period when mechanisation and the reorganization of labour transformed the medieval petty bourgeoisie (artisans, shop owners, and so on) along with what little remained of the poorer peasants into proletarians. There are many parallels with the modern transition between nation based capitalist production and global capitalism; the importance of religion based solidarity for unity of the oppressed groups, the development of republicanist radicalism (the Jacobins in this case) associated with revolutionary developments, and so on. It was a pretty wild period; lots of state suppression, lots of rebellions (some quite violent), and lots of switching around of positions both on the top and on the bottom (you can decide who belongs to which). I agree with you that P C Roberts is hardly sympathetic to Marxian radicalism, but he certainly does sense the oncoming crisis. We shouldn't need him to tell us where we are going, but his statements are interesting because its an indication that certain conflicts within the ruling classes have reached a point where at least some partisans regard it necessary to expose the debates to the public. Brook's recent commentary on the Bush administration is also relevant here. Victor - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 23:52 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revivalVictor victor : Mr. Roberts should read some of this Marxist stuff. In a developed state such as is the US (at least in theory in light of recent events) the rate of profit is in a steady decline, first, by replacement of productive labour by more developed, efficient? means of production, and, second, by the rising costs of development in general. The decline in the sources of variable surplus value that characterises developed industrial states forces them to look for new sources of the kind of surplus value that brings profits. Cheap, well-trained Indian, Chinese, Malayan labour is just what is needed to resuscitate the rate of profit for serious capital enterprise. Globalisation is exactly this process of transferring production from expensive developed countries to cheap developing countries. Need I add that Marx told you so? Victor Victor, Your analysis sounds good to me, but Roberts is also saying, in his own way, that Marx told you so . But unlike u , Roberts is a rightwing , anti-Marxist, which makes it kind of noteworthy, no ? Note the note at the beginning: [Pretty remarkable column for a guy who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan.] In the legal evidence, we call this a (sort of) declaration against instance. When someone makes a statement that is against their own interests, it is an indication of high veracity. Why would they lie about something against their own interest, and in this case against his ideological interest ? Charles - Original Message - From: Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 13:56 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revival This is a forward from PEN-L CB ^ * To: PEN-L at http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis mailto:PEN-L at DOMAIN.HIDDEN http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis * Subject: Paul Craig Roberts sees Marxism revival * From: Carl Remick carlremick at xxx http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis mailto:carlremick at DOMAIN.HIDDEN http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis * Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 11:40:56 + [Pretty remarkable column for a guy who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan.] The Vicious Downward Cycle of the American Economy: Resurrecting Karl Marx By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS Libertarians and free trade economists don't realize it, but they are pulling Marx out of his grave ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options
