Re: Re: Re: RE: Eurocentrism once again
It is true that most of the TW are not part of this global economy. China is enough to subsidize the US with its low wage production Cheers, Anthony The implication is that China would be a richer place if it exported less, and thus subsidized the U.S. less--that each container that leaves Shanghai for Long Beach is a subtraction to Chinese living standards. I cannot see how that could possibly be true... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Eurocentrism once again
The implication is correct but I brought it up in the context of imperialism (or rather the new face of it). The US is the only economy that can absorb China's magnitude of exports (market dependence, exercise of hegemony?). China's (competitive) labor-intensive exports substitutes for other TW exports. The distribution of gains from globalization (increased participation) for the TW (not just China) is not conclusive. Put it another way, if prices of labor-intensive goods were to rise what would it mean for the US economy? Cheers, Anthony Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462 Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5718 University of WashingtonBox Number: 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA xxx On Fri, 25 May 2001, Brad DeLong wrote: Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:16:02 -0700 From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:12208] Re: Re: Re: RE: Eurocentrism once again It is true that most of the TW are not part of this global economy. China is enough to subsidize the US with its low wage production Cheers, Anthony The implication is that China would be a richer place if it exported less, and thus subsidized the U.S. less--that each container that leaves Shanghai for Long Beach is a subtraction to Chinese living standards. I cannot see how that could possibly be true... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Eurocentrism once again
How does Brad's idea follow from Anthony's note? Once an economy becomes poor enough -- disregarding the cause of the poverty -- $/day wages may increase welfare -- at least in the short run. On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 09:16:02AM -0700, Brad DeLong wrote: It is true that most of the TW are not part of this global economy. China is enough to subsidize the US with its low wage production Cheers, Anthony The implication is that China would be a richer place if it exported less, and thus subsidized the U.S. less--that each container that leaves Shanghai for Long Beach is a subtraction to Chinese living standards. I cannot see how that could possibly be true... Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eurocentrism once again
Jim Devine: did Brenner attack Baran and Sweezy in a way that was uncomradely? Louis Proyect: Of course. what specifically did Brenner say that was so uncomradely? and why of course? are you saying that he's a _total sleaze-bag_, so that we should _expect_ him to be boorish? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eurocentrism once again
Wasn't Brenner continuing in the footpath of Maurice Dobb's criticisms of Sweezy, ditto Wood? Louis writes: I think that Brenner's addenda to the Dobb-Sweezy would have remained mired in academic obscurity had he not lashed out at third worldism in the NLR. in what sense did Brenner lash out? did he use intemperate language? did he use sectarian jargon? did he use fallacious arguments and rhetorical tricks? Nobody reads Past and Present except other scholars like Patricia Croot and La Durie. And nobody much cares about the problems of when and how exactly capitalism got started except them. You seem to care a lot about the origins of capitalism. Else you wouldn't invest so much emotion into attacks on Brenner's views concerning this topic. For the average Marxist activist, these are arcane topics. What does pique our interest, however, is the notion that revolutions in the third world are doomed to 'autarky'. That's what Brenner wrote in his NLR article and it is a pile of crap. please quote what Brenner says and explain why it's a pile of crap. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eurocentrism once again
Justin Schwartz wrote: Wish I had the talent to do it myself. You don't do yourself justice, Justin. This no doubt will seem gratuitous, but I don't see the Blaut/Proyect critique of Brenner/Woods et al, being adequately addressed in this discussion. I'm particularly grateful, however, for some of Ricardo Duchesne's and Michael Perelman's Braudelian elucidations. Mark
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eurocentrism once again
Philion wrote: Huh, Zeitlin supported Pinochet? I'm sure Petras would be surprised to hear that. A good friend of his for several decades was a Pinochet supporter...Unfortunately, that's not a response, or not a serious one. I could likewise note that Petras thinks very highly of Zeitlin, which is probably much more relevant in any event. No, I wrote that the Brennerite Zeitlin's acolyte supported Pinochet. This is a case of marijuana leading to heroin if you gather my drift. Or a scratch leading to gangrene if you have read Trotsky. Your characterizations of Zeitlin without having read Zeitlin is revealing. You do this rather often and at times it's revealing. I will go put some pants on. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
