Re: Re: Anthrax attack in Africa
- Original Message - I don't recall this incident, but it suggests a US connection. Any comments? In Zim's main weekly, the Financial Gazette, I used to have a column, and this is what I wrote on this story on 29 January 1993: How Rhodesia poisoned SA The South African Defense Force and South African Police are capable of untold horrors, and, via the independent press and the Goldstone Commission, scandals emerge nearly every week which otherwise should, in a humane society, lead to the government's resignation. Yet the origins of the most contemptible covert operations aimed at civilians or opposition political groups may never be known, if President FW de Klerk's current plans for a no-strings-attached amnesty plan are eventually consummated. So it is up to insiders to reveal occasional secrets, and to gutsy researchers to put these into some form of coherent story. Thus it is useful to look at fresh allegations about Rhodesian-era contributions to modern-day South African roguery by Mr Jeremy Brickhill. Currently an Oxford doctoral student and filmmaker, Mr Brickhill fought for ZAPU in the 1970s and in 1987 nearly lost his life when aspiring assassins carbombed him at the Avondale shopping centre. His analysis of the role of Rhodesian chemical and biological experiments in South Africa can be found in the Winter 1993 issue of the American magazine Covert Action Quarterly, in an article entitled Zimbabwe's Poisoned Legacy: Secret War in Southern Africa. For years rumours have circulated about nefarious Rhodesian Special Forces experiments, including former CIO director Ken Flower's own admission that poisoned uniforms were planted for ZANU's use, leading to the deaths of hundreds of cadres. One case of likely biological warfare, reports Dr Meryl Nass of the University of Massachusetts in the same magazine, was an extraordinary outbreak of anthrax in 1978-80: It affected large areas, killed thousands of head of livestock, and produced the largest number of human anthrax cases in one disease outbreak ever reported in the world. It caused extensive economic hardship in areas with a predominantly black population, while leaving white areas unscathed. Mr Brickhill reviews a range of evidence of chemical and biological warfare conducted against ZANU and ZAPU guerrillas in the late 1970s by the CIO and Selous Scouts. He discusses the means by which the Rhodesians' Operation Favour manipulated Bishop Abel Muzorewa and Mr Ndabaningi Sithole to recruit 5 000 pro-government guerrillas notorious for their undisciplined and murderous behaviour. And he suggests how, subsequently, Operation Winter transferred the Rhodesian lessons and military assets directly to South Africa under the nose of British transition team and US authorities. Mr Brickhill maintains that had the major Western players been so inclined, much could have been done to halt the migration of trained killers and their wares down South: Field testing of chemical and biological weapons by the Rhodesians must have been of great interest to many other countries. With their extensive penetration of the Rhodesian military and intelligence services, the British intelligence service MI-6 could hardly have failed to learn the details of the poison war. Ken Flower himself confirms the close liaison he maintained with the CIA, MI-6 and other Western intelligence agencies. By the time the Lancaster House deal was negotiated, Mr Brickhill says, the future of the Rhodesian military was decided: The South Africans were to be the principal beneficiaries of the Rhodesian [covert military] assets; they, after all, had to carry on the fight [against the ANC]. The Rhodesian assets were happy enough to go to South Africa. The British and Americans, while not displeased with the arrangement, were concerned with potential political and diplomatic repercussions. Hence the stipulation that the transfer of the Rhodesian assets should appear to be informal and unorganised. Even Mozambican FRELIMO officials were drawn into the web of deception by the British, Mr Brickhill insists. They were told that if they agreed to help keep ZANU guerrillas under control and committed to the election process, the MNR would be disbanded. Mozambique's former Security Minister Sergio Vierra later told Mr Brickhill: We were naive. We were very naive. At the time independence was being celebrated in Zimbabwe, the Rhodesian Special Forces were already being assimilated into the SADF. The Recce Commandos welcomed the Selous Scouts and SAS, and the poisons technology was incorporated for future use. Mr Brickhill alleges that the shadowy Civil Co-operation Bureau of the SADF ─ acknowledged to be the centre of 1980s death squad activity ─ was originally set up to encourage Rhodesian dirty tricks operators, and many of the CCB operators were Rhodesians. The SADF also established the Directorate of Special Tasks with the Rhodesians, which organised the
Simple question
One of my students asked me yesterday what is the difference between a company and a corporation? To my discomfort, I didn't know the answer. I'd be very grateful if someone could offer a simple definition. Cheers, Mark At 12:39 02/07/02 -0700, you wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/02/opinion/02KRIS.html The NY Times had an interesting editorial blasting the FBI for not arresting the anthrax suspect, who the author seems to think is the guilty party. In the course of the story, the author asks: Have you examined whether Mr. Z has connections to the biggest anthrax outbreak among humans ever recorded, the one that sickened more than 10,000 black farmers in Zimbabwe in 1978-80? There is evidence that the anthrax was released by the white Rhodesian Army fighting against black guerrillas, and Mr. Z has claimed that he participated in the white army's much-feared Selous Scouts. I don't recall this incident, but it suggests a US connection. Any comments? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dr. Mark Laffey Department of Political Studies School of Oriental and African Studies University of London Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square London WC1H OXG 0171 898 4744 (w) 0117 969 8438 (h) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Good analysis of WCOM and Credit Bubble
At 11:19 PM 07/02/2002 +1000, you wrote: Sidgmore used his golden hour at the podium to complain about how much MCI WorldCom spends on marketing its network services. According to Sidgmore, an astonishing 49% of the telecom giant's service costs to customers can be traced to marketing. In contrast, 34% of cost stems from paying local-access charges, 6% for switching and transport equipment and 11% for operational support systems. In context and in (a warped version of fairness), a probable reason why marketing represented such a large proportion of WorldCom's expenses is that at the time this speech was made, local line charges represented a very small proportion of their expenses, due to having been inappropriately capitalised. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication [may contain confidential or privileged information and] is for the attention of the named recipient only. [It] should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. [(c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates.] Cazenove Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of the London Stock Exchange. Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management Limited and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial Services Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. ___
Re: Re: US-UK split now public
At 02/07/02 10:02 -0400, Proyect wrote: Burford: What is so significant about this split over immunity of allied occupation forces in Bosnia from potential prosecution by the new International Criminal Court, which the US refuses to recognise, is that this is a split in the position of bodies of armed men in relation to international law. There is nothing particularly new about this. The European powers tend to be less barbaric than the USA. During Reagan's war against Nicaragua, they endorsed the verdict of the World Court that the US broke international law when it mined the harbors of Managua. They also tended to be critical of the war in Vietnam. However, this has little to do with armed men in relation to international law. The USA and Europe play hard cop and soft cop respectively to the 3rd world. Take Nicaragua for example. While the USA organized killings and economic blockade to make the FSLN cry uncle, the Europeans were putting pressure on them to abandon their socialist perspectives. I agree with the broad description of hard cop and soft cop. These are two types of imperialist policies that relate to the different political and economic strengths of Europe and the USA. But Blair can no longer always bridge that contradiction. And I assert there is indeed something new in world history and even more important, about this. Global juridical forms are being created in front of our eyes. These are important components of a future world state in creation. The USA and Europe are in contention about which model is to prevail. The result will be determined by the resultant of forces. My prediction is that the European model will prevail over the next decade at the latest. It will do so by small consensual advances. The US-Bush first-strike model will magnify the effect of the USA's overwhelming military advantage but it will get bogged down in complaints about bombing weddings. Its imperialist rivals do not have to confront it directly in order to defeat it. They can gossip and outmanoeuvre. It is important we grasp what is new in this: in the course of this contradiction, indeed dialectically, a world state is being created. (in the interests of course, of imperialism) Chris Burford London
Brazil
Counterpunch, July 2, 2002 Brazil, the Workers' Party and the FT Casino Real: Brazil's Other Challenge Futebol's not the only place where Brazil's on top, though this time the players are international risk agencies and creditors by Norman Madarasz As North American tourists and media people fly into Rio de Janeiro, A Garota de Ipanema can't help ringing in their ears. The Tom Jobim classic, just as the bossa-nova (or new beat) samba jazz melange he crafted, sounds the eternal music of South Side Rio de Janeiro. Beaches stretch out, growing longer in succession, and interrupted only by whale-finned mounts sprouting sharply out of Paleolithic times. The more curious among the northern folk turn away from a horizon once streaked by the pirates and buccaneers covertly coveted by the British and French. In shifting sights, this tourist or that journalist first end up seeing a mountain range carpeted by Rio's infamous favella slums. Don't let the tarnished picture perfect tropical scene bother you. Many favellas are beautiful in their own right. If you were swept up by one of the hand gliders at fashionable, though polluted, Sao Conrad beach, rising up over the coastal range you would begin to surge above the extremities of the North-West Zone. Down below, conditions of squalor concord only remotely with the surfing seaside breeze. Hotter than the coast, pagode and (Brazilian) funk music pump through lusting sweetness only more deceptively to bring contrast to the violence of daily living. For the ears of whom the reality principle is noise, Villa-Lobosian dissonance would now be clashing with the smooth timber of Jobim's Wave. As stiffly as the wind repels courageous swimmers in Ipanema, Brazil's progressive movements are being turbulently rocked as the tide of presidential elections slowly surges higher. On the national and state levels, Brazil is now going to have a chance to truly and really embark upon a long-term endeavor to curtail the ebullient effusion of endemic poverty. Polls for October's presidential election show Lula, the head of the Workers' Party (Partida dos trabalhadores, or PT), as holding a strong lead over the government candidate Jose Serra from the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB). The most recent June 24 CNT/Sensus poll published in Brazil has Lula beating for the second month running any of his opponents in not just the first, but second round of elections -- prior to forming any alliances. full: http://www.counterpunch.org/ Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Simple question
Company is just a colloquial term for a business. Corporation is a legal term for a business owned by shareholders. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of my students asked me yesterday what is the difference between a company and a corporation? To my discomfort, I didn't know the answer. I'd be very grateful if someone could offer a simple definition. Cheers, Mark
Re: Brazil
It would have been worth pointing out that the PT has struck a deal with the PL (Partido Liberal), a conservative party which has its voter base largely amongst evangelicals. This has caused some friction within both parties. The Alagoas branch of the PT tried to vote against the alliance but the national office overrode them. The leader of the PL has been placed in the ticket as Lula's second in command. He is a textile magnate. The story I heard was that this was done to calm fears that Lula might actually do something brash, you know, like telling the IMF where to go or something like that. Thiago Oppermann On 3/7/2002 9:24 PM, Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Counterpunch, July 2, 2002 Brazil, the Workers' Party and the FT Casino Real: Brazil's Other Challenge Futebol's not the only place where Brazil's on top, though this time the players are international risk agencies and creditors by Norman Madarasz As North American tourists and media people fly into Rio de Janeiro, A Garota de Ipanema can't help ringing in their ears. The Tom Jobim classic, just as the bossa-nova (or new beat) samba jazz melange he crafted, sounds the eternal music of South Side Rio de Janeiro. Beaches stretch out, growing longer in succession, and interrupted only by whale-finned mounts sprouting sharply out of Paleolithic times. - This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au
How deep hte divide at this time? Between two bunches of crooks?
For the first time Tony Blair has publically split with Bush and voted with Europe. Europe seethes as defiant US goes its own way... White House threat to pull out of UN peacekeeping the latest in a series of quarrels shaking transatlantic alliance Richard Norton-Taylor, Ewen MacAskill, and Ian Black in Brussels Tuesday July 2, 2002 The Guardian America's European allies expressed deep regret yesterday over US threats to pull out of UN peacekeeping operations, the latest in a string of disputes shaking the transatlantic alliance.. The Bush administration said it would not budge in its opposition to the new international criminal court, which was created yesterday. Threatening to block a renewed mandate for the Bosnian peacekeeping force, it argues that the ICC could be a forum for politically motivated actions against its troops serving overseas... http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,747743,00.html A correspodnent to PEN-L lsit write: On Sunday the Telgraph featured a major story about UK government criticisms of Bush. One unattributed but no doubt senior spokesperson is quoted as saying words to the effect of you have got to remember that this is a rather unpleasant administration - the fact that we generally try to support it does not change that fact. There are also criticisms of blundering US military tactics. Although the Conservative Party has not signalled agreement, it has not rushed to the defence of Bush, and the article placed with th e Telegraph will have its effect on Conservative thinking. Prominent members of the Liberal party are dissociating themselves from the US strategy, and giving cover and support to the British government. Hugo Young, a significant figure close to the thinking of New Labour, has a contemptuous article about the Bush strategy also in today's Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,747744,00.html The tide of estrangement from Bush's US across the political arena in the UK cannot be over-estimated, and is beginning to counterbalance the caution shown towards Europe. What is so significant about this split over immunity of allied occupation forces in Bosnia from potential prosecution by the new International Criminal Court, which the US refuses to recognise, is that this is a split in the position of bodies of armed men in relation to international law. The Europeans will take over the armed forces in the Balkans entirely, while the Bush administration increasingly asserts the right to first stike options by its forces anywhere and at any time to defend itself and its values against terrorism. This is a significant moment at which Britain is falling in with Europe politically, juridically, and financially. The impending global econmic crisis no doubt concentrates everyones minds.
Re: Re: Simple question
Company is just a colloquial term for a business. Corporation is a legal term for a business owned by shareholders. The key thing about a corporation is that the liability of the shareholders is limited by the extent of the ownership. Normally you cannot reach the assets of the individual shareholder to pay off the corporation's liabilities. That is what Brit corps are called Ltd., limited liability corporations. jks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of my students asked me yesterday what is the difference between a company and a corporation? To my discomfort, I didn't know the answer. I'd be very grateful if someone could offer a simple definition. Cheers, Mark _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
: Lawyers as Vile Tools of Capitalist Oppreession
The Ripstein text is Equality, Responsibility and the Law. The text with Are Lawyers Liars is listed below. Ethics for Adversaries: The Morality of Roles in Public and Professional Life Arthur Isak Applbaum The adversary professions--law, business, and government, among others--typically claim a moral permission to violate persons in ways that, if not for the professional role, would be morally wrong. Lawyers advance bad ends and deceive . . . Applbaum concludes that these arguments are weaker than supposed and do not morally justify much of the violation that professionals and public officials inflict. Institutions and the roles they create ordinarily cannot mint moral permissions to do what otherwise would be morally prohibited. Jerry Cohen advanced sinilar arguments against role morality in an article abour 35 years ago. I think that Applebaum may be mistaken about what legal ethics allow you to do. A lawyer may not lie to his clients or the court or indeed to the other side. Nor do legal ethics offers any special dispensation to promote ends that a lawyer believes to be evil. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: Re: Re: Simple question
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27543] Re: Re: Simple question Company is just a colloquial term for a business. Corporation is a legal term for a business owned by shareholders. JKS: The key thing about a corporation is that the liability of the shareholders is limited by the extent of the ownership. Normally you cannot reach the assets of the individual shareholder to pay off the corporation's liabilities. That is what Brit corps are called Ltd., limited liability corporations. JD: whereas Arthur Anderson is (was?) a partnership, without limited liability protection? Nowadays, there are such things as LLPs, limited liability partnerships, though I don't think that AA was one of those. (please correct me if I'm wrong.) (Do the CPAs from AA now say it's been two months since I cooked the books in front of a group of similar types?) JD
Re: Simple Question
Arthur Andersen LLP was a limited liability partnership. Tom Walker 604 254 0470
Market fall and credit
Falling share prices will render it more difficult for corporations to raise funds. This means that the corporations that have depended more on the stock markets for funds may find themselves facing further difficulty. These same corporations because of their poor showing on the stock markets may find it harder to raise funds generally. Many of the corporations that have been more dependent on the stock markets --the so called high techies-- are the very ones that are most squeezed. They depend on their powerful performance on the stock market rather than the market place for fund raising.This will tend to put a squeeze on performance at all levels within the corporate sector. Clearly this will lead to further contraction on the capital accumulation further restricting economic growth. This weakness on the stock markets will lead to further centralisation and concentration of capital since the stronger individual capital will find it easier to raise funds both on the stock market and elsewhere. These stronger corporations will be also in a position to pick up cheaper stocks leading to further centralisation and concentration of capital. This outcome is a product of the devaluation of existing capital. This process forms part of the necessary process in the restoration of profit conditions. It is this that makes market decline so significant. It is not a mere question of the direct effects of the weakening of the market. It is their ramifications for credit in general and its impact on the accumulation of capital. Karl Carlile To visit Communism click following: http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Re: Critique of USSR value theory
Almost A Reply
Please send rest of article. What I have ended with
Next, the textbook indicates "two fundamental peculiarities" of the labor-process and from this introduces a specific character of the labor of wage-laborers. But this is false. The "two fundamental peculiarities" of the labor-process indicated in the textbook means nothing but "two characteristic phenomena"("Capital" 199p) in the labor process, turned into a process by which the capitalist consumes labor-power, which Marx point out at the end of the section 1" The Labor Process " of chapter 5 "The Labor-Process and the Process of Producing Surplus-Value", and that is before " changes in the method of production by the subordination of labor to capital ("Capital" 199p) is made clear, consequently Marx by no
Comrade Miyachi Tatsuo,
I have done one complete reading of the article your reprinted concerning my approach to the relationship between the individual - leaders, and classes; the question of democracy as a form of class rule; class policy as a program of a law system governing property relations; the character of the law system under Soviet Socialism; why the Soviet Power was overthrown after decades of stagnation in the economy and my failure to describe and proceed from the external mode of value.
I always welcome your presentations.
Before making several preliminary comments it is necessary to clarify usage of words and concepts. When speaking of the "opportunist" or "caricature of the bourgeoisie" or "the bourgeoisie within Marxism" what is meant would be translated in your mode of presentation the fetish of commodity production as it operated under public property relations in the Soviet industrial infrastructure. This is so because a property owing class - owning the material factors of production, did not exist within the industrial infrastructure. Rather what emerged within the Soviet experience was (what I believe you would call) the power of the fetish of commodity production, as a social force buttressed by a historically necessary bureaucracy.
This historically necessary - nay, unavoidable Soviet bureaucracy expressed its policy - called a class program in my writings, in the ideological sphere and in daily Soviet life appeared as a privilege strata based on access to means not ownership of the material factors of production.
Within our intelligencia this phenomenon is analyzed in its outer appearance - mode of existence, and attributed to the rule of one party without regard to class or the power of the fetish that attaches itself to commodity production as private property relations in agriculture drove it. The Soviet Bolsheviks called this "the power of small scale production that daily and hourly breeds capitalism." Further the Soviet communist - led by Stalin, asserted that this phenomenon represented the internal threat to socialism and the class rule of the workers. I concur in this assessment of Soviet conditions and this gives substance to the word "opportunist" as a material phenomenon.
The rough equivalent of this Soviet phenomenon within American society context to a large degree can be understood as a parallel called the upper strata of the labor aristocracy - whose existence is denied by a huge sector of Marxism, based on the material impact of the bribery of the Anglo-American proletariat.
Finally, the intensity of the battle Soviet power waged in the ideological sphere against all forms of capital created the conditions where the opportunist had to present their class program using concepts from the arsenal of Marx and language structures that made it appear as if they were consistent with Marx approach and Stalin's policy. In as much as I learnt my Marxism within this battle with the opportunist I cannot - refuse at this point in time, to abandon a historically evolved form of presentation.
I am not familiar with the book "Political Economy: A Textbook, 4th edition." Over the years I have become familiar with the reactionary internal logic of the "opportunist/ labor aristocracy" who ushered in the stagnation of the Soviet economy. The material you presented written by the opportunist - "Political Economy: A Textbook, 4th edition," is the opposite of what Stalin stated and presented in his Economic Problems of Socialism.
I possess no material where Stalin specifically writes about Capital. His standpoint and mission was the construction of Soviet Power as the basis for the transition to a society of associated producers. As such he writes about how commodity production in the Soviet Union was evolving and upon what basis.
Besides having the perspective of history on our side, your presentation presents certain theoretical problems for me, owing to the fact of language and word concepts. There is of course my admitted limitation in the external mode of value.
In most places in the Textbook as you quote it; the words "social labor" is in my opinion are confused with "social
Re: RE: Re: Re: Simple question
JD: whereas Arthur Anderson is (was?) a partnership, without limited liability protection? Nowadays, there are such things as LLPs, limited liability partnerships, though I don't think that AA was one of those. (please correct me if I'm wrong.) Ordinary partners are jointly and serverally liable for the debts of the P-ship. Andersen was a LLP, which is P-ship that is structured like a corporation. jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
I'm not dead yet
Title: I'm not dead yet (The above is a quote from the late Spike Milligan, from Monty Python the Holy Grail.) It's too soon to gloat America's financial scandals won't bury the US model. But they do give us a chance to rethink globalisation Jonathan Freedland Wednesday July 3, 2002 The Guardian It's like a scene from the latest first-class American TV import, Six Feet Under - a dark comedy set in a family-run undertaking business. Picture the coffin sealed and varnished, the final farewells uttered and the conveyer belt humming into motion, gliding the dear departed into the flames. Suddenly there is the sound of knocking and muffled cries. Omigod! the mourners collectively realise: the corpse is alive! The reaction to the wave of financial scandals from the US has felt a little like that. Enron, WorldCom and Xerox's fudging of the numbers - a billion here, a billion there, as President Bush so coolly put it - has had the left putting on its best black suit as it gets ready to bury American capitalism.[*] They've been bidding goodbye to a system they reckon is in grave crisis and terminal decline. Cause of death: the exposure of some of America's starriest corporate names as hollow shams. And, they predict, if the US economy is on the skids then surely the big bogeyman - globalisation - cannot be far behind. Today, WorldCom; tomorrow international capitalism itself will lie in ruins! Not so fast, as Hollywood might say. First, the American system is not ready for the embalming table just yet. Enron and its copycat debacles obviously represent a serious blow to the reputation of US business - but not a fatal one. This wave of scandals will trigger reform, not revolution. What comes next is not the unravelling of the whole game, but some long-overdue changes - few of which are likely to excite the May Day protest crowd. So the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, author of Globalization and its Discontents and an intellectual pin-up to many in the anti-globalisation movement, foresees not some fiery meltdown but increased sensitivity to conflicts of interest around the US boardroom table. He predicts a separation of the accountancy and consultancy functions of single firms along with a demand for greater transparency: necessary moves, to be sure - but hardly likely to make the hearts of Seattle and Genoa veterans skip a beat. Couldn't we set our sights a bit higher, and hope that the current spate of scandals might do for 21st-century US capitalism what the media's expos of collusion in the American oil industry did at the start of the 20th? Might we not see a shift as dramatic as the 1911 anti-trust court decision which broke up Standard Oil, and stood for decades as a bulwark against cartel capitalism? No, warn those who know the system inside out. Perhaps if there were 10 more WorldComs, then America might return to that progressive capitalist tradition which reached its zenith in FDR's New Deal. But short of an epidemic, radicals should brace themselves for changes which look a lot like tinkering. And if those hotly anticipating the death of US capitalism should hose themselves down, those looking forward to the defeat of globalisation ought to take an ice-cold bath. For one thing, the two are not the same. The Enron affair could have happened even if the American economy was entirely cut off from the rest of the world. Its origins lie in greed and the failings of US accountancy law rather than the contradictions of globalisation. In other words, this easy equation of America and global capitalism may be a tad too simplistic: they are hardly synonymous terms. The problem, says Philippe Legrain, a former top official at the WTO, is that globalisation has become a catch-all phrase for everything you don't like about modern life. That's why he has taken on what may seem a daunting task - writing the upcoming Open World, a take-no-prisoners, progressive's defence of globalisation. Legrain wants us to unbundle all our confused ideas about the g-word and decide what it is, and what it isn't. For him, that means a belief in free trade and in strong institutions to manage it - without endorsing every move every international company makes. So rather than seeing systemic flaws inherent in the very idea of global capitalism, we should approve of, say, Nike opening a factory in Vietnam: those Hanoi workers may get less than their counterparts in South Carolina, but they're earning way more than they used to in Vietnam. Foreign investment and know-how comes in; managers get trained; a developing country is no longer solely dependent on its own means to build itself up - now it has outside money to give it a leg up. And, by opening up its markets to foreigners, it gets direct benefits: cheaper Coca-Cola, for sure, but also cheaper wheat. It is, he says, a win-win. Think of that as good globalisation: the only problem here, say Legrain and friends, is that there is not enough of it. Richer
Re: I'm not dead yet
Devine, James wrote: [*] If Bush said, a billion here, a billion there, it's an homage by his script-writers to the late Senator Everett Dirksen (R-ILL), who said (paraphrasing) a billion here a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money concerning government budgets. He was also more interesting than the vast majority of pols these days. Yes. He was a reactionary SOB in many ways, but one couldn't help but like him in many ways. I vaguely remember some journalist suggesting that his ruling Passon (Pope, not the journalist) was the determination not to be bored. Carrol
Dirksen
late Senator Everett Dirksen (R-ILL), who said (paraphrasing) a billion here a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money concerning government budgets. He was also more interesting than the vast majority of pols these days. Yes. He was a reactionary SOB in many ways, but one couldn't help but like him in many ways. I vaguely remember some journalist suggesting that his ruling Passon (Pope, not the journalist) was the determination not to be bored. Carrol I see his bust every day here in the Dirksen Blg. . . . jks _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
RE: Re: I'm not dead yet
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27551] Re: I'm not dead yet said I: [*] If Bush said, a billion here, a billion there, it's an homage by his script-writers to the late Senator Everett Dirksen (R-ILL), who said (paraphrasing) a billion here a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money concerning government budgets. He was also more interesting than the vast majority of pols these days. Yes. He was a reactionary SOB in many ways, but one couldn't help but like him in many ways. I vaguely remember some journalist suggesting that his ruling Passon (Pope, not the journalist) was the determination not to be bored. Carrol anyone who dedicated so much energy to marigolds couldn't have been all bad. It's sort of like LBJ, who was a horrible person but seems to have had a good side (not when it came for foreign policy, of course: he seems to have genuinely cared about civil rights, in a paternalistic way). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Dirksen
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27552] Dirksen Max, is it true that a billion here a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money is carved in the marble arch at the main doorway of the Economic Policy Institute's edifice? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 9:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:27552] Dirksen late Senator Everett Dirksen (R-ILL), who said (paraphrasing) a billion here a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money concerning government budgets. He was also more interesting than the vast majority of pols these days. Yes. He was a reactionary SOB in many ways, but one couldn't help but like him in many ways. I vaguely remember some journalist suggesting that his ruling Passon (Pope, not the journalist) was the determination not to be bored. Carrol I see his bust every day here in the Dirksen Blg. . . . jks _ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Foster's boosts Vietnam brewing capacity
The Economic Times Tuesday, July 02, 2002 Foster's boosts Vietnam brewing capacity REUTERS MELBOURNE: Australian brewer Foster's Group said on Tuesday it that it had bought a brewery in central Vietnam as it targeted further expansion in the region. Foster's said it paid A$4.7 million for the brewery assets and brand licence of the Danang (Song Han) State Brewery, allowing it to double its Danang brewery capacity to 450,000 hectolitres or six million cases. Fosters also operates the Tien Giang Brewery outside Ho Chi Minh City and said its Vietnam market share was approaching 12 per cent nationally. Our aim is to be a major player in the Vietnam beer market as well as to use our Vietnam operations as a production source for regional exports, Fosters Brewing International managing director Rick Scully said in a statement. Shares in Foster's closed down one cent or 0.2 per cent at A$4.67 in a wider market down 0.5 per cent. Copyright © 2002 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
RE: RE: Dirksen
No, you have us mixed up with Levy. Our motto is: Tables 'R Us. mbs Max, is it true that a billion here a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money is carved in the marble arch at the main doorway of the Economic Policy Institute's edifice? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Marx and value: common ground?
Jim, I'm going to sidestep for now the part of our exchange dealing with Marx's putative association of a bourgeoise system of ethics and the hypothetical condition that commodities exchange at their respective values and focus on the part of our exchange dealing with Marx's justification for invoking the latter condition. Frankly, I don't see much distance between what you argue on this point and what I've been saying. Where I wrote But the fact remains that Marx *is* making a deductive argument here, and he advertises it as such. He isn't simply asserting that surplus value *can* be explained on the basis that commodities exchange at their values, as you suggest; he's insisting that the explanation *must* be made on this basis. This reading is nicely corroborated in the sentence just before the passage you cite from Chapter 5: The transformation of money into capital *has to be developed* on the basis of the immanent laws of the exchange of commodities, in such a way that the starting-point is the exchange of equivalents. [I, 268-9, emphasis added] The claim is reiterated in the final footnote of the chapter, where Marx says If prices actually differ from values, we *must* first reduce the former to the latter, i.e., disregard this situation as an accidental one in order to observe the phenomenon of the formation of capital on the basis of the exchange of commodities in its purity... [emphasis added] Now, clearly Marx isn't saying this assumption has to be made, must be imposed, to satisfy the demands of etiquette, or on ethical grounds, or because somebody will break your legs if you don't; Marx is saying that this conclusion is *logically* entailed by the argument he develops in the chapter. And as I pointed out, this argument is logically invalid. you respond I read the has to be made and the must as part of his argument that the force of abstraction is the equivalent in political economy of the microscopes and chemical reagents of the physical sciences and that the force of abstraction _must_ replace both of these (emphasis added). (I found a beaten-up old copy: this is on the second page of the Preface to the 1st German edition.) So Marx was saying that we must use his method, which involves assuming value = price, if we want to get beyond appearances. But isn't it true that the *justification* he gives specifically for incorporating the value = price assumption in the application of his method is the one he develops in Chapter 5, to which you refer below? If so, we can focus on that justification. If not, could you refer me to the passage in the preface to the first German addition where he asserts that this assumption is an integral component of his method, and explains why? Of course, since he did so, we don't have to apply his method exactly. But it helps to understand what he was doing. The must also follows because assuming unequal exchange didn't explain surplus-value's rise: one commodity seller's M' M corresponded to another's M' M. Since the assumption of price not equalling to value wasn't enough, there must be something else, as special commodity (labor-power) which has a use-value of producing surplus-value. Doesn't this say, in other words, that price-value disparities are not of themselves *sufficient* to account for surplus value's rise? Does this statement say anything at all, one way or the other, concerning whether price-value disparities might under any conditions be *necessary* for the existence of surplus value? I'm not asking if *you* understand them to be necessary or not, or whether Marx proves they're unnecessary in some subsequent chapter or some other work. I'm asking if Marx's argument in chapter 5, which you've just summarized, speaks at all to the question of the *necessity* of price-value disparities for the existence of surplus value, and if so, where? Gil
Thus sprach Marx: interpretation or characterization?
Where I wrote: Gil Skillman responded: I know he said this. And I pointed out that the argument on which he bases this claim is logically invalid. Andrew writes First, I object to the term pointed out. In your post, you (a) impute to me an argument I've never made, suggesting that you hadn't actually read what I wrote, (b) rebut that fictitious argument with a passage from Marx that I had just cited in support of my real argument,reinforcing that suggestion, and (c) categorically reassert Marx's conclusion while ignoring the substantive criticism I made concerning the logic supporting that conclusion, further reinforcing the suggestion. And now you object because I use the phrase pointed out? If our situations were reversed, whom would you have said had the greater cause for grievance? But all right, I'll accept this criticism and claim only that I argued... rather than pointed out... What you did was (a) *assert* logical invalidity and (b) offer an *interpretation* under which his argument seems to be logically invalid. So what is at fault? The text? Or your interpretation? Granting (a), I must disagree with (b). If we're using the English language in the same way (and I have no reason as yet to suspect that we aren't), and you're not raising an issue here concerning the English translation from the original German (and I presume that you're not, though please inform me otherwise), then I am offering more than simply an interpretation of what Marx argues, I'm offering a *characterization* of what he has argued, to wit: both in the body of chapter 5 and in the final footnote where he recapitulates the main part of the argument in summary form, Marx argues that surplus value must be explained on the basis that commodities exchange at their respective values, on the grounds that price-value disparities are not of themselves *sufficient* to account for the existence of surplus value. This is a characterization of what he *did* say in Chapter 5. I take it you do not deny that he makes this claim (perhaps among others). I also assert that nowhere in the chapter does Marx make an argument one way or the other as to whether price-value disparities are under any conditions *necessary* for the existence of surplus value. This is a characterization of what he *did not* say in Chapter 5. If you think that characterization is false, then you can demonstrate its falsity by pointing to a passage, in the English translation or the German original, in which Marx *does* make a representation with respect to necessity. In that case, it will not be just a matter of us having differing interpretations; it will be that I've made a false characterization. If, on the other hand, you can point to no such passage, then it cannot simply be the case that you have a different interpretation of what Marx wrote (again assuming that we're interpreting English--as opposed to Marx's argument--in the same way, and that the translation from German is adequate) , since in fact he *didn't* write anything on this point; it will be the case that you are putting forward a different argument than the one Marx in fact makes in Chapter 5. Which is fine; perhaps we can discuss your new argument, once we agree on what Marx did and did not write in the chapter. It seems to me, and to basically everyone who has thought about interpretive adequacy, that when a text seems not to make sense, the initial presumption (as Georgia Warnke puts it) must be that the critic has misunderstood it. You're assuming that which you cannot possibly know, i.e. that I didn't make just such an initial presumption when I first advanced this argument ten years or so ago. This strikes me as a presumption at least equal in audacity to that implicit in using the phrase pointed out rather than asserted. At any rate, I have given at length, in this forum and many others, my grounds for now rebutting this presumption. I doubt that those who have thought about issues of interpretative adequacy would deny that this initial assumption is indeed rebuttable by criticisms made in good faith, which is what I understand myself to be offering. The value theory debate would generate more light and less heat if Marx's critics would respect this point and practice a little humility. Instead of saying one has proved this error, pointed out that claim to be logically invalid, etc., one could simply say that one has not yet succeeding in reading the text in such a way that it makes sense. That would invite others to work together to try to read text in such a way that it does makes sense. Of course, one advances one's career by drawing attention to others' insufficiencies, not by drawing attention to one's own. But if one's goal is to further knowledge, not advance one's career, the less spectacular but more objective and modest way of putting things is preferable. If there's heat being generated here,
please modify your browsers
I am plowing thru a huge backlog of emails now that classes are over. There are many participants (e.g. Gil, Jim D., Nancy Bomback) to PEN-L who have their browsers set to send both text and HTML (this is in the options set up). As a result, Those of us who are stuck with older email servers end up getting massively long missives. Unless there is some pressing reason your need to send both text and html, please change your settings. An example of what gets sent is below. Thanks, Doug Orr -- From: IN%[EMAIL PROTECTED] 30-JUN-2002 20:06:54.92 To: IN%[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Subj: [PEN-L:27422] specifics from ANTHRO-L critics re: LTV Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from galaxy.csuchico.edu ([132.241.82.21]) by mail.ewu.edu (PMDF V6.1 #39404) with ESMTP id [EMAIL PROTECTED] for [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ORCPT [EMAIL PROTECTED]); Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:06:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by galaxy.csuchico.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id g61350b12725; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by galaxy.csuchico.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g6134fb12675 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:04:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id n.39.29592ab0 (16634) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:02:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:02:56 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:27422] specifics from ANTHRO-L critics re: LTV Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 6.0 for Windows US sub 10512 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Boundary_(ID_vjy6hJ8qsTjD1Ca/7nnmSg) X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.08 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN Original-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] --Boundary_(ID_vjy6hJ8qsTjD1Ca/7nnmSg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I wondered if the list would have any opinions on some specific arguments from the ANTHRO-L list re: the labor theory of value. All of the following have to do with the idea that value derives not from labor, but from supply and demand. 1. Supply and demand is the constraint [on the amount of value in the world at any given time, since it isn't labor]. It doesn't matter how much something cost, in labor, materials, etc. if there is no demand for the item. It's just supply and demand. I've seen two recent examples of this that illustrate that idea very well. The first is mud pies. If value is a function of labor then a mud pie will have some value based on that labor, but then a mud pie that took someone 5 times as long to create should have 5 times the value. We all know that's not the case because mud pies have no value (outside the world of art subsidized by grants). 2. The other is gold. If value was a function of labor a gold nugget that had to be dug out of a mine would be worth proportionately more than an identical nugget found on the ground. 3. A few years ago Coca Cola was looking at a smart vending machine where the price of a soft drink actually fluctuated on the basis of supply and demand. On hot days the price would rise as more people were thirsty, while on cold/low demand days it would drop below it's (sic) regular price, though the cost of producing the drink never changed. As before, I very much welcome your comments and perspectives. nancy brumback professor of integrated ecological studies new college of california 766 valencia st. san francisco, CA 94110 415-437-3405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Boundary_(ID_vjy6hJ8qsTjD1Ca/7nnmSg) Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT HTMLFONT FACE=arial,helveticaFONT SIZE=2I wondered if the list would have any opinions on some specific arguments from the ANTHRO-L list re: the labor theory of value. All of the following have to do with the idea that value derives not from labor, BR BR1. Supply and demand is the constraint [on the amount of value in the world at any given time, since it isn't labor]. It doesn't matter how much something cost, in labor, materials, etc. if there is no demand for the item. It's just supply and demand. BR BR2. The other is gold. nbsp;If value was a function of labor a gold nugget that had to be dug out of a mine would be worth proportionately more than an identical nugget found on the ground. BR BR3. A few years ago Coca Cola was looking at a smart vending machine where the price of a soft drink actually fluctuated on the basis of supply and demand. nbsp;On hot days the price would rise as more people were thirsty, while on cold/low demand day BR BRAs before, I very much welcome your comments and perspectives. BR BRnancy brumback BRprofessor of integrated ecological studies BRnew college
Re: please modify your browsers
Yikes! Sorry, Doug, this was a default setting. I'll see about changing it. Gil
Re: please modify your browsers
At 12:56 PM 7/3/2002 -0700, you wrote: I am plowing thru a huge backlog of emails now that classes are over. There are many participants (e.g. Gil, Jim D., Nancy Bomback) to PEN-L who have their browsers set to send both text and HTML (this is in the options set up). Marxmail only allows plain text for what that's worth. This also might be related to Jim D's problems.
more details on the econ set-to
Title: more details on the econ set-to The whole fight appears on video at www.worldbank.org. My informant says it's Long but greatly entertaining. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm told that Rogoff tries to bite Stiglitz's ear. Copyright 2002 The Financial Times Limited Financial Times (London) July 3, 2002, Wednesday London Edition 1 Top economists engage in bickering By ED CROOKS Kenneth Rogoff, the head of research at the International Monetary Fund, has made an extraordinarily outspoken and personal attack on Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel prize-winning former chief economist of the World Bank. At a lunchtime debate last Friday at the World Bank in Washington to launch Professor Stiglitz's new book, Mr Rogoff responded to Prof Stiglitz's opening words with criticism of his ideas, opinions and record at the bank, and suggested that the book should be withdrawn. The World Bank is putting a video recording of the debate on its website. The text of Mr Rogoff's remarks, obtained by the FT, sums up with the words: Joe, as an academic, you are a towering genius. Like your fellow Nobel prize winner John Nash, you have a 'beautiful mind'. As a policymaker, however, you were just a bit less impressive. Speaking in London yesterday, Prof Stiglitz said he had been quite dumbfounded by the attack. Ken Rogoff is normally a relatively mild-mannered person. This was nothing to do with what I said, nothing to do with the substantive issues. It was 90 per cent a personal diatribe. Mr Rogoff, who has spent most of his career in academia and is an international chess grand master, is personally charming, softly-spoken and generally courteous. But his views on Prof Stiglitz reflect many years of pent-up institutional resentment. Even before resigning from the bank late in 1999, Prof Stiglitz had become known as a critic of the IMF. His book, Globalization and its Discontents, depicts the fund as hidebound by a curious blend of ideology and bad economics, prescribing standard solutions to economic crises without considering the effects they would have on the people in the countries told to follow these policies. At Friday's debate, in front of an audience mostly made up of World Bank and IMF staff, Mr Rogoff hit back, paying tribute first to his colleagues at the IMF as superb professionals who, he said, had been shot at, worked in brutal conditions and contracted tropical diseases while doing their jobs. Their dedication humbles me but in your speeches, in your book, you feel free to carelessly slander them, he said. Mr Rogoff drew attention to a passage about Stanley Fischer, the former first deputy managing director of the fund who is now a vice-chairman at Citigroup. The book says: One could only ask, was Fischer being richly rewarded for having faithfully executed what he was told to do? Mr Rogoff said: Of all the false inferences and innuendos in the book, this is the most outrageous and suggested the book should be withdrawn until this slander is corrected. Prof Stiglitz said he was making a point about the perception of conflicts of interest, not making any accusations about Mr Fischer personally. Mr Rogoff also challenged Prof Stiglitz's policy prescriptions, which reject cutting budget deficits and raising rates as remedies for countries in crisis. We earthlings have found that when a country in fiscal distress tries to escape by printing more money, inflation rises, often uncontrollably, he said. The laws of economics may be different in your part of the gamma quadrant. One member of the audience on Friday described the mood as a bit flabbergasted by Mr Rogoff's tone. Although Prof Stiglitz's relations with the bank have not always been smooth - James Wolfensohn, its president, described him as a free spirit shortly before his departure - he is still well-regarded there, and is a member of a panel of independent advisers to Nicholas Stern, his successor as chief economist. The first question for Mr Rogoff came from a bank economist who expressed concern at the personal nature of his attack. Prof Stiglitz said yesterday: The IMF was, in front of the World Bank, confirming the view that they are not willing to engage in a substantive discussion. JD
RE: Re: please modify your browsers
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27561] Re: please modify your browsers yes, is there anyway to make the pen-l listserver filter everything so that it's plain text? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 1:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:27561] Re: please modify your browsers At 12:56 PM 7/3/2002 -0700, you wrote: I am plowing thru a huge backlog of emails now that classes are over. There are many participants (e.g. Gil, Jim D., Nancy Bomback) to PEN-L who have their browsers set to send both text and HTML (this is in the options set up). Marxmail only allows plain text for what that's worth. This also might be related to Jim D's problems.
Re: RE: Re: please modify your browsers
No. I don't think so. On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 01:47:05PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: yes, is there anyway to make the pen-l listserver filter everything so that it's plain text? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 1:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:27561] Re: please modify your browsers At 12:56 PM 7/3/2002 -0700, you wrote: I am plowing thru a huge backlog of emails now that classes are over. There are many participants (e.g. Gil, Jim D., Nancy Bomback) to PEN-L who have their browsers set to send both text and HTML (this is in the options set up). Marxmail only allows plain text for what that's worth. This also might be related to Jim D's problems. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more details on the econ set-to
more details on the econ set-to - Original Message - From: Devine, James Their dedication humbles me but in your speeches, in your book, you feel free to carelessly slander them, he said. Mr Rogoff drew attention to a passage about Stanley Fischer, the former first deputy managing director of the fund who is now a vice-chairman at Citigroup. === I wonder if Fischer's gotten to the bottom of how Citigroup launders all that Latin American coke money through Miami? Ian
Good article on the bubble
http://206.33.81.20/pub/view/2002/view0102.htm Stephen F. Diamond School of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: RE: Greenspan's cooked book
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27510] Re: Re: RE: Greenspan's cooked book Joanna writes: You know, I'm really tired of this low inflation crap. The inflation in housing, equities (till lately), health care, and education has been HUGE. I don't know why it doesn't count. at some point, economists decided on a conventional definition of inflation as referring only to increasing prices of newly-produced goods and services. Given that convention, inflation in housing prices only counts when it affects apartment rents (or imputed rent on owner-occupied housing) and other expenses of using housing, rather than the hike in the price of housing as an asset. (The economists impute by trying to figure out how much it _would_ cost a home-owner to rent his or her home.) Equities are simply paper promises, rather than goods and services, so that equity inflation isn't counted. Health care is definitely counted, while only the part of education that isn't paid for via taxes is counted as part of the cost of living. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Marx and value: common ground?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27557] Marx and value: common ground? Gil writes: I'm going to sidestep for now the part of our exchange dealing with Marx's putative association of a bourgeoise system of ethics and the hypothetical condition that commodities exchange at their respective values and focus on the part of our exchange dealing with Marx's justification for invoking the latter condition. Frankly, I don't see much distance between what you argue on this point and what I've been saying. okay. In his previous message Gil wrote:But the fact remains that Marx *is* making a deductive argument here, and he advertises it as such. He isn't simply asserting that surplus value *can* be explained on the basis that commodities exchange at their values, as you suggest; he's insisting that the explanation *must* be made on this basis. This reading is nicely corroborated in the sentence just before the passage you cite from Chapter 5: The transformation of money into capital *has to be developed* on the basis of the immanent laws of the exchange of commodities, in such a way that the starting-point is the exchange of equivalents. [I, 268-9, emphasis added] The claim is reiterated in the final footnote of the chapter, where Marx says If prices actually differ from values, we *must* first reduce the former to the latter, i.e., disregard this situation as an accidental one in order to observe the phenomenon of the formation of capital on the basis of the exchange of commodities in its purity... [emphasis added] Now, clearly Marx isn't saying this assumption has to be made, must be imposed, to satisfy the demands of etiquette, or on ethical grounds, or because somebody will break your legs if you don't; Marx is saying that this conclusion is *logically* entailed by the argument he develops in the chapter. And as I pointed out, this argument is logically invalid [and I disagree]. I responded: I read the has to be made and the must as part of his argument that the force of abstraction is the equivalent in political economy of the microscopes and chemical reagents of the physical sciences and that the force of abstraction _must_ replace both of these (emphasis added). ... So Marx was saying that we must use his method, which involves assuming value = price, if we want to get beyond [mere] appearances. Gil now responds: But isn't it true that the *justification* he gives specifically for incorporating the value = price assumption in the application of his method is the one he develops in Chapter 5, to which you refer below? If so, we can focus on that justification. If not, could you refer me to the passage in the preface to the first German addition where he asserts that this assumption is an integral component of his method, and explains why? I never said that Marx asserts that value=price is an integral component of his method. Rather, I was suggesting that his _usage_ of the word must in your quotes was likely the same as in the preface to the first German edition. You gave a list of alternative interpretations of the word must (and similar). I simply pointed to an alternative interpretation of that word that you'd left out. As you know very well, Marx doesn't point to the value = price assumption anywhere in the preface to the first German edition. Indeed, he doesn't explain his assumptions at all at the beginning of the book, since he's not someone who presents his thoughts in a deductive-logic way. If he had clearly presented exactly what he was doing, a lot of fruitless arguments would have been avoided. He doesn't even do what academics are trained to do these days, i.e., to start the book with a chapter-by-chapter summary of what's to come. Instead, he leaps into a very abstract -- but still empirically-oriented -- analysis of the commodity (an abstraction he sees as necessary to understand the complexity of capitalism). He also plays around with somewhat Hegelian language and a somewhat Hegelian mode of presentation, promoting the confusion of all readers. It's only in part 4 of chapter 1 of volume I of CAPITAL (the part about commodity fetishism, a major theme of all three volumes) that he gets into explaining the method of his madness clearly: he's trying to understand capitalism not as an aggregation of individuals but as a _society_, a totality of people working together and cooperating even when that cooperation is implicit or covert. His emphasis on people and their conscious activity -- rather than on markets, prices, scarcity, tastes, etc. -- militates in favor of looking at the labor they do. Assuming that price = value perfectly fits with this vision (just as the neoclassical assumption that choice by atomistic individuals is the place to start any analysis of society fits with _their_ pre-analytic vision that capitalism (to use Schumpeter's phrase) is just one big set of exchanges -- or one big game). In any event, if he explains the price = value assumption anywhere, it's at the end of
Vietnam's Dairy Farming
Far Eastern Economic Review Issue cover-dated June 27, 2002 DAIRY FARMING Beyond the Pail Upbeat on prospects for expanding its dairy industry, Vietnam shouldn't ignore the potential risks By Margot Cohen/HANOI A BEAUTY CONTEST is under way in Ho Chi Minh City, with participants hailing from Australia, Israel and the United States. They're all cows--literally--and entrepreneur Dang Ngoc Hoa is judging them on productivity and cost. Determined to acquire 1,600 dairy cows by mid-2003, Hoa is just one private player in Vietnam's plan for massive expansion of its dairy industry. Currently importing 90% of its milk products, Vietnam seeks to quadruple its dairy cattle over the next eight years to meet rising demand and boost rural incomes. But milk is risky business. A rapid dairy build-up threatens to turn sour unless farmers are provided sophisticated training in feeding, milking and hygiene. As neighbouring Thailand has already learned, most dairy cows have trouble adapting to tropical climes. The dairy initiative is also an important test of Vietnam's commitment to free trade. In its December bid to join the World Trade Organization, Vietnam proposed tariffs of 40%-50% on a range of milk products--a sharp increase from the current 15% rate. While the tariffs remain open to negotiation, foreign exporters worry that Vietnam intends to erect protectionist barriers. High levels of protection and subsidies would foster inefficiencies in the industry and drive up the cost of the product to the consumer, says Malcolm McGoun, New Zealand's ambassador to Vietnam. His country has a vested interest: Last year it exported more than $151 million-worth of milk, butter and cheese to Vietnam, 83% of its total exports to the country. Vietnam's total imports of milk products amount to $330 million annually. Still, consumer concerns are valid. Ironically, if milk became less affordable for Vietnamese families, that would undercut the government's interest in promoting child nutrition. Vietnamese now drink 14 times as much milk as they did a decade ago. But it remains beyond the reach of many poor rural households, and the per-capita consumption of 6.5 litres is still low compared to 34 litres in Malaysia, 27 litres in Thailand and up to 150 litres in some European countries. While the government promotes its dairy initiative as a sure path to increased rural prosperity, foreign consultants remain doubtful. Dairy production will not resolve the problems of low incomes for the vast majority of Vietnam's farming sector, says a new European Commission report. One reason: If a poor farmer managed to purchase one or two dairy cows, those animals wouldn't yield the same high-quality milk as herds of 5-20 cows, which would be milked mechanically in a more hygienic fashion. Although EC experts generally support the idea of increasing Vietnam's milk production, they also warn that official calculations are based on very high productivity levels that may be difficult to achieve and sustain at individual farmer levels. MILKING IT Just look at Thailand, which supplies 37% of its own milk. According to one local university report, the national milk yield remains dishearteningly stagnant, around 6.5 litres per cow per day, just a trickle compared to the 40 litres that gush daily from cows in Europe. Much of the trouble lies in the perpetual heat and humidity, low-quality feed and farmers' limited access to livestock experts, the report says. Large investments and careful planning could make ambitious schemes pay off. In southern Vietnam, the Dutch-Vietnamese joint venture, Dutch Lady Vietnam Food Beverage, is pumping $6.6 million into an initiative extending through 2006. The firm collects fresh milk daily from 1,100 farmers in four provinces, offers veterinary health training, distributes milking machines and organizes feed purchases. It has to be managed in a controlled way, step by step, says Jack Castelein, the company's general director. If not, farmers could be saddled with diseased or unproductive cows. Long-distance transport of delicate pregnant cows has already caused highly publicized distress in Vietnam, with recent arrivals from the U.S. and Australia marked by some fatalities, injuries, infections and miscarriages. Given such transport woes, why not turn to artificial insemination? Unfortunately, the only authorized place in Vietnam to purchase bull sperm is an ageing government centre that Cuba helped establish. Private companies don't want to buy from the centre because they think the quality is not good, explains one Vietnamese official. In this beauty contest, nothing can replace good breeding. Copyright ©2002 Review Publishing Company Limited, Hong Kong. All rights reserved.
Re: the federal debt - query
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Ellen Frank wrote: A while back there was a billboard in Times Square that tracked the US federal debt minute by minute. Does anyone happen to know when that was and who paid for it? This billboard is now posted on 14th Street, on the south side of Union Square Park. I don't know if it's still run by the same family. But the weirdest thing about it is that it kept going up even during the period under Clinton when the debt was being paid down. Facts are stupid things. Michael
