In a message dated Tue, 5 Mar 2002 5:33:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, Peter Dorman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right. I argued in Actually Existing Globalization (published in a collection a
few years ago) that industrial policy is ultimately understandable only as
technology policy, but that
G'day Peter,
You write:
Right. I argued in Actually Existing Globalization (published in a
collection a
few years ago) that industrial policy is ultimately understandable
only as
technology policy, but that the era of national technology (or
innovation) systems
is largely over. At the
G'day Jim,
I don't think S. Korea, Taiwan, or Japan made it as far as they did
based on
import substitution, which at least in Latin America meant a
nation-centric
effort at development. It's more accurate to say that they used
protection
in order to build up the basis for fighting and
I've not seen the paper (and I'd really like to ... ), but I'd argue the
US has exhibited many signs of an almost mercantilist corporatist policy
approach to optimising intial advantage in IT - pushing TRIPs into the
Uruguay Round, allowing anti-competitive mergers and such to ensure
Thanks to those who replied to my query, esp Peter.
Rob's message below is perhaps a symptom of a central point of Peter's article:
Under the new conditions of global technological convergence, governments have
lost their traditional
instruments for technology policy. The very characteristics
I don't think S. Korea, Taiwan, or Japan made it as far as they did
based on
import substitution, which at least in Latin America meant a
nation-centric
effort at development. It's more accurate to say that they used
protection
in order to build up the basis for fighting and (at
However I certainly believe that it does happen - judging by the rapidity
with
which successful technology firms in New Zealand have been bought out by
transnationals as soon as the success became apparent.
What's the basis of their success other than high tech hype? Could you give
one
Karl Marx said, In the valley of the blind with one eye you can be
king.
did he really say that?
JD
Devine, James wrote:
Karl Marx said, In the valley of the blind with one eye you can be
king.
did he really say that?
JD
I always thought it was either H.G. Wells or that prolific writer, Anon
-- or both.
Carrol
Kism as progressive yet contradictory
by Gil Skillman
05 March 2002 23:22 UTC
[Was: : [PEN-L:23525] Re: Re: Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
Another critical point touched on by Doug's comment concerns the connection
between contradiction and capitalist crisis (wow, what alliteration). It
is
Though I could be wrong, my understanding is that Roemer would have
accepted
Marx's story (of capitalist exploitation as based on structural coercion)
when he developed his own story, but saw the structural coercion as
unnecessary to the existence of exploitation.
That is exactly correct.
I received the following note:
Another opinion about who said it:
From: http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/these_you_have_sought_on_a.htm
In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. -- Desiderius
Erasmus (1465-1536), Adagia, 1508
This makes more sense to me than Marx, since it's a
my understanding is that Roemer would have
accepted
Marx's story (of capitalist exploitation as based on structural coercion)
when he developed his own story, but saw the structural coercion as
unnecessary to the existence of exploitation.
That is exactly correct.
jks
^
Charles: On
who said it:
Some may admit that the concentration of wealth is
indispensable, but may desire to distinguish between joint-stock
aggregations on the one side and individual fortunes on the
other. This distinction is a product of the current social
prejudice and is not valid. The predominance of
Justin writes:Roemer's point is logical, that on his notion of
exploitation, you can have
exploitation without corcion. I discuss this at length in my paper on the
subject; so dooes Jim in his and Dymski's now classic paper.
BTW, in terms of purely normative issues, in my 1996 article in Bill
[this is getting comical]
World Fumes at U.S. Steel Move, EU Hits Back
GENEVA/TOKYO (Reuters) - The European Union pledged on Wednesday
to hit back ``immediately'' at the United States through the
World Trade Organization (WTO) as steel producers went on a war
footing over hefty U.S.
I developed a similar argument to Jim's, not using the taxation analogy,
though, in In defense of exploitation, Econ Phil 1995. Frank Thompson also
hasa piece alomh these lines in Science and Society.
jks
Justin writes:Roemer's point is logical, that on his notion of
exploitation, you can
Yes, Marx said it in his monarchist phase.
Gene Coyle
Devine, James wrote:
Karl Marx said, In the valley of the blind with one eye you can be
king.
did he really say that?
JD
The Hindu
Wednesday, Mar 06, 2002
Vietnam to strengthen private sector
By Amit Baruah
SINGAPORE MARCH. 5. Communist Vietnam believes that encouraging strong
development of the private economy'' is a long-term strategic issue'' in
developing the country's socialist-oriented multi-sectoral''
I wouldn't have the foggiest idea who said it, but I'll risk a guess as
to _when_ it was said: between 1915 and 1925.
Carrol
The critique of the neoclassical argument is straightforward. We are not
saying people would be better off in the informal sector or on the land than in
a sweatshop. We are saying that there are other, repressed alternatives that
are better than any of these.
Hell, just unlocking the doors (so
Comical blending into tragedy. My colleague
tells me the specific measure will have the opposite
effect desired, from the steelworkers' standpoint.
mbs
[this is getting comical]
World Fumes at U.S. Steel Move, EU Hits Back
GENEVA/TOKYO (Reuters) - The European Union pledged on
in my fevered and phlegm infested state I sent the below to Jim
D. by mistake; answers below
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Veblen?
==
William Graham Sumner.
- Original Message -
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL
Responses:
Charles Jannuzi wrote:
Peter Dorman
Let me try another tack here. My understanding has been that Japan has
been historically locked into a pattern of development characterized by
high savings rates and high investment shares of GDP (the
exhilirationist model).
What do
I think the difference between Roemer and Marx concerning the role of (systemic
or class) coercion is more apparent than real, more a matter of choice of
language and emphasis rather than deep analytical differences.
According to Roemer's analysis, capitalist exploitation *requires*
[was: RE: [PEN-L:23548] Re: RE: Roemer and Veneziani]
A key introductory point: I am _not_ defending the specifics of Marx's
analysis per se (e.g., what he says in volume I, ch. 25, of CAPITAL).
Instead, I am defending his general method and theoretical framework, which
I see as applicable to
Marx vs. Roemer
by Justin Schwartz
06 March 2002 17:47 UTC
my understanding is that Roemer would have
accepted
Marx's story (of capitalist exploitation as based on structural coercion)
when he developed his own story, but saw the structural coercion as
unnecessary to the existence of
Pop quiz
by Ian Murray
06 March 2002 18:04 UTC
Thread Index
who said it:
Some may admit that the concentration of wealth is
indispensable, but may desire to distinguish between joint-stock
aggregations on the one side and individual fortunes on the
other. This distinction is a product
FWIW, I agree with Peter's assessment of Japan's situation, and add a comment
from my previous post on the short-lived Lessons from Japan thread, to the
effect that Japan faces international political constraints against significant
further devaluation of the yen, reinforcing the Keynesian
Gil writes:The interesting question, in light of Peter's assessment, is why
the Japanese
government can't use traditional Keynesian fiscal tools to pull itself out
of
the recession.
1) the IMF and the assembled economic pooh-bahs argue against it.
2) they've already done it a lot, building a
Ravi thought that this might save someone some grief.
Lots of people have emailed me about the email making the rounds which
states its from Microsoft Corporation Security Center and has a
subject line of Internet Security Update.
The email has an attachment which the message claims to be the 1
CB: If you mean that capitalist exploitation is characterized by a less
directly coercive method than feudalism or slavery, Marx already made that
point. Roemer does not improve on what Marx has already taught.
On this point I agree with you, as I explain in IDoE, which I believe you
Jim writes,
A key introductory point: I am _not_ defending the specifics of Marx's
analysis per se (e.g., what he says in volume I, ch. 25, of CAPITAL).
Instead, I am defending his general method and theoretical framework,
This is indeed a key point. The comment of mine that prompted this
The idea that the classical/Marxian assumption that workers don't save
(and capitalists live on air) implies that working people are
'impatient' or whatever suffers from quite a few problems:
1) the assumption is a macro assumption--it says that in the aggregate
workers don't save. This is
There are definitely elements of this. I think there is a perception in
Washington that US-based firms have a durable technological advantage in
both financial and nonfinancial services, and that any measure that
increases their scope and market access is good national economic policy.
This
We shouldn't underestimate the problem of shifting the structure of production.
This was the same problem (only on an even larger scale) faced by the east
Europeans, and it was accomplished through massive downsizing. But there are
two points to bear in mind:
1. The equity writeoffs accrued to
I wrote:A key introductory point: I am _not_ defending the specifics of
Marx's analysis per se (e.g., what he says in volume I, ch. 25, of CAPITAL).
Instead, I am defending his general method and theoretical framework...
Gil now writes:This is indeed a key point. The comment of mine that
FWIW, I agree with Peter's assessment of Japan's situation,
I guess I don't, not completely.
The interesting question, in light of Peter's assessment, is why the
Japanese government can't use traditional Keynesian fiscal tools to pull
itself out of the recession.
I'm sorry but it's getting
Re: Yen still overvalued
Gil writes:The interesting question, in light of Peter's assessment, is
why
the Japanese
government can't use traditional Keynesian fiscal tools to pull itself out
of
the recession.
1) the IMF and the assembled economic pooh-bahs argue against it.
Yes, Japan is
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Robert Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [stop-imf]
I think there is a perception in Washington that US-based firms have a
durable technological advantage in both financial and nonfinancial services,
and that any measure that increases their scope and market access is good
national economic policy.
to what extent do our fearless leaders care
Mat writes: What we are saying when we make that assumption is that
capitalist consumption does not fluctuate when profits go up or down by
relatively small amounts. Capitalists have various means of maintaining
consumption levels when profits fall.
yeah, I think that the forward-looking
Jim, I don't think that the life cycle theory works for the rich. They
save and then they continue to save in old age.
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 06:50:35PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
yeah, I think that the forward-looking theories of consumption (the
permanent income hypothesis, the life
Michael Perelman writes:Jim, I don't think that the life cycle theory works
for the rich. They save and then they continue to save in old age.
you're right; I was wrong. It's the framework of forward-looking consumption
choices and the like that apply to the rich. The permanent income
Devine, James wrote:
I think that rich people are taught how to behave: for example, they go to
Phillips Exeter or some other prep school to learn never to dip into
capital and to live off income instead.
When wealth crosses some line, it becomes impossible to consume the
whole of
I think there is a perception in Washington that US-based firms have a
durable technological advantage in both financial and nonfinancial
services,
and that any measure that increases their scope and market access is good
national economic policy.
to what extent do our fearless leaders
The internet might have been the darpa-net, but few people know what darpa
really is. It, along with In-Q-Tel, is a way the US gov't funds
'innovation'. Where innovators band, the vultures flock. So it's nice to see
things like Carlyle Group can bring the world of VC to darpa projects:
IMF Endorses Nigeria Decision
Wed Mar 6, 5:19 PM ET
By GILBERT DA COSTA, Associated Press Writer
ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) - The International Monetary Fund (news - web
sites) endorsed Wednesday Nigeria's decision to pull out of an
informal monitoring arrangement with the fund, citing the
troubled
This is up Ravi's alley.
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 01:54:47PM +0900, Charles Jannuzi wrote:
The internet might have been the darpa-net, but few people know what darpa
really is. It, along with In-Q-Tel, is a way the US gov't funds
'innovation'. Where innovators band, the vultures flock. So it's
Peter,
What are you suggesting here? What kind of restructuring are you
referring to? As someone who has spent the last 10 years studying
and publishing on the Slovenian transition process, I'm mystified at
what you are referring to.
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
Universityof Manitoba
2.
[NYTimes]
March 7, 2002
The Recovery That Defied the Forecasts of Economists
By DANIEL ALTMAN
The economy's quick recovery from recession, evinced by the
latest reports from the Commerce Department and the Federal
Reserve, has taken many experienced forecasters by surprise.
Their favorite
Comrade
There are many debate about market socialism, economic characater of
cuba,evaluation of Roemer,etc.
We(BUND a faction of new left)already defined current world as "
Transitional world which included to define existing "socialist,or communist
contry as transitional contry toward
52 matches
Mail list logo
