bye
have to unsub. good luck to all, r
Left overview of Argentina's economic history
A friend is looking for a good left overview of Argentina's economic history. Any suggestions? Michael
japanese new left movement
Dear Sabri, MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I explain shortly Japanese new left movement. In pre-war and post-war to 1962, Japan communist party ruled left movement. But its strategy was under Komintern order. In 1950', Komintern ordered armed struggle from rural area modeled after China's revolution. But in Japan, buffered area such as Colombia, Nikaragua, or Ziapas in Mexico, did not exist. So military section of party became scattered and surrendered. In 7th central committee, party was split into two groups , one insisted in peace revolution participating in congress and non-violent peace movement. and another remained to insist armed struggle, and escaped to china. So Remaining sect in Japan ruled party. But although, wild range anti-war(Korea war), anti-US movements emerged with mass violence, party leaders suppress, neglect, and oppose these movements, because leader insisted peace movement. So within party, especially university cells, dissident grew, finally tort from central committee and build new party called as communist league(BUND). This party led and intervened various social movements. In 1960, when security league between US-Japan is to plan modify to military league, BUND reject this league ,led mass movement and many members plunged into congress, and intercepted US president's coming. After violent oppression including Japanese communist party, BUND spilt into several sects, but in 1967, under Vietnam war, when several sects associated and tried to stop PM's action to participate in Vietnam war, armed struggle began again on the urban street, followed by occupying universities in whole country. This process continued 3 years long, and oppressed by total congress- oriented parties including socialist party, communist party, using police and self-defence military force. many members went into underground and continued armed struggle. But gradually there appeared difference of political and social strategies within underground group and scattered. On the other side, University occupying mass students went to ecology, worker's or consumer cooperative, rural communities rebuilding etc. So currently very wide range social movements continues including ex-underground member. And we now try to integrate and build vision of complete new communism. It does not depend on orthodox marxism, in thought, organization, and strategy. BUND adopted Lenin's strategy, but also this idea abandoned. in organization, we prefer network-type, such as Al-Qaeuda, but lenin's party was in reality network-type, although through Stalin, idea of Lenin's original thought lost and most of us believed in Lenin's type of party incorrectly. For example, in Lenin's party, regional committee did not exist, and end cell member could directly debate in central committee. In thought , we prefer association society as a stage to communism. So we respect ongoing social movements as element of social revolution with social soul. In contrary to orthodox marxists, we think we already exist within revolutionary society, and to takeover political power will come in the end. Below is Marx's idea on social revolution. Please beware Marx distinguished social revolution with social soul from social revolution with political soul. The more powerful a state and hence the more political a nation, the less inclined it is to explain the general principle governing social ills and to seek out their causes by looking at the principle of the state -- i.e., at the actual organization of society of which the state is the active, self-conscious and official expression. Political understanding is just political understanding because its thought does not transcend the limits of politics. The sharper and livelier it is, the more incapable is it of comprehending social problems. The classical period of political understanding is the French Revolution. Far from identifying the principle of the state as the source of social ills, the heroes of the French Revolution held social ills to be the source of political problems. Thus Robespierre regarded great wealth and great poverty as an obstacle to pure democracy. He therefore wished to establish a universal system of Spartan frugality. The principle of politics is the will. The more one-sided -- i.e., the more prefect -- political understanding is, the more completely it puts its faith in the omnipotence of the will the blinder it is towards the natural and spiritual limitations of the will, the more incapable it becomes of discovering the real source of the evils of society. No further arguments are needed to prove that when the Prussian claims that the political understanding is destined to uncover the roots of social want in Germany he is indulging in vain illusions. It was foolish to expect the King of Prussia to exhibit a power not possessed by the Convention and Napoleon combined; it
Satisfaction
46) poll on Medicare in Canada by Ken Hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asks: Subject: Does anyone know of a source for consumer satisfaction polls of the US health care system? According to this article satisfaction with the system is less than in Canada. PARTIAL REPLY: 1) The Medical reform Group of Ontario for the past 20 or so years, has been citing data on this matter drawn from surveys conducted in what we thought was a reasonable manner. (My slides are at work - I cannot cite the source right now - I will do that in next few days). However. Our sources confirm the viewpoint of the GM - although they are much older data now. 2) Of related interest: The press in Canada are often citing physicians as so upset with the system that they are lemming-like entering the USA in a mass immigration. Untrue - largely - except for (a) The very greedy few; (b) The few but very very very high fliers in academics. Related surveys have asked physicians their perceptions of their work satisfaction in the USA vs Canada: Unequivocally better in Canada; and much less HMO type of interference. Marx Engels' comments in Manifesto that the bourgeoisie was reducing all intellectuals to the ranks of workers - is true to large extent in the USA where physician autonomy is severely eroded - to the point where many docs are aware that they are NOT able to do their ethical best for the patient. Physicans in Canada are well aware of this, and by and large - have NOT gone South in part because of this. COMMENT: I suspect that in reality the fatigue of the Canadian people; in dealing with the nonsense of waiting lists etc will sooner or later have an impact. As a qualified conspiracist - I view the long term goal (last 100 years or so) of the USA has been to absorb Canada. But this strategic goal has been in the last 40 years impeded by the Canadian people's recognition that when they have a holiday in Florida they take their wallet and life into their hands if they end up in car accident needing hospital care. It will be necessary to shake the Canadian peoples faith in their health care system first. Recently Ontario sent about 10 preterm babies/mothers in preterm labour to the USA as there were: No beds in the Ontario tertiary care hospitals. I can vouch for how frustrating that is to the physicans looking for beds/the families who naturally do not want to be in Buffalo when their kith kin is in Toronto; to the nurses who are massively over-stretched etc How long this can be allowed to continue while the system creaks? - is an unanswerable question really! But, the NHS of the UK gives some clues that this could take a long long time: That is to say the allegiance to the NHS (by memory the Labour legacy of Nye Bevan to the people fo the UK recognising their privatison during the war etc) - was massive - it was hugely supported by the people; and yet DESPITE a massively under-funded system, by any objective analysis for decades. Until . Labour opened the door for private health care. The rest was KFC history - the manager of the health care US privatisation company that came in said: There is more money in the British healthcare system than there is in Kentucky Fried Chicken. Cheers, Ken Hanly
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Sut Jhally sounds like my kind of fellow alumnus. Unfortunately his lecture is on a Friday afternoon, one of my most congested. I'll see what I can do. I disagree with one claim in the article. Dallas Smythe wasn't the first to look at media as economic institutions. I wouldn't claim Walter Benjamin as first because absolute priority is difficult to establish. But he was certainly looking at the media as economic institutions long before Smythe. While were on the theme of advertising and the apocalypse, I've dusted off my sandwich boards and have begun flaneuring around again in earnest. The rationale and highlights will unfold serially on sandwichman.blogspot.com. Tom Walker
Reply To Melvin P
Dear Cmde Melvin: First, my sincere apologies you are right that I do indeed have shame on me. Not however for asking the questions for I do NOT think it is so obvious what the reality is. But shamed for having been too lazy to explicate myself properly, so that you would not either think that I was shameless or that I trying to label you. E-Formats have the tendency to be terse. Notwithstanding Rakeshs views on politesse, I think that when one objects to views in person one can always ameliorate the potential angst by many ways eg. a hand-shake or a twinkle in the eye etc. These are far less easy to convey in this medium. Therefore I was lazy in not explicating myself to avert a potential mis-understanding; also I confess that do not feel quite comfortable on this list being a non-economist. You are also right in that I have a considerable amount of grey on my head regrettably it is mainly on my beard since my top-knot has been shedding aggressively! However, my comrades and I do try to keep up with changes all is change being fundamental to a Marxist view of the world. Let me try to explain my viewpoint more clearly. 1) However I do not think I should have to explain myself any further, for asking a question - any further. After all Marx writes: If it is scientific task to resolve the outward visible movement into the inward and actual movement .. the conceptions will differ widely from the real laws.. He is talking here of the laws of production but I truncate the quote for convenience to utilise its thrust that it is in fact mandatory for Marxists of all stripes to ask questions. This is necessary in the question of the Labour Aristocracy. Since Engels first put his finger on the strategy of capital in bribing the highest echelons of labour lieutenants; and then Lenin took the analysis further there has been an interesting phenomenon. That is to say that there is a tendency amongst a certain section of the left to extrapolate Lenin and Engels to the entire working class. Indeed elements of the Maoist left deny there is an actual working class except that in the USA it be black and the most down-trodden. This why I used the term Maoists by the bye, I did not really accuse you of being one! However, it is indeed a relic from the Three Worlds Theory but this can be put aside for the time being. To return to the Labour Aristocracy. The problem is how can such a conception of the entire working class being bribed, aid us in the strategy of change? To my mind, there are relatively few studies on the ML-ist left (I am no economic academic as my pathetic forays will have by now made clear I am trying to glean some pearls here although the Eureka moments seem rather few to me thus far! But that is life I guess! So perhaps the analysis has in reality been made in some obscure dusty tome that I am blithely unaware of ?) that address the question. Here is one ML-ist study, that was written by W.B.Bland in the UK in the 60s, when indeed he was still a Maoist. It argues using official figures, that in the UK of that time, the amount of total bribe to the workers was very low; and that the number of actual aristocrats in the working class was also very low. See: http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CommunistLeague/ALLIANCE46_3WORLDS_WBB.htm There is naturally an evolution from the times of any of our previous great leaders (I hope no one here can deny that there were such - thus not object to the term? I myself do not genuflect to any - but due credit.). In the period of the last 50 odd years, there has become a huge problem in my view, with the sociological attempts to explain class. This has infected the left with in my view revisionist attempts to further narrow the class of workers by for instance, denying that intellectual workers are workers. [This is attempted to be dealt with in more detail at this web-address. http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/All24-CLASS97.htm ] Conclusion to this part of my reply: Deciding who are the class forces that will bring the revolution is a critical part of the strategy and tactics of moving from our current situation to the phase of re-invigorating the working class movement and creating the subjective force required for change. I cannot therefore apologise for asking the questions of: How big is the labour aristocracy, and of whom it is composed; of what does that mean in terms of strategy for revolution in the so-called developed world?. 2) You say that virtually all of us with a little gray in our heads developed a conception of Marxism based on boundaries within capital that no longer exist. I think as a vestigial die-hard, that the fundamentals have NOT changed, that all economic avenues for capital are ultimately doomed. Because capital is failing has had some leeway from the benefits of Keynsian rescue therapies but this is ultimately sterile for capital. I do not think in any way
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Eugene Coyle quoted: Designer Kenneth Cole's latest glossy multipage spread in magazines and on billboards offers pithy advice on how to live from Sept. 12 on: Buy some shoes, Jhally says wryly. Really, after a while, it became obvious that nothing had really changed. You knew advertising was back when sex and triviality made a return. Gadzooks! Sex!! Triviality!!! Band together and protect the youth from these threats Remind me what's progressive about this? It sounds like Donald Wildmon. Doug
Re: Reply To Melvin P
Comment: 1) Perhaps I am not clear about whether you are really serious about this or not, but the implications of this are that anyone who is unemployed and or a part of the lumpen elements - is objectively more revolutionary than a person in a job in a car-plant; 2) This is an extrapolation of the infamous (as I would see it) Three Worlds theory of Mao (/or Deng- irrelevant in this context) - - from an international perspective to the question of revolution in a developed type country; 3) This type of theory - to my mind makes it virtually impossible to recruit the working class into a vision of their own destiny. 4) Again - I should like to ask - if there is any objective data to show that the Labour Aristocracy (Which is what you are really referring to) has actually gotten bigger - or was Lenin right when he said it was in fact shrinking in the West? Thanks, Hari Conclusion Perhaps I should not use the words labor aristocracy in describing polarization in America and other imperial countries. In America it is considered improper to talk about money, which on the ideological plane denies the totality of the working class from grasping its destitution. Workers in the imperial country or rather America, who happens to be more stable in employment and make sizable income, become agitated when one speaks of the material conditions of the former colonized world, the super-profits carved out of their backs or the lowest strata of the working class in their own country. This question of polarization of the working class in America is the key to grasping the offense of capital. Ones personal income does not necessarily determine the content of ones character or politics. However, as class phenomenon income level and material conditions of standards of living and rates of consumption are very important. Poverty is growing in America in a manner not experienced since the 1920s and 30s. Poverty is growing among the employed and is spreading to the more educated families once thought to be immune. These families have a household head with more than a high school degree. Between DaimlerChrysler and the Ford Motor Company approximately 8000 white-collar workers have been permanently laid off in the Detroit area during the past 12 months. One can live high on the hog for years at a time only to be slammed into a lower segment of the working class for years, where making ends meet is difficult. There is a profound difference between wages of $60,000 - with medical benefits, school tuition refund, on-line access for $3 a month (through AOL), high unemployment pay and access to credit, and wages of $28,000 a year with virtually no medical benefits and other negotiated items by the unions. This profound difference becomes extraordinary when compared with the Argentina workers - organized and unorganized. New words have entered the lexicon of American society in the last decade to describe the lowest sector of the working class. The lower sector of the working class is connected to a new sector of part time and temporary workers known as throw away workers. This sector now comprises about 30 million or one-third of the workforce, the number having tripled in ten years. The process that is causing this growth of throw-away workers is the meaning of polarization of wealth and poverty. These throw-away workers are paid 70% of what people doing comparable permanent jobs earn. Not only do they not have benefits, they have no set work schedule. Their jobs include high tech software designers, office workers, janitors, taxicab drivers, adjunct college professors, home healthcare, food processing, substitute teachers, all the workers recently fired in Las Vegas in the service industry, etc. It is said that the US food industry would collapse without them. In rural factory towns, living conditions are deplorable and diseases of poverty like TB are spreading. In Iowa, workers from Laos live in railroad shacks that resemble scavenger's hut in Seoul, Korea. Beneath these workers are the destitute. They are homeless and live by picking up cans, sleeping in shelters or doorways, standing in the cold, competing for day labor made possible by the explosion of wealth and construction boom in the cities - a process that has slowed sine the market began crashing in March 2000. Day laborers are paid cash and often stiffed, and are harassed by the police or jailed for standing on street corners waiting for work. Their jobs range from painting, welding, gardening or hammering, cleaning homes and small businesses. Please go to the Coalition against Homelessness or any other hundreds of sites dealing with this issue and propagandizing against police harassment of these workers. Alongside these workers in the US and the world a new kind of slavery is developing. These slaves are different than in the past since the owners have no incentive to maintain them, once their
Suppression of Marx
This is a reply to Charles Brown's pen-l 22901. (I hope to respond to Tom Walker's question in pen-l 22893 soon.) Charles asked me Is it your position that the 'transformation problem' is a bit of a misnomer, because Marx's point was that prices deviating unsystematically from value is what capitalism must do because of exploitation ? So, that from the Marxist standpoint the failure to find a mathematical functional relationship between value and price is a confirmation of Marx, not a 'problem' for Marx's theory ? The law of value is like a 'state' law. It is the violation of it by prices that results in crisis as a 'punishment' for being out of line with value proportions, the law. I agree with a lot of what you say, Charles. But, no, this isn't really my position. My position is that (a) the transformation problem is a NON-EXISTENT problem, because (b) the allegation of internal inconsistency in Marx's account of the transformation (of commodity values into prices of production) has never been proven, and (c) indeed the alleged proof of internal inconsistency has been disproved. I'll substantiate this below. But first, let me continue with your question. Certainly, *one* point of Marx's was that prices deviating unsystematically from value is what capitalism must do -- because of exploitation, and because of other things. One of these other things is that, owing to competition, businesses that exploit a lot of workers do not tend to rake in a higher profit per dollar invested than businesses that exploit few workers. Marx's account of the transformation in Ch. 9 of Vol. III of _Capital_ deals specifically and only with this latter issue. Thus, I fully agree with your statement that, according to Marx's theory, the violation of [the law of value] by prices ... results in crisis as a 'punishment' for being out of line with value proportions I also think this is a very important issue. However, this issue is not dealt with in Marx's account of the transformation in Ch. 9. Ch. 9 doesn't deal with the relationship of prices to values *in general*, but only with the relationship of *prices of production* to values. (Prices of production are hypothetical prices that would result in equal profit rates.) You suggest that there's been a failure to find a mathematical functional relationship between value and price. I agree that a function relating values to prices *in general* is an impossibility -- prices can differ from values in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons. But, again, Ch. 9 deals only with the relationship of values to prices of production, and it isn't the case that no functional relationship between values and prices of production has been found. In Ch. 9, Marx himself presented a precise functional relationship between them. He didn't regard deviations of prices of production from values as any confirmation of the law of value. Indeed he recognized that the deviations *appear* to violate the law. What he regarded as a confirming the law of value was precisely the functional relationship between prices of production and values that he presented in Ch. 9. Their functional relationship is such that, *notwithstanding* the fact that prices of production deviate from values in any particular industry, there is no deviation at the economy-wide level. Total price equals total value; total profit equals total surplus-value; and the level of the general (economy-wide) rate of profit is not affected by the fact that commodities exchange at prices which differ from values. Thus, it remains the case that, as he had said earlier in _Capital_, the level of the general rate of profit is determined in production, before exchange and independently of exchange. It depends only on the amount of surplus-value that capital has succeeded in pumping out of the workers, as well as the amount of capital-value invested in production. These equalities between price and value magnitudes, not any deviations between prices of production and values, are what Marx regarded as confirming the law of value -- in the context of Ch. 9. (I agree that, in a different context, the punishment of backward producers for producing at higher-than-average value is another confirmation of the law of value.) Now the problem, of course, is that Marx's precise mathematical relationship between prices of production and values was declared invalid, owing to an alleged internal inconsistency. His account of the transformation was thus deemed in need of correction, and the corrected procedures all imply, in one way or another, that the law of value does NOT hold true in reality; Marx's equalities cannot all be true, if one accepts the corrections. Now keep in mind that the *only* rationale for correcting Marx -- the only rationale for claiming that there's a transformation problem -- is the allegation that his own account of the transformation is *internally inconsistent*. To substantiate this
Dark Clouds on the Horizon?
Below is the complete text of the latest from Doug Noland of Prudent Bear. It is getting rave reviews in the PruBear chat room so I thought I would post it. It focuses as always on the complex dimensions of the Credit Bubble, or fictitious capital as it could be called. But now in particular on the mortgage bubble and the post-Enron era. In particular he responds to the Wall St. Journal's recent editorial on the GSE's (analogizing them to Enron) - I take some credit for this since several days in advance of this article I wrote to Noland and asked him if he could explain why the WSJ would risk knocking over the house of cards. This is a long read, but here is the conclusion, to whet your appetite: We don't even like to contemplate the ramifications for when the sorry truth is exposed. In truth, buried in a sea of complexity and obfuscation is a rather simple bottom line: there is an egregious and growing amount of systemic risk domiciled in a limited number of fragile hands. And while risk is expanding exponentially, the number of hands happy to carry it is in marked decline. No one ever thought it would be like this. The Clan of Seven February 22, 2002 From today's Wall Street Journal: The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is examining J.P. Morgan Chase's accounting for commodity-related trades with Enron Corp., according to internal central-bank documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The trades being reviewed by the Federal Reserve appear to relate to an offshore entity set up by the old Chase Manhattan Bank a decade ago through which it came to do substantial business with the once-mighty energy company. The big volume of trades between the offshore operation, called Mahonia Ltd., and Enron surfaced weeks ago in litigation connected with Enron's bankruptcy-court filing, raising questions as to whether Mahonia was a vehicle for loans disguised as trades that helped Enron draw a misleading financial picture for investors. Today from Bloomberg - J.P. Morgan Chase Co., the second-largest U.S. bank, has suddenly become a growing risk for bond investors. The cost of insuring J.P. Morgan Chase's $43 billion of notes and bonds against default more than doubled in the past month.The price for default protection rose to $80,000 for $10 million of J.P. Morgan Chase debt from $35,000 on Jan. 28, according to Morgan Stanley. At that price, the highest since the bank was formed in a January 2001 merger, investors are paying about twice as much as for comparable insurance on the bonds of Citigroup Inc., the world's largest financial-services company, and Bank One Corp., the sixth-largest U.S. bank. Also from today's Wall Street Journal: Two hedge funds run by prominent money manager Kenneth Lipper were forced to slash the value of their portfolios by about $315 million, following heavy losses in the convertible-bond market. The losses, representing a decline of as much as 40% in one of the funds since the end of November, sparked selling in both the stock and bond markets Thursday as investors worried that Mr. Lipper would be forced to dump investments to raise money.The firm said it was forced to slash the value of its holdings after concluding that the value of its securities had tumbled and wouldn't recover anytime soon. That problem was made worse by the fact that the firm focused on riskier and relatively illiquid securities that were difficult to price accurately... The money supply numbers continue to be rather interesting. For the week, M3 declined $3 billion, while M2 increased $10 billion to a new record. Total (non-large time deposits) savings deposits, a component of M2, jumped $21.5 billion, and are now up $464.6 billion - 24% - over the past 12 months. Institutional money market fund assets, having surged almost $200 billion over 14 weeks (post-WTC), have now declined about $44 billion over two months. This largely explains the recent stagnation of broad money supply growth, but it is a bit of a stretch at this point to read too into this development. During frenetic refinancing booms, like we witnessed during the fourth quarter, there is massive Credit creation with the GSEs and leveraged players expanding holdings of new mortgages and securities. These purchases create enormous amounts of liquidity for the sellers. These funds are then deposited, often to institutional money market accounts. Homeowners that have refinanced or taken out home equity loans also have additional liquidity that makes its way into banking or money market deposits. But once the refi boom dissipates some of these funds then are drawn back into the securities markets as companies rush to issue longer-term debt. Fixation on money supply at the expense of general Credit and liquidity conditions is analytically disadvantageous. Bloomberg keeps a running tally of bond market issuance. Since some of the debt issued is used to repay higher yielding debt, this data cannot be
Re: Reply To Melvin P
In a message dated Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:37:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, Hari Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Cmde Melvin: First, my sincere apologies #8211; you are right that I do indeed have shame on me. Not however for asking the questions #8211; for I do NOT think it is so obvious what the reality is. But shamed for having been too lazy to explicate myself properly, so that you would not either think that I was shameless or that I trying to label you. E-Formats have the tendency to be terse. Notwithstanding Rakesh#8217;s views on #8216;politesse#8217;, I think that when one objects to views in person #8211; one can always ameliorate the potential angst by many ways eg. a hand-shake or a twinkle in the eye etc. These are far less easy to convey in this medium. Therefore I was lazy in not explicating myself to avert a potential mis-understanding; also I confess that do not feel quite comfortable on this list being a non-economist. You are also right in that I have a considerable amount of grey on my head #8211; regrettably it is mainly on my beard since my top-knot has been shedding aggressively! However, my comrades and I do try to keep up with changes #8211; #8220;all is change#8221; being fundamental to a Marxist view of the world. Let me try to explain my viewpoint more clearly. 1) However I do not think I should have to explain myself any further, for asking a question - any further. After all Marx writes: #8220;If it is scientific task to resolve the outward visible movement into the inward and actual movement#8230;.. the conceptions#8230;#8230; will differ widely from the real laws..#8221; He is talking here of #8220;the laws of production#8221; #8211; but I truncate the quote for convenience to utilise its thrust that it is in fact #8220;mandatory#8221; for Marxists of all stripes #8211; to ask questions. This is necessary in the question of the Labour Aristocracy. Since Engels first put his finger on the strategy of capital in bribing the highest echelons of labour lieutenants; and then Lenin took the analysis further #8211; there has been an interesting phenomenon. That is to say that there is a tendency amongst a certain section of the left to extrapolate Lenin and Engels to the entire #8216;working class#8217;. Indeed elements of the Maoist left deny there is an actual working class #8211; except that in the USA it be black and the most down-trodden. This why I used the term Maoists #8211; by the bye, I did not really accuse you of being one! However, it is indeed a relic from the Three Worlds Theory #8211; but this can be put aside for the time being. To return to the Labour Aristocracy. The problem is how can such a conception of the entire working class being bribed, aid us in the strategy of change? To my mind, there are relatively few studies on the ML-ist left (I am no economic academic #8211; as my pathetic forays will have by now made clear #8211; I am trying to glean some pearls here #8211; although the Eureka moments seem rather few to me thus far! But that is life I guess! So perhaps the analysis has in reality been made in some obscure dusty tome that I am blithely unaware of#8230;#8230;?) that address the question. Here is one ML-ist study, that was written by W.B.Bland in the UK in the 60#8217;s, when indeed he was still a Maoist. It argues using official figures, that in the UK of that time, the amount of total #8220;bribe#8221; to the workers was very low; and that the number of actual aristocrats in the working class was also very low. See: http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CommunistLeague/ALLIANCE46_3WORLDS_WBB.htm There is naturally an evolution from the times of any of our previous great leaders (I hope no one here can deny that there were such - thus not object to the term? I myself do not genuflect to any - but due credit.). In the period of the last 50 odd years, there has become a huge problem in my view, with the #8216;sociological#8217; attempts to explain class. This has infected the left with #8211; in my view #8211; revisionist attempts to further narrow the class of workers by for instance, denying that #8216;intellectual workers#8217; are workers. [This is attempted to be dealt with in more detail at this web-address. http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/All24-CLASS97.htm ] Conclusion to this part of my reply: Deciding who are the class forces that will bring the revolution is a critical part of the strategy and tactics of moving from our current situation to the phase of re-invigorating the working class movement and creating the subjective force required for change. I cannot therefore apologise for asking the questions of: How big is the labour aristocracy, and of whom it is composed; of what does that mean in terms of strategy for revolution in the so-called developed world?. 2) You say that #8220;virtually all of us with a little
Re: Suppression of Marx
In a message dated Sun, 24 Feb 2002 3:44:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, Drewk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a reply to Charles Brown's pen-l 22901. (I hope to respond to Tom Walker's question in pen-l 22893 soon.) Charles asked me Is it your position that the 'transformation problem' is a bit of a misnomer, because Marx's point was that prices deviating unsystematically from value is what capitalism must do because of exploitation ? So, that from the Marxist standpoint the failure to find a mathematical functional relationship between value and price is a confirmation of Marx, not a 'problem' for Marx's theory ? The law of value is like a 'state' law. It is the violation of it by prices that results in crisis as a 'punishment' for being out of line with value proportions, the law. I agree with a lot of what you say, Charles. But, no, this isn't really my position. My position is that (a) the transformation problem is a NON-EXISTENT problem, because (b) the allegation of internal inconsistency in Marx's account of the transformation (of commodity values into prices of production) has never been proven, and (c) indeed the alleged proof of internal inconsistency has been disproved. I'll substantiate this below. But first, let me continue with your question. Certainly, *one* point of Marx's was that prices deviating unsystematically from value is what capitalism must do -- because of exploitation, and because of other things. One of these other things is that, owing to competition, businesses that exploit a lot of workers do not tend to rake in a higher profit per dollar invested than businesses that exploit few workers. Marx's account of the transformation in Ch. 9 of Vol. III of _Capital_ deals specifically and only with this latter issue. Thus, I fully agree with your statement that, according to Marx's theory, the violation of [the law of value] by prices ... results in crisis as a 'punishment' for being out of line with value proportions I also think this is a very important issue. However, this issue is not dealt with in Marx's account of the transformation in Ch. 9. Ch. 9 doesn't deal with the relationship of prices to values *in general*, but only with the relationship of *prices of production* to values. (Prices of production are hypothetical prices that would result in equal profit rates.) You suggest that there's been a failure to find a mathematical functional relationship between value and price. I agree that a function relating values to prices *in general* is an impossibility -- prices can differ from values in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons. But, again, Ch. 9 deals only with the relationship of values to prices of production, and it isn't the case that no functional relationship between values and prices of production has been found. In Ch. 9, Marx himself presented a precise functional relationship between them. He didn't regard deviations of prices of production from values as any confirmation of the law of value. Indeed he recognized that the deviations *appear* to violate the law. What he regarded as a confirming the law of value was precisely the functional relationship between prices of production and values that he presented in Ch. 9. Their functional relationship is such that, *notwithstanding* the fact that prices of production deviate from values in any particular industry, there is no deviation at the economy-wide level. Total price equals total value; total profit equals total surplus-value; and the level of the general (economy-wide) rate of profit is not affected by the fact that commodities exchange at prices which differ from values. Thus, it remains the case that, as he had said earlier in _Capital_, the level of the general rate of profit is determined in production, before exchange and independently of exchange. It depends only on the amount of surplus-value that capital has succeeded in pumping out of the workers, as well as the amount of capital-value invested in production. These equalities between price and value magnitudes, not any deviations between prices of production and values, are what Marx regarded as confirming the law of value -- in the context of Ch. 9. (I agree that, in a different context, the punishment of backward producers for producing at higher-than-average value is another confirmation of the law of value.) Now the problem, of course, is that Marx's precise mathematical relationship between prices of production and values was declared invalid, owing to an alleged internal inconsistency. His account of the transformation was thus deemed in need of correction, and the corrected procedures all imply, in one way or another, that the law of value does NOT hold true in reality; Marx's equalities cannot all be true, if one accepts the corrections. Now keep in mind that the *only* rationale for
Macro, micro, and Marx's method
[Was: Transformation Tsurris]
Jim raises a number of interesting issues that go well beyond the simple
point I suggested re Marx's V. III transformation of commodity values into
prices of production. I react to some of these points below. Those not
interested in metatheoretical/pedagogical issues respecting Marx's analysis
in Capital should hit the delete key now.
1. Macro vs. Micro in Marx
Jim writes
Unlike modern orthodox economics which starts with so-called
microfoundations and tries to explain all macro phenomena, Marx started
(in volume I) with macro issues, the conflict in production between
abstract capital and abstract labor (since he abstracts from the use-value
of all commodities except labor-power) on the level of capitalist society as
a whole. That is, he uses his law of value to break through the confusions
implied by commodity production, i.e., the fetishism of commodities, to
focus on what he thought was most important, the societal capital/labor
relationship _in general_.
Of course, Marx wrote before a clear line of demarcation between macro-
and micro-economics was established in mainstream analysis, so it's no
surprise that Marx didn't pay much respect to a theoretical boundary line
that didn't as yet exist. And for a reason detailed below, drawing a strict
micro/macro partition is necessarily harder to do in Marxland than
Mainstreamland.
Applying standard definitions retroactively, though, one can see where and
how Marx crosses the line in _Capital_. By these definitions, Marx's
starting point in V. I. is apparently micro in nature, in the specific
sense that no reference to any economic aggregate is made in initiating his
argument. He starts by describing capitalist wealth as a collection {a
collection, note, not an aggregate; he's introduced no basis for
aggregating heterogeneous commodities as yet}. He then introduces a
qualitative distinction between the use value and exchange value of
individual commodities, and a claim about the quantitative relation (i.e.,
equality) among exchanged bundles of commodities. Both of these are
essentially micro claims; again, no reference to any economy-wide
*aggregate* is required to make them.
A truly macro relation (again, by standard distinctions) doesn't emerge
until Marx's statement of the macro money identity (MV=PT) in Chapter 3.
But Marx doesn't make immediate use of this identity, and macro
considerations, again subject to the caveat below, don't arise again until
Part 7 of V. I.
What's the caveat? Consistent with Jim's comments above and below, the
conventional (from a mainstream standpoint) boundary between micro and
macro is obscured because Marx deals with aggregates that tend to be
ignored or at least de-emphasized in mainstream theory--i.e., aggregates at
the level of class. Issues at this level are in the conventional sense
micro since they deal with questions of distribution and economic
interests of class actors; yet they bear immediate macro consequences
since class distribution affects, among other things, the rates of
accumulation and growth and the level of unemployment. Thus I read Jim's
comments as consistent with the prospect that micro and macro
conditions are simultaneously determined in Marx, whatever his choice of
emphasis.
...This abstraction means that he actively ignores -- abstracts from --
differences amongst heterogeneous capitals, including the technical
differences such as those represented by the organic composition of
capital and social differences such as those represented by the rate of
surplus-value, so that prices and values are proportional (as this
literature notes). In other words, he starts with the average capitalist
exploiting the average worker. (Unfortunately, rather than explaining this
clearly, he simply uses the 19th century British cotton textile industry as
representing the average. That's confusing, since it probably wasn't the
average industry.) At this level, we see the general conditions of the class
struggle determining the rate of surplus-value and the mass of
surplus-value. (General conditions of class struggle in turn depend on the
rate of accumulation, political institutions, etc., which in turn depend on
previous conditions of the class struggle, which in turn depend on ... a
long historical process.)
In volume III, he moves away from the macro level to address the issues how
the participants in the capitalist system see things and respond
(microfoundations) so that suddenly issues like supply and demand become
relevant (having been irrelevant at the volume I level of abstraction).
But it's intriguing, isn't it, how repeatedly issues of demand and supply
come up explicitly in Marx's Vol.I, chapter 25 discussion of the general
law of capital accumulation (e.g., pp 763, 769, 792, Penguin ed.)? In
fact, I don't know how you can even talk about this law without talking
about the implications of accumulation for the demand for labor power
relative to
Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses,or a combinati on of the above
Devine, James wrote: As far as I can tell, there's no logical argument either for or against the existence of god. The presumption is always that X doesn't exist; hence the absence of convincing arguments against the existence of X is in no way evidence that X exists. The premise must be the non-existence of god, and so far as I know there are not only no argumenents against that premise, there are no arguments of any weight to the effect that one should even consider the arguments for the existence. Just because there is a tradition that a one-ton invisible green frog crouches in my living room is no sign I should bother to listen to arguments that such does exist. The only acceptable premise for any argument as to the existence of god is the non-existence of god; hence all arguments for god are incoherent. :-) Carrol
Re: Dallas Smythe student
This kind of hijacking selected words out of context and insinuating that they mean something else is pointless. I would say juvenile, but would be insulting to children. The context was the role of advertising in the media and culture. The point is about advertisers promising people things they can't deliver. Perhaps advertisements have improved Doug's sex life. If so, perhaps he could tell us how. Doug Henwood wrote, Gadzooks! Sex!! Triviality!!! Band together and protect the youth from these threats Remind me what's progressive about this? It sounds like Donald Wildmon.
Re: Re: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods,goddesses, or a combinati on of the above
Ian Murray wrote: - Original Message - ultimate guarantor of the intelligibility/knowability of the world. Why would one want such a guarantor? Carrol
Re: Re: Wiseacres Anonymous
Timework Web wrote: For example what is the relationship between the preposition in, the verb believe and the term God? It's been a long time since I 'studied' this (the scare quotes reflect the lightness of that study at the time), but I believe in such cases the in should be considered a part of the verb (as in the german separable verbs) rather than a preposition. In any case, prepositions are wildcards in any language: you must remember memorizing idioms in any foreign language you studied: i.e. phrases that cannot be construed by looking up the definitions of their individual words. Carrol
Bavarian breakdown
Business Standard February 23, 2002 PERSPECTIVE Bavarian breakdown The crisis at Kirch is a test of German capitalism and that of the region's banking and political establishment, write James Harding and Bertrand Benoit Bavarians and Texans may not like the comparison but Munich and Houston are looking increasingly like twin towns. Both have been host to a corporate giant undone by fancy but imprudent financing deals and murky accounts. Both have boasted a chairman closely tied to the local conservative political establishment. Both have thrown up their conservative political leader to run for national office. In Texas it was Enron. In Bavaria it is Kirch, the debt-laden, cash-hungry media giant, which daily seems to be getting into worse trouble. And just as the collapse of the energy trader has raised questions about Wall Street-style capitalism, the Kirch crisis is a test of Germany Inc. Kirch Gruppe is a privately owned company, funded by local state-owned banks. It was built by Leo Kirch, a reclusive Bavarian, who has been a friend and backer of Germany's rightwing politicians. That means Kirch's problems could touch off concerns about how German politics meshes with business. Mr Kirch, now 75, was a friend of and secret donor to Helmut Kohl, the conservative chancellor who dominated 1980s German politics. Edmund Stoiber, the Bavarian premier, who is also close to Mr Kirch, is now the conservative candidate standing against Chancellor Gerhard Schroder in the general elections due in September. Mr Stoiber's association with Kirch could yet colour his candidacy. He has championed Munich's transformation into a media and technology hub in Germany. But his credibility could be undermined by the collapse of Kirch, particularly if it leads to Bayerische Landesbank, the regional state-owned bank, having to write off its Euros 1.9 billion (Pounds 1.2 billion) exposure to the group. Mr Schroder, who has been kept informed by banks of the troubles at Kirch, knows it. But the chancellor himself is far from worry-free. The failure of a German corporate giant would add to Germany's 4 million unemployed. A foundering Mr Kirch could also turn to Rupert Murdoch to buy into his media empire, leaving the Australian-born media mogul owning some of the most important German media assets. From the start 47 years ago, Mr Kirch has borrowed to build his business. Mr Kirch's traditional core business has been trading film rights - his first acquisition was the Fellini film La Strada. When his debt-laden company has run short of money, he has shuffled assets and turned to sympathetic banks and friendly billionaires, such as Otto Beishein, the German supermarket mogul, for assistance. Mr Kirch is now contemplating a break-up of his empire to fund his survival. The stake in Axel Springer, the German publisher, and Telecinco, the Spanish broadcaster, are being sold off. The television rights to Formula One, which until yesterday were not being considered for sale, are on the block. With so much riding on keeping Kirch from bankruptcy, there has been an assumption among media executives, bankers and politicians that a solution - probably a German solution - would be found to keep Kirch afloat. Kirch's lending banks, a line-up of Germany's biggest banks, including Deutsche Bank, agreed last week to keep their credit lines open. But the numbers are stacked against Kirch. The value of the assets is unclear, as the privately owned company offers only glimpses of its patchily audited figures. But the liabilities look greater than the assets. According to Kirch, the company owes the banks about Euros 6.4 billion and will have to pay at least a further Euros 2.3 billion to honour deals with other investors. According to others who have seen the German company's balance sheet, the list of liabilities is longer: estimates of Kirch debt and liabilities range from Euros 13 billion to Euros 18 billion. The company is also in serious need of cash. Kirch will have to pay Euros 1.7 billion by October to Mr Murdoch - money it says it does not have. The deals Kirch has done over the past three years to attract investors are coming back to haunt the company. In each case, Kirch needed money to fund busi-nesses. Several investors bought into the company with a put option as a form of insurance. If the business did not prosper, the investor could demand the cash back plus interest. Investors such as Mr Murdoch and Axel Springer, the German publishing group, are asking for the cash. Meanwhile, Kirch's pay television business, which loses Euros 80 million a month, has run out of money and will need a further injection of Euros 2 billion in cash in order to break even. Kirch cannot afford to close down the lossmaking pay television platform, because it plays a crucial role in sustaining KirchMedia, the media rights arm. It is the main customer for the films and television programmes from the company's library. In recent days, Kirch has started
Re:...on the necessity of god, goddess,...
Greetings Economists, Carrol Cox responds to Ian this way, Ian Murray wrote: - Original Message - ultimate guarantor of the intelligibility/knowability of the world. --- Why would one want such a guarantor? Carrol Doyle I think because human minds need a sense of the intelligibility and knowability of the world. In other words, the frontal lobe produces explanations which are a major aspect of forming social organization. Explanation and Cognition Keil, and Wilson, MIT press, 2000, page 312, ...The aha, in contrast, is often accompanied by an expression of joy. This expression is less clearly distinct from the expression of other positive emotions, but this is characteristic of positive expressions in general (see Ekman 1992). In our own work with children, even with infants, we see a distinctive set of affective responses and facial expressions that accompany exploration and problem solving. In our experiments, children who are in the intermediate stages of theory formation often exhibit a great deal of puzzlement and even distress, furrowed brows, pursed mouths. This contrasts with the behavior of these same children on easier tasks, and with the behavior of children who are firmly in the grip of an earlier or later theory. Children who are presented with problems that are relevant to a newly formed theory, in contrast, often display intense satisfaction and joy. Doyle, What is interesting and directly answer Carrol's question is that in forming a theory of something, a child is feeling strong feelings of joy, and satisfaction. A guarantor insures that human brains produce explanations that through the feelings of joy and satisfaction show the social bonds formed from that person to that which explains. Explanations such as religion which have no factual or material basis for their theory then are not working in the representation of the real world, but in the human need to explain or as I have written in other places recently the need to relige. An equation between at least two human beings occurs, I explain myself to you, and you listen, and we both feel a bond, then we both feel satisfied in our connection. The guarantor of such things is a definite social connection happening. That is exactly what fundamentalist revivals focus upon to bring people to commit to the protestant sect. I'll hypothesize here around women, it is said on average human females are more highly skilled in social relationships than on average men. Whatever the truth of that, it is said women tend to be attracted to religion more strongly than men. I think if these common theories about women are true that women are taking advantage not of the truth of religion but the milieu where explanation is offered to create strong social bonds. The explanation is not needed to be really true about what it says about god, but instead to create an atmosphere in which social relations are strongly supported. Hence the emphasis upon family values in churchs. Therefore some definite kind of social value is being produced by an explanation over and above real meaning of the explanation as the example of the child above illustrates. A socialist society would understand the need the vast majority of people share to create social bonds in part through such common ordinary human activities as to explain. We wouldn't rely upon a theory of mind in something that isn't a mind, we would instead provide explanations where needed that meet the social bond needs of the human being in that moment. That guarantor then is literally the social bond being guaranteed when needed. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Help Stop Ohio's Anti-Choice Resolution
Rakesh wrote: Diane, have you had a chance to read Rickie Lee Solinger's criticism of framing the fight for abortion rights in terms of choice (there was a favorable review in the NY TImes review of books a few weeks ago). Plus two excerpts from the amazon.com reviews: From Publishers Weekly; Feminists need a paradigm shift, argues Solinger (Wake Up Little Susie;, The Abortionist), away from the post-Roe v. Wade concept of choice and back to the '60s concept of rights, based on the approach of the civil rights movement, which argued that all citizens were entitled to vote, for instance, regardless of class status. From Booklist: Historian Solinger argues cogently that the post-Roe v. Wade decision to articulate the women's movement's goals in terms of choice, not rights, had fateful consequences for women and for the movement. Rakesh, I apologize for not being able to get this post out before you unsubbed...and I will certainly miss your posts. But for what it's worth, I have always felt uncomfortable with the movement away from rights to choice during the 1980s. But I'm sure it is no surprise that this post Roe v. Wade shift during the 1980s occurred when the so-called conservative feminists surfaced (or were created) to redefine the issues. I just heard a Christina Hoff Sommers (author of Who Stole Feminism?) lecture the other day where she said in virtually the same breath that she is a feminist and women are no longer oppressed in the US. Hmmm? As far as I know, the definition of feminism hasn't changed: a movement that works toward achieving equal rights for women and men. But when I look at the demographic composition of upper agenda setting elites, e.g., Congressional Committee chairs, I see a distinct absence of women (or color). Well, if relations are not oppressed along gender lines, how would this oddity come about? What is the probability that this would happen on its own? Anyway, I think it was the anti-feminist sector that attempted to steal feminism. And I do agree with Solinger that it was a mistake for feminists to move away from the rights argument. But it's of course not too late and NARAL stands ready to enter as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League -- hey notice the rights there! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Best, Diane
Question about dutch disease
According to investorwords.com, dutch disease is: The deindustrialization of a nation's economy that occurs when the discovery of a natural resource raises the value of that nation's currency, making manufactured goods less competitive with other nations, increasing imports and decreasing exports. The term originated in Holland after the discovery of North Sea gas. A nephew of mine who is majoring in economics here in Austin asked me about this, and I was entirely ignorant of it, but it from what he told me, it sounded suspicious. The definition here makes the claim that when the value of a nation's currency increases, deindustrialization occurs. It also claims that discovery of a natural resource can lead to a rise in a nation's currency. Simplistic formula like this are often used to mask the operations of nefarious power, so I'm curious if this is a valid concept, etc. If a natural resource were discovered, why would it necessarily result in a rise in value of the currency? If Nigeria discovers lots of oil, why could it not use the proceeds from the sale to *increase* industrialization? Policy decisions seem to me to be operative here, but I need some help figuring this out... Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
miyachi wrote: There is not necessity of socialism Rather, there is only possibility of socialism. Socialism is necessary in the sense in which food is necessary: not as something which will be but as something that must be if we are to survive. It is pure religiosity to claim that socialism _will_ come; it is close to self-evident that unless it comes we will plunge ever deeper into the barbarism RL predicted. Doug doesn't like quotes, but no one has ever said it better than Mao: If you don't hit it, it won't fall. Carrol
Re: Re: Carnagie 2002 and developments in Venezuela
Michael Perelman wrote: The coup in Venezuela should be easy, especially after all the US troops hit Colombia. I cannot believe what a free ride the spineless Dems. are giving W. They are not at all spineless, Michael. They are bravely sacrficing possible electoral advantage by supporting those interests which they and Bush share. Carrol
RE: Question about dutch disease
I'm not an international economist (nor do I play one on TV), but I understand that this is a version of the transfer problem. If a country receives big net transfers from overseas, this raises the value of the country's currency (assuming floating exchange rates), which in turn hurts exports, which mostly means manufacturing. I don't know the details of the Dutch case. Jim D -Original Message- From: Bill Lear To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/24/02 6:39 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23173] Question about dutch disease According to investorwords.com, dutch disease is: The deindustrialization of a nation's economy that occurs when the discovery of a natural resource raises the value of that nation's currency, making manufactured goods less competitive with other nations, increasing imports and decreasing exports. The term originated in Holland after the discovery of North Sea gas. A nephew of mine who is majoring in economics here in Austin asked me about this, and I was entirely ignorant of it, but it from what he told me, it sounded suspicious. The definition here makes the claim that when the value of a nation's currency increases, deindustrialization occurs. It also claims that discovery of a natural resource can lead to a rise in a nation's currency. Simplistic formula like this are often used to mask the operations of nefarious power, so I'm curious if this is a valid concept, etc. If a natural resource were discovered, why would it necessarily result in a rise in value of the currency? If Nigeria discovers lots of oil, why could it not use the proceeds from the sale to *increase* industrialization? Policy decisions seem to me to be operative here, but I need some help figuring this out... Bill
Re: Question about dutch disease
Why wouldn't the cheaper natural resource, as an input to the productive process, lower the cost of manufactured goods and make them MORE competitive with other nations? Further, the cheaper natural resource, to the extent it is a consumer commodity as well, e. g. home heating, reduces the cost of living doesn't it? And then the additional real income can be spent on domestic products, adding to employment and creating a general boom. As I write this I wonder if the assumption of the country being already at full employment isn't crucial to the onset of the disease. That assumption distorts everything -- and as old as I am I have never seen or read of actual full employment. Gene Coyle Bill Lear wrote: According to investorwords.com, dutch disease is: The deindustrialization of a nation's economy that occurs when the discovery of a natural resource raises the value of that nation's currency, making manufactured goods less competitive with other nations, increasing imports and decreasing exports. The term originated in Holland after the discovery of North Sea gas. A nephew of mine who is majoring in economics here in Austin asked me about this, and I was entirely ignorant of it, but it from what he told me, it sounded suspicious. The definition here makes the claim that when the value of a nation's currency increases, deindustrialization occurs. It also claims that discovery of a natural resource can lead to a rise in a nation's currency. Simplistic formula like this are often used to mask the operations of nefarious power, so I'm curious if this is a valid concept, etc. If a natural resource were discovered, why would it necessarily result in a rise in value of the currency? If Nigeria discovers lots of oil, why could it not use the proceeds from the sale to *increase* industrialization? Policy decisions seem to me to be operative here, but I need some help figuring this out... Bill
Re: Re: Question about dutch disease
Supposdly, the Dutch boom caused resources to be drawn away from the manufacturing sector, making it less competitive. Some have drawn parallels with the influx of gold to Spain from L. America. On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 08:40:53PM -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote: Why wouldn't the cheaper natural resource, as an input to the productive process, lower the cost of manufactured goods and make them MORE competitive with other nations? Further, the cheaper natural resource, to the extent it is a consumer commodity as well, e. g. home heating, reduces the cost of living doesn't it? And then the additional real income can be spent on domestic products, adding to employment and creating a general boom. As I write this I wonder if the assumption of the country being already at full employment isn't crucial to the onset of the disease. That assumption distorts everything -- and as old as I am I have never seen or read of actual full employment. Gene Coyle Bill Lear wrote: According to investorwords.com, dutch disease is: The deindustrialization of a nation's economy that occurs when the discovery of a natural resource raises the value of that nation's currency, making manufactured goods less competitive with other nations, increasing imports and decreasing exports. The term originated in Holland after the discovery of North Sea gas. A nephew of mine who is majoring in economics here in Austin asked me about this, and I was entirely ignorant of it, but it from what he told me, it sounded suspicious. The definition here makes the claim that when the value of a nation's currency increases, deindustrialization occurs. It also claims that discovery of a natural resource can lead to a rise in a nation's currency. Simplistic formula like this are often used to mask the operations of nefarious power, so I'm curious if this is a valid concept, etc. If a natural resource were discovered, why would it necessarily result in a rise in value of the currency? If Nigeria discovers lots of oil, why could it not use the proceeds from the sale to *increase* industrialization? Policy decisions seem to me to be operative here, but I need some help figuring this out... Bill -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Suppression of Marx
Dear Melvin P., Could you go slower, please, and fill in the gaps for me? I don't understand your references. Could you give examples? I did get the point about Southern cotton production being (capitalist) commodity production, even though Black slaves, not free workers, produced the cotton, and how economists could not (and cannot) understand this because the phenomenon didn't conform to the pure theoretical abstraction. I agree with you. Ciao Drewk
The dying dinosaur's huge tail
I became aware of the below article through a reference to it in a powerful analysis of the ongoing world historical turbulence by my friend Ergin Yildizoglu in today's Turkish daily Cumhuriyet. I wish you knew Turkish to read his article. The one below is not that powerful but interesting. Sabri The death of empires Jon Carroll Thursday, February 21, 2002 ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive /2002/02/21/DD30372.DTL HISTORY TEACHES THREE pretty clear messages. One is that all empires die. Second, empires take a long time to die. Finally, the citizens of the empire rarely recognize the warning signs for what they are. The necessity for change is immutable. Empires by their natures do not change very well. They have had positive feedback for not changing -- usually it's called standing by our principles -- for years, even centuries. Empires think they have beaten the rule of change. They haven't. Empires think size will protect them. It won't. Empires think military might will protect them. It won't. Empires think charismatic leaders will protect them. They won't. Nothing will. The old makes way for the new. The American empire is beginning to die. We will not see its death, nor will our grandchildren, but it is dying. Its leaders, sensing trouble, are fetishizing the old ways, the ways that brought us power in a different world, a world in which America was young and the other empires were fading. They have made denial a national creed. They have made arrogance a national stance. We do not need the others because we are America, they say. A dying empire is like a dying dinosaur; the only question is how much damage the huge tail will do as it thrashes around. I have some examples. Our foreign policy is governed by our need for oil, and yet we have no effective formal programs to reduce our need for oil. Instead, we purchase large vehicles that use gasoline with staggering inefficiency. We do it because we can, because God is on our side, and something will happen because something always does. Dick Cheney is the prophet of this mind-set. Conservation is a hobby; use whatever you want; go to sleep, little citizens, your oil-based politicians will protect you. WE ARE GRADUALLY killing the earth that gives us succor. We are poisoning the air and the water. We are cutting down the forests that give us life; we are killing the creatures of the ocean that feed us or feed the things we eat and use; we are ignoring the benefits of biodiversity. Because something will happen. Because God is on our side. Because the scientists are wrong -- indeed, it is important to our whole way of life to marginalize science. Hey, they said we'd all be dead by the year 2000, and here we are. Fools. We know more about the human body than we ever have. We understand more about nutrition than we ever have. We are a child-centered culture; we worship our little darlings and protect them from all harm. Except that childhood obesity is on the rise. Type 2 diabetes strikes children as young as 10. Only the very rich and very poor are thin. We know more about the brain than we ever have. We use that knowledge to persuade children to eat food that will make their lives more difficult and place a greater burden on our medical system. This practice exists outside the morality that we are so very proud of. Inside the morality is discouraging the use of condoms that can stop the spread of disease that also kills children. Death, where is thy sting? We are Americans. WE ARE PROUD of our fine economic system, and yet our government routinely fails to punish profiteers and cheaters. We are proud of our Constitution, yet our government seeks to suspend parts of it when we enter an armed conflict. We are proud of our military, yet we spend billions on politically mandated weapons systems of no utility. Maybe this is the way empires die. Maybe they weaken themselves from within. The structure is so rotten that any young and enthusiastic foe can push it over. I dunno. Heck, I've got mine; why should I care?
Re: Re: Re: Question about dutch disease
This begs the question: do the Gulf states exhibit a Dutch disease syndrome? 1 they had no manufacturing sector to begin with. 2 they continued to import nearly all consumer goods and export a single product 3 Saudi Arabia (the biggest)also has a huge debt. I have seen some argue that the Gulf is inflicted with Dutch disease, but this seems wholly inappropriate or misplaced. One person said if oil is so bad why don't they leave it in the ground --- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Supposdly, the Dutch boom caused resources to be drawn away from the manufacturing sector, making it less competitive. Some have drawn parallels with the influx of gold to Spain from L. America. On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 08:40:53PM -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote: Why wouldn't the cheaper natural resource, as an input to the productive process, lower the cost of manufactured goods and make them MORE competitive with other nations? Further, the cheaper natural resource, to the extent it is a consumer commodity as well, e. g. home heating, reduces the cost of living doesn't it? And then the additional real income can be spent on domestic products, adding to employment and creating a general boom. As I write this I wonder if the assumption of the country being already at full employment isn't crucial to the onset of the disease. That assumption distorts everything -- and as old as I am I have never seen or read of actual full employment. Gene Coyle Bill Lear wrote: According to investorwords.com, dutch disease is: The deindustrialization of a nation's economy that occurs when the discovery of a natural resource raises the value of that nation's currency, making manufactured goods less competitive with other nations, increasing imports and decreasing exports. The term originated in Holland after the discovery of North Sea gas. A nephew of mine who is majoring in economics here in Austin asked me about this, and I was entirely ignorant of it, but it from what he told me, it sounded suspicious. The definition here makes the claim that when the value of a nation's currency increases, deindustrialization occurs. It also claims that discovery of a natural resource can lead to a rise in a nation's currency. Simplistic formula like this are often used to mask the operations of nefarious power, so I'm curious if this is a valid concept, etc. If a natural resource were discovered, why would it necessarily result in a rise in value of the currency? If Nigeria discovers lots of oil, why could it not use the proceeds from the sale to *increase* industrialization? Policy decisions seem to me to be operative here, but I need some help figuring this out... Bill -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com
RE: Re: Re: Carnagie 2002 and developments in Venezuela
I agree that with the exception of a about a half dozen of the more leftish Democrats like Lee, Waters and Kucinich, the Democrats have been spineless. Today, walking to work I was comparing in my head the response to Iran-Contra by congressional Democrats or the battles over Contra Aid (see the Cynthia Arneson book on this from Pantheon Books) to the PATRIOT Act and other repressive sheeit. Should the below give one any hope? Or, just more pseudo-left rhetoric to keep left-liberals from radicalizing influences and keep them on the DFemocratic Party plantation? Interesting that this was an ADA meeting too. http://www.frontpagemag.com/guestcolumnists2002/anderson02-22-02.htm Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2/24/02 7:50:09 PM Michael Perelman wrote: The coup in Venezuela should be easy, especially after all the US troops hit Colombia. I cannot believe what a free ride the spineless Dems. are giving W. They are not at all spineless, Michael. They are bravely sacrficing possible electoral advantage by supporting those interests which they and Bush share. Carrol
