I thought that was a excellent and clear response, Eva. The consideration
of markets as the only legitimate or 'normal' form of economic regulation
ignores factors that cannot be so easily generalized across all commodities
in a capitalist system. For instance, it ignores the welfare question
involved in the commodification of information, knowledge and communications
through to the question of labour as a commodity like any other 'factor of
production'. It is much more accurate to look at the social embeddedness of
markets and their difference, particularity and complexity.
I agree with Eva that the forced subsumption of the worker into the
capitalist labour market is not an act so easily explained by the
simplistic, entirely incomplete and bourgeois legacy of the early liberal
political economists. I would submit that Smith and Ricardo's theory of
'free trade' is not as useful in problematizing the 'new' global economy in
which there is :
- a growing and record historical share of international economic
transactions are between branches of the same corporation, as part of the
extension of capitalist space
- an increasing paper value of international financial transactions as a
share of international economic transactions, as part of the extension of
capitalist time
Enjoying the debate!
Cheers,
John
At 11:55 PM 2/7/98 GMT, Durant wrote:
>> Free trade is simply unrestricted exchange of goods between people. In
>> other words it is the continuance of cooperation between people that has
>> existed since the beginning and which has taken us from tribal insularity
>> to a broad vision of the whole world.
>>
>
>At some time this cooperation failed to be free and unrestricted,
>when a large part of the population was forced to work for those
>who owned the means of production, usually due to
>good luck and ruthless ancestors. There was no option; once
>you had no land to live off you had to work for an employer or you
>did not survive. It's more or less the same ever since.
>
>>
>> It doesn't (it cannot) make a few prosperous and a majority poor.
>>
>> The market is impartial. It doesn't take sides. To blame it is a lazy way
>> to avoid the real reasons for the tremendous difference between the very
>> rich and the very poor.
>>
>
>So the "market" is impartial, however it can solve
>all our economic problems, if only all regulation went away.
>I detect inconsistency.
>But I agree about it being a chaotic process that is unable to solve
>human problems, so why should we depend on it for our
>survival.
> We can collect information now about what people
>need without first making things and than find or
>desparately create a
>market, same time we can use all material and creative capacity
>to satisfy real needs, and can afford to create a surplus without
>unemployment created by overproduction.
>
>> It would be too much, perhaps to ask you to read Henry George's "Progress
>> and Poverty" where he asked 120 years ago 'why, in spite of enormous
>> progress in production, is it so hard to make a living?" Then he proceeded
>> with magnificent reasoning to come to conclusions - and offer remedies.
>>
>> Or, you might read his "Protection or Free Trade", where he makes the best
>> case for Free Trade ever penned - then shows why the benefits of trade
>> don't get to the people at the bottom of society. The same arguments can be
>> used to show why the benefits of capital, of machines, of factories,
>> innovation, and invention, also fail to benefit the poor.
>>
>> The more Capital we have, the more trade we have, the more wealth is
>> available for all of us. But it doesn't reach everybody, either in the US
>> or in the third world.
>>
>> For heavens sake, ask why?
>>
>
>
>yes, why?
>
>
>
>
>> >We are seeing with globalization of trade a rapid increase in the gap
>> >between rich and poor.
>>
>> We also see El Nino, poor SAT scores, and a Republican Congress
>>
>
>I can see possible reasons for all these three, but only a marxist
>answer for the problem of the growing gap, and more
>insecurity in the middle strata, inspite of the
>larger volume of wealth produced.
>Eva
>
>> Harry Pollard
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
John Hollingsworth (613) 231-2431
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 2-216 James St. K1R 5M7
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
