> > Nor is there much on Pen-l or the left as far as policy proposals >
Here's a concrete policy proposal but I suspect it will elicit either howls of utter incomprehension or total silence (with the exception of Gene). Rob Bryer is an accounting professor at the University of Warwick in the U.K. In a 2006 article, "Accounting and the Labour Process," Bryer argued that Marx's analysis can best be understood from an accounting perspective. Double-entry book-keeping was the technology that enabled the domination of labor to pass from the subjective master/slave, lord/serf relationship to an objective balance sheet driven one between abstract capital and social labor. In his conclusion, Bryer wrote, "The socialist mentality is not utopian but turns the capitalist development of calculation and accountability to other ends." This phrasing is uncannily similar to what Engels said about the 1821 pamphlet, The Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties -- that it was "but the farthest outpost of an entire literature which in the twenties turned the Ricardian theory of value and surplus value against capitalist production in the interest of the proletariat. The 1821 pamphlet was the origin of the phrase about wealth being disposable time that Marx was so fond of. It follows from the above that a socialist accounting would be one founded on the premise that wealth is disposable time. So how would one construct such an accounting model? I propose just such an accounting model grounded in the concept of disposable time in Chapter Four of my Jobs, Liberty and the Bottom Line. If Breyer is correct in his assessment of Marx's Capital then my proposed model might be considered the sequel to Capital. Of course if Bryer is wrong and/or I am wrong, it may still be worthwhile to point out exactly where the error lies. Even better would be to propose an alternative strategy (other than climbing on the capitalist growth bandwagon and wishing for a pony). On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Nor is there much on Pen-l or the left as far as policy proposals, save > more stimulus. Neither is there, on the left, much challenge to the > "sustained growth" route to nirvana. Sustained growth as the rescue of the > common man marries the aspirations of workers to the goal of the > capitalists. It could work for the capitalists but will not for the > workers. > > Gene Coyle > > > On Nov 28, 2010, at 11:06 AM, MICHAEL YATES wrote: > > In today's New York Times there is an article discussing the suggestions of > various thinkers on what might > sustain a growing economy in the future. (David Segal, "Some Very Creative > Economic Fix-Its") Here is what one New York University economist had to > say: > _____________________________________ > Perhaps we are entering the era of the self-starter. Prof. Andrew aplin of > New York University thinks so. He begins with the premise that in the coming > global economy some people will succeed and others will not, and income > inequality will grow. While it’s noble to focus on how to spread wealth > around, he says that it might be wiser to think of ways the poor and middle > class could cater to the economy’s biggest winners. > > “Unfortunately, there will be income inequality,” he says, “but enough > people will make money that those who don’t would do well, in as much as > they understand the needs of that group.” > > He says he expects a rise in what he call “artisanal services,” like cooks, > nutritionists, small-scale farmers. He sees services emerging that aid the > wealthy at the intersection of health and genetic science. He imagines a > rise in technology services, too — experts who keep clients current about > technology which can advance their interests in business, in the media, on > search engines and so on. > > Professor Caplin worries that this concept might be caricatured as “cater > to the rich.” But he suggested that this country could use a lot more > non-judgmental thinking about the future of the United States economy. Any > argument on that subject that starts with the word “should,” he said, is not > nearly as useful as one that starts with “could” and has a firm grasp on > “is.” > > “If you start with ‘should’ you get arguments where nobody makes any sense > and where you can claim that some people are good and other people are bad,” > he said, referring to recent skirmishes over Fed policy, deficits and other > contentious topics. “With that sleight of hand you’ve ensured that you will > not discuss anything of substance. You’ve just lined up two camps to fire at > one another.” > __________________________________ > > Is it time to take all neoclassical economists into the woods and shoot > them? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
