I'm not sure about Muslim countries (about whether your assertion is
true or, if
it is, the explanation for it). Others might like to comment, hope you
don't mind me posting your reply to me publicly.
I'd rather focus on the analysis
that boom and bust arises inevitably from the internal workings of
capitalism. I
mentioned Marx because he thought of it, not as an endorsement of
everything Marx said.
We can be skeptical about Hellyer too because his solution has never
been tried
in practice. I went to his meeting in Adelaide last Sunday and although
he was
given a warm ovation by a large crowd the questions from the audience
revealed
some skepticism about his proposed solution. I don't think anyone really
believed that Nelson Mandella was going to lead the Third World to
implement
Hellyer's solution of bringing the World Bank and the IMF to their knees
in June next year (by refusing to repay the debt) . Or that the trade
unions would bring on a world wide general strike in July 2000 if Nelson
Mandella failed to deliver. I think there was support for some of his
analysis of the current economic crisis and his targetting the World
Bank and IMF as the villians but some people were critical about other
parts of his analysis (Where does money come from?) and his solution
(force Banks to print 50% more money) was seen as pie in the sky.
His assertion that money is created out of thin air by Banks at will was
challenged when someone asked, "Why is it then that Banks can go belly
up too?".
I'd say there is a need for a critique of Hellyer's views about "Where
does
money come from?"
When he was asked why can't production be based on peoples needs and not
profit
he replied that production by profit was more efficient. It sounded to
me that
Hellyer was tapping into an emotional hope that there just might be a
solution
under the capitalist system. That's a crowd pleaser but I don't believe
it.
-- Bill Kerr
omega wrote:
> How come truly Muslim countries do not have booms and busts then Bill? Could
> it be that debt financing is not allowed; it must be equity financing - both
> sides take a risk, not just one side (the borrower). The Western banks
> always win because the government bails them out with taxpayers money; what
> Noam Chomsky refers to as: the welfare state for the rich. Besides, what is
> called Capitalism today is not the Capitalism that took risks in new
> enterprises and reinvested their profits back into more new enterprises;
> money being created to cover future production, not being used to buy up
> productive enterprises only to close them down to stop competition. I doubt
> that Marx will ever be a serious contender in the economic debate anyway as,
> if his system was so good, how come it has collapsed everywhere it has been
> tried? Command economies have been a dismal failure.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: omega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: austand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sunday, 18 April 1999 7:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Book burning
>
> >This statement cited from Hellyer is hard to believe:
> >
> >> "It is the banking system which is the root of the problem," Hellyer
> says.
> >> "It is the source of the boom-bust cycle and has been responsible for the
> >> 45 recessions and depressions we have had in less than 200 years. Only
> >> fundamental reform can prevent another crash and offer new hope to
> southern
> >> and northern hemispheres alike."
> >
> >Marx put the view that boom-bust arises inevitably from the internal
> >workings of
> >capitalism, something more fundamental than can be fixed by reforming
> >the banks.
> >-- Bill Kerr
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
