Re: Rob Scaap's Moment?
Apologies, Rob, for misspelling your name. I know how to spell it. And I should have written more about the weaknesses evident in the US economy. But off it went. Gene Eugene Coyle wrote: > The Minsky zone piece reminded me that I've been thinking that Rob > Scaap's moment has arrived. US consumers have been living on the edge > and now face much higher costs for commuting, home heating, electric > power --- all busting the budgets. > > Meanwhile car and truck sales have been sustained only by large and > larger price cuts, and now profits are topping out and slipping. Stock > prices aren't going up, and lots are going down. > > If the US goes, can Europe and Asia be far behind? > > This may be the moment that Rob has foreseen. > > Gene Coyle
Re: Re: Re: a profound comment on the "transformation problem"
In a message dated 9/21/00 4:58:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << His main point seems to be a relatively common-sense explanation of the "solution" to the "transformation problem" that Fred Moseley advocates. See the latter's article in the current _Review of Radical Political Economics_ or in the book he edited, _Marx's Method in Capital_. It's a very simple solution, basically saying that there's no problem at all, since prices and values normally differ, but total prices = total value, while total property income = total surplus-value. >> For a crisp demolition of this "solution," see M.C. Howard and J.E. King, A History of Marxian Economics, vol II., pp. 276-80. --jks
Women's Work in the Silent Era (was Re: [fla-left] [genderissues/culture] Hey, Hollywood)
> > forwarded by Michael Hoover > > > > > Hey, Hollywood: What's Wrong With This Picture? > > > Run Date: 09/18/00 > > > > > > By Jeannine Yeomans > > > WEnews correspondent > > > > New research by Martha Lauzen, Ph.D., a professor at San Diego State > > > University, reveals that among the 207 top grossing films last year, > > > women constituted only 17 percent of all creators behind the scenes, > > > including producers, directors, writers, and editors. > > > > > > Only 4 percent of directors were women, a drop from 8 percent the > > > previous year. There were other significant declines in the numbers of > > > executive producers from 21 percent to 15 percent, and female editors > > > from 13 percent to 8 percent. The picture for television is similarly > > > bleak. * The New York Times September 15, 2000, Friday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section E; Part 1; Page 25; Column 1; Movies, Performing Arts/Weekend Desk HEADLINE: HOME VIDEO; Women's Work In the Silent Era BYLINE: By Peter M. Nichols New VHS and DVD editions of "This Is Spinal Tap," Rob Reiner's 1984 parody of a rock documentary, were released on Tuesday, but some of the better entertainment issued this week can be found in two new series from the silent era: "First Ladies: Early Women Filmmakers 1915-25" from Kino and "Equal Time: The Women of Cinema" from Milestone Good silent films hold surprises, not least the people who made them. In the earliest days strong women frequently produced and directed what they also wrote and starred in. "Women were allowed to work because there weren't great profits to be made yet in that industry," said Dennis Doros, president of Milestone, a distributor of classic films. Once the money got better in the 1930's, men asserted themselves and professional life became more complicated for women like Dorothy Davenport Reid, the producer and co-director of "The Red Kimona" (1925), about a young girl who is tricked into becoming a prostitute in New Orleans and murders her pimp. The Kino series includes five films, all of them preserved by the motion picture department at the Library of Congress. The four others are "The Ocean Waif" by Alice Guy-Blache, one of the first directors of either sex, who had made more than 700 shorts and features by 1916; "49-17," a western satire by Ruth Ann Baldwin; "Eleanor's Catch" (1916), a two-reeler by Cleo Madison about still another young woman done in by a lowdown man; and "Hypocrites" (1915), written, directed and produced by Lois Weber. A colleague of Guy-Blache, Weber was known for her moral crusades. In "Hypocrites" the subject was "the naked truth" as envisioned by a hand-wringing religious ascetic and sculptor who, inspired by a woman scampering in the buff, renders a nude statue of same. On its unveiling, the good citizens, all cheats and perverts, to judge by Weber's interpretation, are shocked. Notes on the cassette box call the film "amazingly complex." Bizarre, too. "Definitely off the wall," said Jessica Rosner of Kino. "That's real nudity. If you look closely, you can see everything." In Boston, clothes had to be painted on the woman before the film was distributed. The Milestone series moves on to the talkies with "The Gay Desperado" (1936), starring Ida Lupino, and Mervyn LeRoy's "Tonight or Never" (1931), with Gloria Swanson as an opera diva who has lost the passion for her work. But there are also Frances Marion's silent "Love Light" (1921), with Mary Pickford as a betrayed wife, a role intended to change her her little-girl image, and two silent films by Nell Shipman, "Back to God's Country" (1919) and "Something New" (1920). Shipman, a conservationist, set her two films in northern Canada and the Mojave desert, respectively. "She did action films," Mr. Doros said. In "Something New" the heroine (Shipman), her boyfriend and her collie, Laddie, escape mounted bandits across rocky terrain in a Maxwell sedan, a forerunner of the sport utility vehicle. For information on the Milestone series, call (800) 603-1104. For the Kino tapes, call (800) 562-3330. * Yoshie
Rob Scaap's Moment?
The Minsky zone piece reminded me that I've been thinking that Rob Scaap's moment has arrived. US consumers have been living on the edge and now face much higher costs for commuting, home heating, electric power --- all busting the budgets. Meanwhile car and truck sales have been sustained only by large and larger price cuts, and now profits are topping out and slipping. Stock prices aren't going up, and lots are going down. If the US goes, can Europe and Asia be far behind? This may be the moment that Rob has foreseen. Gene Coyle
"Maoism" in Nepal
While coming home from work, I heard the tail-end of a story on US National Public Radio, about a "Maoist" insurgency in Nepal, of all places. Interestingly, the reporter's chosen expert blamed the increase in economic inequality during the last 10 years of a regime of "multi-party democracy." Is this a rebellion against neoliberal democracy? does anyone know about this? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Minsky zones ahead
full article at http://www.iht.com/IHT/TODAY/FRI/FIN/banks.2.html Paris, Friday, September 22, 2000 As U.S. Economy Surges, Banks Make Riskier Loans By Kathleen Day Washington Post Service WASHINGTON - Troubled loans to U.S. businesses have more than doubled in two years, to $100 billion, despite the robust economy. This has raised concern that banks are using lax credit standards to compete for market share, according to banking regulators. At the same time, consumer-lending standards have fallen in some key areas, particularly home-equity loans, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said Wednesday in an annual report on banks' lending practices. The percentage of consumer debt now held in home and home-equity loans is at its highest level since 1995, the agency said. The combination of these trends has regulators worried that if the economy falters, banks will be unprepared for the losses they could face. Bank regulators used the release of the survey to criticize what they say is an environment that forces banks to focus on quarterly profit increases rather than on long-term stability. In the present competitive banking world, financial institutions' willingness to make more risky loans reflects their emphasis on bringing in more business to meet Wall Street's earnings expectations, banking regulators say. ''Earnings pressure is a major issue in banking,'' said David Gibbons, head of the credit-risk division of the OCC, which regulates nationally chartered banks. ''I just don't think it's fair to expect banks to perform like dot-coms.'' The $100 billion in troubled business loans makes up 5.1 percent of the commercial loans surveyed, which were limited to loans of $20 million or more made by three or more banks, also known as syndicated loans. The new numbers are up from $45 billion, or 2.5 percent, in 1998. Though that is far below the 15.9 percent in troubled commercial loans found in 1991, when bank loan losses were at their highest level in recent memory, regulators say the current trends are worrisome. Banks are better capitalized than they have ever been, giving them a large cash cushion to absorb possible losses, regulators say. But in the past several years, as the economic boom has continued, they have already found and made the best and safest loans, according to economists. So now they are having to move into riskier territory to keep their loan business growing. ''If the economy slows down abruptly,'' said Robert Litan, director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington research organization, ''we could see a much sharper increase in troubled loans because so many borrowers appear to be overextended.''
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: a profound comment on the "transformation problem"
At 07:19 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote: >Max Sawicky wrote: > >>Alert. Alert. Value theory thread incoming. >>Take cover. > >Value theory? What's that? > >Doug economists know the price everything and the value of nothing... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
[fla-left] [gender issues/culture] Hey, Hollywood: What's Wrong With This Picture? (fwd)
forwarded by Michael Hoover > Hey, Hollywood: What's Wrong With This Picture? > Run Date: 09/18/00 > > By Jeannine Yeomans > WEnews correspondent > > In the roles they play, the shows > and movies they direct and edit and the jobs they fill, women are both > misrepresented and underrepresented. The numbers of key jobs and > positive characterizations are falling. Stay turned for a November > girl-cott. > > HOLLYWOOD--The real story for women in Hollywood is more > gloomy than glamorous. New research reveals that men still dominate all > movie and TV jobs in vast numbers compared with women. In fact, the > numbers of women in some key Hollywood jobs have decreased in recent > years. > > "It's as if the women's movement never happened in Hollywood," says Emmy > winner Jan Wahl, who reviews movies for the NBC-TV affiliate in San > Francisco. "It's a tragedy for all women." > > New research by Martha Lauzen, Ph.D., a professor at San Diego State > University, reveals that among the 207 top grossing films last year, > women constituted only 17 percent of all creators behind the scenes, > including producers, directors, writers, and editors. > > Only 4 percent of directors were women, a drop from 8 percent the > previous year. There were other significant declines in the numbers of > executive producers from 21 percent to 15 percent, and female editors > from 13 percent to 8 percent. The picture for television is similarly > bleak. > > "People think we're doing better than we are," says Robin Swicord, a > respected film screenwriter whose credits include, "Little Women." She > laments that women in Hollywood "have worked so hard and tried to get > more jobs for other women, but it's discouraging that we have so far to > go." > > Stay tuned for a nationwide girl-cott against TV, movies > > In November, Chicago-based Merge Magazine and the Media and Women > Project are calling for a second annual "Girl-cott of the Movies," a > nationwide protest against Hollywood and movies that unfairly represent > and employ women. > > "We hope to get thousands of people involved in staying away from > bad-for-women movies," says Tamara Sobel, founder of the Media and Women > Project. "We have to start speaking up with a single voice," Lauzen > agrees. "If we don't, no one will." > > And it's not just an issue of jobs in an industry that rakes in over $22 > billion a year. > > When the numbers of women working on a movie or TV show decline, females > are more likely to be portrayed unrealistically on screen as what Lauzen > calls "adorable dopes." They are powerless, indecisive and childlike, > with men at the center of their universe and a need to be rescued. > > "These are the Ally McBeals and the Dharmas, just one step up from the > classic bimbo," Lauzen says. "When women have more powerful roles in the > making of a movie or TV show, we know that we also get more powerful > female characters onscreen, women who are more real and more > multi-dimensional." > > Blood and sex sell big overseas--the biggest-grossing market > > "Hollywood is only interested in what guys want, like old geezer movies > and slob sex comedies where all girls are bimbos," says Wahl, a member > of the Directors Guild who has reviewed movies for 20 years. "I've never > seen our culture in such bad shape." > > Wahl and other Hollywood observers blame the bottom line: money. They > say a hit movie can take in most of its gross--as much as 80 > percent--overseas. > > "Overseas audiences still want sex and violence. That's what sells > outside the U.S.," says Wahl. "The whole world may have to change before > the picture for women in Hollywood gets brighter." > > "It is very hard to get movies made that are genuinely feminist, or even > portray women in a fair way," Swicord says. "I genuinely believe there > is a big domestic audience for this kind of movie, but if there is only > a domestic audience, it won't get made." > > Quality and realism improve with more women on the sets > > Swicord and Lauzen agree that it's not a male conspiracy and it doesn't > help to label men in Hollywood as sexists. Lauzen's research also shows > that women who have jobs behind the scenes in Hollywood try to help > their sisters. > > "When women have power roles behind the screen, we get more women on the > crew and we get a different kind of portrayal on screen, which is a more > powerful female character," she says. > > But women working for their side are up against a conspiracy of the > money-hungry, whose job is to pull in the big bucks--and often the > grosser the movie, the bigger the gross. > > The TV picture appears to be just as dim. > > Research released by Lauzen last week shows that in the latest primetime > TV season, 1999-2000, women accounted for only 40 percent of all > characters, and overall they were portrayed as being younger and less > powerful than men. Male characters were identified more by their > occupation, while women w
[fla-left] [labor] Florida miners strike to defend union (fwd)
forwarded by Michael Hoover
> >From the Militant, Oct. 2 (newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party)
>
> Florida miners strike to defend union {pre-publication version}
>
> BY RACHELE FRUIT
>
> PALATKA, Florida--Workers at a surface mineral mine
> here are waging a determined fight to defend their union. The members of
> International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local 1098 have been on
> strike for two years against Iluka Resources, Inc.
>
> They are fighting against company practices such as "threatening an
> employee with legal action for making a safety complaint to the Mine
> Safety and Health Administration," as their fact sheet explains.
>
> On August 2, a group of workers and one farmer returning to Florida from
> an Active Workers Conference in Ohio visited the picket line. We were
> from Plant City, Land O'Lakes, St. Petersburg, and Miami. One team
> member, Rachele Fruit, was a member of IAM Local 1126 in Miami and had
> been part of an effort by unionists there to send a contribution to the
> toy fund for children of the strikers last Christmas.
>
> The picket line is located five miles north of Bostwick, between Palatka
> and Jacksonville, with a blue school bus for a strike headquarters
> surrounded by hand-stenciled plywood signs. One of the signs says,
> "Those who thought we were down for the count will have a rude
> awakening. UNION WINS."
>
> Strikers Dyal Bowman and Greg Looney greeted us warmly and explained
> that their strike is about defending the right of workers to a union.
>
> Workers at the Iluka mine excavate minerals such as zircon or zirconium
> silicate and ilmanite and rutile, both sources of titanium oxide. These
> minerals are used in making tires and other essential products.
>
> Bowman explained that "the company started splitting the workers. We
> were used to working in both places. If things were slow in one area,
> we'd go over and work in the other. We all worked together. Then they
> imposed shift work in one mill and not the other, violating seniority."
>
> The pickets reported the company made one union employee a boss who
> reported back what happened at union meetings. Management called this
> "monitoring" union meetings. They fired the chief union steward in June
> 1997 and then wouldn't let him onto company property to meet with or
> represent union members.
>
> The contract ended Aug. 1, 1997, and the union negotiated more than a
> year until the strike was called. Meanwhile, the company organized
> "parking lot meetings with all of the workers to explain that they were
> losing money and had to cut costs or else shut the gates," Bowman said.
> "But this place is a gold mine. They sell trainloads of minerals."
>
> CSX engineers have honored the picket line. They bring railroad cars to
> the edge of the company property, but no further. "For the first year of
> the strike, CSX supervisors brought the trains in, but they got tired of
> it," said Bowman. "Since then, Iluka has paid $500 three times a week to
> get a scab outfit from Jacksonville to bring the trains in."
>
> There were 78 IAM members who went on strike, but 32 crossed the line
> during the fourth week when the company started hiring replacement
> workers.
>
> On Nov. 5, 1999, administrative law judge Howard Grossman ruled that the
> replacement workers should be fired. He ruled that union members should
> be awarded back pay and benefits with interest, as well as all the
> overtime pay the replacement workers received. The company appealed the
> ruling, and the case has been before the National Labor Relations Board
> since January.
>
> "We've got a strong case, but it's up there in Washington and you never
> know," Looney told us. The strikers expect a ruling in September. "If
> all the workers in the country would stick together, we'd have them."
Re: RE: Re: Re: a profound comment on the"transformation problem"
Max Sawicky wrote: >Alert. Alert. Value theory thread incoming. >Take cover. Value theory? What's that? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: a profound comment on the "transformationproblem"
I haven't gotten to that... At 05:19 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote: >What about his discussion of the falling r? Does he also take a >single/simulataneist system approach or he mentions temporality? >-- > >On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:54:43 Jim Devine wrote: > >At 04:37 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote: > >>Jim, > >>I don't have the book yet and will not be able to get it probably for a > >>while, so could you please comment or reproduce Andrews' discussion (main > >>points or how his proposed solution differ or reproduces other previous > >>solutions) of the transformation problem. > >> > >>Thanks, > >> > >>Fabian > > > >His main point seems to be a relatively common-sense explanation of the > >"solution" to the "transformation problem" that Fred Moseley advocates. See > >the latter's article in the current _Review of Radical Political Economics_ > >or in the book he edited, _Marx's Method in Capital_. It's a very simple > >solution, basically saying that there's no problem at all, since prices and > >values normally differ, but total prices = total value, while total > >property income = total surplus-value. > > > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > > > > > > >Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: a profound comment on the "transformationproblem"
What about his discussion of the falling r? Does he also take a single/simulataneist system approach or he mentions temporality? -- On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:54:43 Jim Devine wrote: >At 04:37 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote: >>Jim, >>I don't have the book yet and will not be able to get it probably for a >>while, so could you please comment or reproduce Andrews' discussion (main >>points or how his proposed solution differ or reproduces other previous >>solutions) of the transformation problem. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Fabian > >His main point seems to be a relatively common-sense explanation of the >"solution" to the "transformation problem" that Fred Moseley advocates. See >the latter's article in the current _Review of Radical Political Economics_ >or in the book he edited, _Marx's Method in Capital_. It's a very simple >solution, basically saying that there's no problem at all, since prices and >values normally differ, but total prices = total value, while total >property income = total surplus-value. > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
RE: Re: Re: a profound comment on the "transformation problem"
At 04:37 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote: >Jim, >I don't have the book yet and will not be able to get it probably for a >while, so could you please comment or reproduce Andrews' discussion (main >points or how his proposed solution differ or reproduces other previous >solutions) of the transformation problem. >Thanks, >Fabian His main point seems to be a relatively common-sense explanation of the "solution" to the "transformation problem" . . . Alert. Alert. Value theory thread incoming. Take cover. mbs
Humor: Newspaper Readers
[received over the web...] Newspaper Readers: To help us understand whom we're dealing with . . . . The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country. The New York Times is read by people who think they run the country. The Washington Post is read by people who think they ought to run the country. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't understand the Washington Post. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could spare the time. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country, as long as they do something scandalous. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country, or that anyone is running it. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: a profound comment on the "transformation problem"
At 04:37 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote: >Jim, >I don't have the book yet and will not be able to get it probably for a >while, so could you please comment or reproduce Andrews' discussion (main >points or how his proposed solution differ or reproduces other previous >solutions) of the transformation problem. > >Thanks, > >Fabian His main point seems to be a relatively common-sense explanation of the "solution" to the "transformation problem" that Fred Moseley advocates. See the latter's article in the current _Review of Radical Political Economics_ or in the book he edited, _Marx's Method in Capital_. It's a very simple solution, basically saying that there's no problem at all, since prices and values normally differ, but total prices = total value, while total property income = total surplus-value. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Charlie Andrews' book
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/21/00 04:13PM >>> I wrote: >Carbon is the common substance or factor in diamonds, pure coal, and Bucky >balls. It is manifested in them. But we can't say that diamonds, pure >coal, and Bucky balls are equal to Carbon. We can't use "Carbon" as >short-hand for them. Rather, they are different forms of Carbon. saith Charles: >CB: In this analogy, "Carbon" would be shorthand for their >"excahnge-Carbon" , not for diamonds, pure coal and Bucky balls. Those >would be differentiated by their "use-values", their concrete qualities. I think that this is an abuse of the word "short-hand." Gregg will get angry... (( CB: Yes, I meant shorter version of the same word. "Nickname" (( >It is not true that as you say next Value with a capital V is partly >determined by exchange. yes it is. If concrete labor does not turn out to be socially necessary, it doesn't produce value. For example, Marx writes that: "If the market cannot stomach the whole quantity [produced] at the normal price of 2 shillings a yard, this proves that too great a portion of the total social labour-time has been expended in the form of weaving. The effect is the same as if each individual weaver had expended more labour-time on his particularly product than was socially necessary." (Vintage/Penguin, p. 202.) Value must not only be produced but realized, as with labor expended to produce items with no use-value (because the makers thought that they might have use-value before they started producing). (( CB: The "effect" is the same, but the value is not determined by it. The price is . As you say, it is the diffference between "realized" and "produced". Exchange determines the realization , not production , of value. >Price is partly determined by exchange, supply and demand. One of Marx's >main points is that labor is the only source of all exchange-value. ( >Nature can be a source of use-value, but not exchange-value.). No value is >added to by the exchange to exchange-value or Value of a commodity. No value is added by exchange, but value can be destroyed. See above. ( CB: In the above, Marx does not say that value is added by exchange. I'll look for a quote the opposite way, i.e. explicitly saying that value is not added in exchange. ) >Disagree. See above. > >CB: Disagree. No Value is realized. so, let's agree to disagree. ( CB: Are you saying that failure to realize value in exchange is the same thing as not producing value ? I say you are mixing realization with production of value. ( >If a lazy or incompetent worker is competing with an abler worker, the >former's concrete labor-time counts as less socially-necessary abstract >labor-time than the latter's. >CB: Agree. ( Though "lazy worker" is not in the spirit that Marx writes) To deny the existence of "lazy workers," however, is to deny reality. I know a few. CB: Trouble is the bosses misuse the term. Marx knew there were lazy workers, but didn't mention it , because the bosses mention it enough. ( Writes Charles: >You say value is something different than exhange-value . Value and exchange-value are the same and also different. It's a matter of the unity of opposites. Value refers to the shared characteristics of the exchange-values of newly-produced commodities (i.e., socially-necessary abstract labor time). But they differ, because the exchange-values (prices) of commodities usually don't equal their values. CB: As far as I know, Marx does not use this concept of "newly produced commodities". Also, exchange-value is specifically not the same as price in Marx. >_Capital_ deals, in the main, with "exchange-value". There is very little >on use-value in it. So, rather than saying "exchange-value" everytimej, it >is shortened to "value", with the clarification having been made at the >beginning that there is also use-value in commodities. Let's agree to disagree. I wrote: >No. In volume I, the value of gold is determined by the amount of >socially-necessary abstract labor time needed to produce it. >CB: I agree. That's my point. If gold's value is determined like any other >commodity, why wouldn't an antique's value be determined like another >commodity. Marx doesn't say antiques' values are not determined like any >other commodity, does he ? Take an old gold amulet, which is old like an >antique. Its value is determined by the amount of socially-necessary >abstract labor time to mine it and make it. Why not the same for the >antique ( for Marx ).? No, Marx makes it very clear that gifts of nature such as "virgin" land don't have value -- but can have a price (Vintage/Penguin, p. 131). CB: I didn't say that gifts of nature have value, exchange value. They have use-value, not exchange-value. They only gain ex
Re: a profound comment on the "transformation problem"
Jim, I don't have the book yet and will not be able to get it probably for a while, so could you please comment or reproduce Andrews' discussion (main points or how his proposed solution differ or reproduces other previous solutions) of the transformation problem. Thanks, Fabian -- On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:50:22 Jim Devine wrote: >"This section solves the puzzle about value and prices of production called >the transformation problem ... It is not crucial to the larger story of >capitalism." -- Charles Andrews, _From Capitalism to Equality_, p. 97. > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > > Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
Re: Re: Charlie Andrews' book
I wrote: >Carbon is the common substance or factor in diamonds, pure coal, and Bucky >balls. It is manifested in them. But we can't say that diamonds, pure >coal, and Bucky balls are equal to Carbon. We can't use "Carbon" as >short-hand for them. Rather, they are different forms of Carbon. saith Charles: >CB: In this analogy, "Carbon" would be shorthand for their >"excahnge-Carbon" , not for diamonds, pure coal and Bucky balls. Those >would be differentiated by their "use-values", their concrete qualities. I think that this is an abuse of the word "short-hand." Gregg will get angry... >It is not true that as you say next Value with a capital V is partly >determined by exchange. yes it is. If concrete labor does not turn out to be socially necessary, it doesn't produce value. For example, Marx writes that: "If the market cannot stomach the whole quantity [produced] at the normal price of 2 shillings a yard, this proves that too great a portion of the total social labour-time has been expended in the form of weaving. The effect is the same as if each individual weaver had expended more labour-time on his particularly product than was socially necessary." (Vintage/Penguin, p. 202.) Value must not only be produced but realized, as with labor expended to produce items with no use-value (because the makers thought that they might have use-value before they started producing). >Price is partly determined by exchange, supply and demand. One of Marx's >main points is that labor is the only source of all exchange-value. ( >Nature can be a source of use-value, but not exchange-value.). No value is >added to by the exchange to exchange-value or Value of a commodity. No value is added by exchange, but value can be destroyed. See above. >Disagree. See above. > >CB: Disagree. No Value is realized. so, let's agree to disagree. >If a lazy or incompetent worker is competing with an abler worker, the >former's concrete labor-time counts as less socially-necessary abstract >labor-time than the latter's. >CB: Agree. ( Though "lazy worker" is not in the spirit that Marx writes) To deny the existence of "lazy workers," however, is to deny reality. I know a few. Writes Charles: >You say value is something different than exhange-value . Value and exchange-value are the same and also different. It's a matter of the unity of opposites. Value refers to the shared characteristics of the exchange-values of newly-produced commodities (i.e., socially-necessary abstract labor time). But they differ, because the exchange-values (prices) of commodities usually don't equal their values. >_Capital_ deals, in the main, with "exchange-value". There is very little >on use-value in it. So, rather than saying "exchange-value" everytimej, it >is shortened to "value", with the clarification having been made at the >beginning that there is also use-value in commodities. Let's agree to disagree. I wrote: >No. In volume I, the value of gold is determined by the amount of >socially-necessary abstract labor time needed to produce it. >CB: I agree. That's my point. If gold's value is determined like any other >commodity, why wouldn't an antique's value be determined like another >commodity. Marx doesn't say antiques' values are not determined like any >other commodity, does he ? Take an old gold amulet, which is old like an >antique. Its value is determined by the amount of socially-necessary >abstract labor time to mine it and make it. Why not the same for the >antique ( for Marx ).? No, Marx makes it very clear that gifts of nature such as "virgin" land don't have value -- but can have a price (Vintage/Penguin, p. 131). Antiques seen from the perspective of today are similar. You might think of the amount of labor-time needed to reproduce the antique as defining its value. But part of the antique's price is the ageing process itself, a gift of nature, which makes it impossible to truly reproduce the antique exactly. Put another way, the age of the antique means that its scarcity (as opposed to the cost of its production) plays a major role in determining its price. Nowadays, gold is similar. Most of the supply-side of the gold market depends on the existing stock of gold, not on the cost of producing gold. In the end, however, if the price of gold stays high relative to its cost of production, it will drive capitalists to produce more gold. But even this is limited by the scarcity of good gold-bearing land. >CB: I take it as fundamental to Marx's theory that exploitation occurs >when labor-power is paid full value for. Labor-power is capable of >producing more value than its own value ( exhange-value). insert the word "even" before "when labor-power is paid full value" (for its reproduction). Marx knew that labor-power was sometimes purchased below its value, but that kind of "super-exploitation" didn't require much analysis. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmi
a profound comment on the "transformation problem"
"This section solves the puzzle about value and prices of production called the transformation problem ... It is not crucial to the larger story of capitalism." -- Charles Andrews, _From Capitalism to Equality_, p. 97. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Wealth Gap Increases in Canada
Although there is supposedly a frantic search for the causes of wealth inequality there is little mention of private ownership of the means of production and production for profit as a cause. One commentator does mention unfettered capitalism. A few more fetters and everything will be fine. There is no longer an alternative to capitalism for some reason. Interesting that over 80 percent of Canadians think the government should act to lessen the gap between rich and poor even though media pundits continually claim that Canadians are becoming more right-wing etc. Cheers, Ken Hanly Macleans Magazine August 28, 2000 The Wealth Gap New studies show Canada's rich really are getting richer -- and the poor poorer -- as the middle class erodes In hindsight, it seems almost inevitable that 32-year-old Caroll Herron toppled, ever so slowly, to the bottom of the economic heap. A feisty high school graduate, the Montreal single mother lost her last secretarial job with a shipping firm in 1992 when the company went bankrupt. After 18 months of hunting for another office position, she finally settled for work as a cleaner with a company that restores fire-damaged premises. She quit last March when she developed serious asthma because of the chemicals. Now she and her daughter Christina, 10, subsist on Employment Insurance and other government payments -- about $1,250 per month -- while she pleads with potential employers and government bureaucrats for training. "I have bilingualism," she says. "I have the secretarial skills. But I just don't have the computer skills." Her downward spiral, struggling all the way, traces a path that many Canadians have followed throughout the 1990s: the poor are becoming relatively poorer, the wealthy are becoming wealthier -- and many in that bulwark of society, the middle class, are watching their incomes and their dreams of upward mobility gradually erode. Since the early 1980s, middle- class families have pocketed an ever-smaller proportion of the nation's incomes. Their children are often starting work at progressively lower salary levels. Worse, males in their prime earning years are finding that their chances of advancing are shrinking with every passing year. The workforce is bunching into both the lower and the higher ends of the income scale. Many workers who were once proud members of the middle class are now barely making ends meet. Herron's own experience tracks that arc of descent. When she worked for the shipping company, she earned a relatively comfortable $25,000 a year. At the cleaning company, her wages were $20,300. Now her government cheques add up to about $15,000 per year. Her expenses include rent of $300 per month for her duplex, $400 for food and $250 for heat and utilities. And her EI ends in mid-December. "We eat a lot of hamburger and spaghetti," she says. "You wake up in the morning hoping there is no bill in the mail." Herron blames herself. "Now that I am older and wiser, I see that I should have gone further in school," she says ruefully. "I am not envious of those who make more: they did things to make their life better. I just want a chance." It is the disturbing secret of today's economy that chances for people like Herron are becoming harder and harder to find. Across many industrialized nations, such as the United States and Britain, the gulf between the wealthy and everyone else has been widening relentlessly throughout the past two decades. Experts had speculated that the trend was largely cyclical - - and the gap would narrow in the late 1990s when the economy finally improved. Their hopes have been dashed. After adjusting for inflation, the 1998 average income of Canadian families from earnings, investments and private pensions finally surpassed its previous peak in 1989: it hit $55,224, up from $54,508. But, amid the prosperity, there was a startling increase in inequality -- as the wealthy increased their share of that income at the expense of almost everyone else. "There is a long-run, ongoing trend toward increasing inequality," observes Queen's University economist Charles Beach. "I am saddened. Sure, there is a bigger pie -- but it is being distributed less equally." The problem is so worrisome that, behind the scenes, income inequality has become the big issue in government and academic circles. No one can agree on the cause -- because there are many factors, ranging from technological change to declining union membership. No one can agree on the solution -- because everyone is uneasily aware that many people like Herron need complex responses that include both money and targeted training. But, after the release in June of a Statistics Canada report on 1998 incomes, everyone can agree the problem is unsettling -- and probably growing. The agency's report is stark. It divides the number of Canadian families and unattached individuals who receive income into five equal groups. Among the 8.3 million Canadian families, the top fifth was
RE: The simple/elementary form of value considered as a whole (wasRe: Charlie Andrew's book)
Mat Forstater wrote, >I don't see either one as short-hand for the other. Exchange-value is the >expression of value. Correct. However, Marx _used_ exchange-value as an abbreviation, _said_ he had used it as an abbreviation but then pointed out that, strictly speaking, it was wrong to do so. I suspect we're entering into the paradoxical aspect of Marx's rhetoric in which he allows an error to stand, provisionally, until such time as he had developed the argument far enough to enable him to "remove the scaffolding". I think I understand the reasons for doing this and would concur with Marx's rhetorical judgement, as puzzling as it may seem from OUR perspective. Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant 215-2273
Re: The simple/elementary form of value . . .
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/21/00 12:22PM >>> Charles Brown wrote, >Though most of the book "value" is used. But "value" can be used to refer >to "use-value" too. Value in the sense of "wealth" is in the form of >commodities, and commodities are bundles of exchange-value and use-value. Remember, though, "A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing . . . so far as it is a use-value there is nothing mysterious about it . . . [j]ust as little does [this mystical character] proceed from the nature of the determinants of value [the expenditure of labour power] . . ." "Whence, then, arises the enigmatic character of the product of labour, as soon as it assumes the form of a commodity? . . . The mysterious character of the commodity-form consists therefore simply in the fact that the commodity *reflects* the social characteristics of men's own labour as objective characteristics of the products of labour themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these things." Yes, then, exchange-value expresses value but it does so in an "inverted", "mysterious" form -- as a relationship between things (e.g., linen and coats) rather than as the relationship between people -- the weaver and the tailor -- that it fundamentally is. CB: I agree with this, but in this first Chapter, Marx is dispelling the mystery. After you read it , value shouldn't be so mysterious in any of its forms. We get a clear picture of use-value and exchange=-value as concrete labor and abstract labor , a unity and struggle of opposites bundled up in a commodity. A commodity is the unity of two contradictory forms of labor. Commodities are exchanged based on the commensurability of the abstract labor embodied in them , not on the basis of comparison of the concrete labor embodied in them. The mystery exists for those who don't read this Chapter, that is most people. ( Elsewhere (e.g. in the Grundrisse and in the Critique of Political Economy), Marx makes a fundamental distinction between "value", which is a characteristic of the commodity form and "wealth", which is not. That distinction is so crucial that I'll have to reserve comment on it until I have a bit more time to elaborate. ( CB: Agree. In the societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, wealth presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities, which consist of exchange-value ( "value") and use-value. Other socieities (non-capitalist) have a lot of non-commodity forms of wealth. Their use-values are mostly not bundled together with exchange-value in commodities. Commodities are mostly exchanged BETWEEN societies, around the edges and borders of socieities. Most production is for use, not exchange, in these pre-capitalist societies, so their wealth is in a different form.
Re: The simple/elementary form of value . . .
Charles Brown wrote, >Though most of the book "value" is used. But "value" can be used to refer >to "use-value" too. Value in the sense of "wealth" is in the form of >commodities, and commodities are bundles of exchange-value and use-value. Remember, though, "A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing . . . so far as it is a use-value there is nothing mysterious about it . . . [j]ust as little does [this mystical character] proceed from the nature of the determinants of value [the expenditure of labour power] . . ." "Whence, then, arises the enigmatic character of the product of labour, as soon as it assumes the form of a commodity? . . . The mysterious character of the commodity-form consists therefore simply in the fact that the commodity *reflects* the social characteristics of men's own labour as objective characteristics of the products of labour themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these things." Yes, then, exchange-value expresses value but it does so in an "inverted", "mysterious" form -- as a relationship between things (e.g., linen and coats) rather than as the relationship between people -- the weaver and the tailor -- that it fundamentally is. Elsewhere (e.g. in the Grundrisse and in the Critique of Political Economy), Marx makes a fundamental distinction between "value", which is a characteristic of the commodity form and "wealth", which is not. That distinction is so crucial that I'll have to reserve comment on it until I have a bit more time to elaborate. Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant 215-2273
RE: RE: The simple/elementary form of value considered as a whole (was Re: Charlie Andrew's book)
"...the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange-value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange-value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form." (_Capital_, Vol. 1, International, 1967, p. 46). I don't see either one as short-hand for the other. Exchange-value is the expression of value. I remember Shaikh's T.A., Salim Khan, had a quote from Descartes about candles and wax that was a good analogy for the relation between value and exchange value (and use-value?). Anybody know if Marx used this and/or what the quote is or where it's from? Well, they flubbed because the quote above is pure Aristotle and Descartes was into an Augustinian/Neoplatonist approach. Labor ain't a substance, neither is value. Ian
RE: The simple/elementary form of value considered as a whole (was Re: Charlie Andrew's book)
"...the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange-value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange-value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form." (_Capital_, Vol. 1, International, 1967, p. 46). I don't see either one as short-hand for the other. Exchange-value is the expression of value. I remember Shaikh's T.A., Salim Khan, had a quote from Descartes about candles and wax that was a good analogy for the relation between value and exchange value (and use-value?). Anybody know if Marx used this and/or what the quote is or where it's from? -Original Message- From: Timework Web [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:2122] The simple/elementary form of value considered as a whole (was Re: Charlie Andrew's book) Originally, Charles Brown (CB) wrote: > >CB: Do you happen to recall where Marx makes the distinction between > >"exchange value" and "value" ? I thought "value" was shorthand for > >"exchange value" in _Capital_. Jim Devine suggested a passage on page 128 (vintage) 38 (progress). The explicit distinction is on page 152/66. Marx is clear in stating that value and its magnitude DO NOT originate in exchange value, they are "expressed" in exchange value. He also apologizes for misleading the reader at the beginning of the chapter by saying that "a commodity is a use-value and an exchange-value" but he excuses the abbreviation as harmless ONCE WE KNOW the subtle distinction between value, which is embodied in the commodity, and exchange-value, which is manifested only in a relationship with a second commodity of a different kind. Rather than value being a shorthand for exchange-value, Marx used exchange-value as a shorthand for value! Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant 215-2273
The simple/elementary form of value considered asa whole (was Re:Charlie Andrew's book)
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/21/00 10:54AM >>> Originally, Charles Brown (CB) wrote: > >CB: Do you happen to recall where Marx makes the distinction between > >"exchange value" and "value" ? I thought "value" was shorthand for > >"exchange value" in _Capital_. Jim Devine suggested a passage on page 128 (vintage) 38 (progress). The explicit distinction is on page 152/66. Marx is clear in stating that value and its magnitude DO NOT originate in exchange value, they are "expressed" in exchange value. ((( CB: Agree. Value and its magnitude originate in LABOR, abstract labour. (( He also apologizes for misleading the reader at the beginning of the chapter by saying that "a commodity is a use-value and an exchange-value" but he excuses the abbreviation as harmless ONCE WE KNOW the subtle distinction between value, which is embodied in the commodity, and exchange-value, which is manifested only in a relationship with a second commodity of a different kind. ((( CB: Agree. Throughout most of the text of _Capital_, "value" is shorthand for exchange-value, after the initial definition regarding exchange-value and use-value is made. Most of _Capital_ is a discussion of exchange-value , not use-value. ) Rather than value being a shorthand for exchange-value, Marx used exchange-value as a shorthand for value! ( CB: Sort of , except it would be "exchange-value" is LONGhand for "value". Though most of the book "value" is used. But "value" can be used to refer to "use-value" too. Value in the sense of "wealth" is in the form of commodities, and commodities are bundles of exchange-value and use-value.
Value: paragraphs quoted from Capital
Below are the paragraphs I referred to, clipped from the online text, which is the 1887 English edition. Note the fourth sentence, which begins "In other words", the Vintage translation puts it a bit differently and, I think, brings out the distinction -- and emphasizes its importance -- more clearly: "In other words, the value of a commodity is independently expressed through its presentation [Darstellung] as 'exchange-value'." That passage is a precursor for the deconstructive earthquake that Marx unleashes in the final section of Chapter One, on the Fetishism of the Commodity. Value _appears_ to be a relationship between things because it is _presented_ in the form of exchange-value. But this is an upside-down appearance: the table "not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than if it were to begin dancing of its own free will." 4. The Elementary Form of value considered as a whole The elementary form of value of a commodity is contained in the equation, expressing its value-relation to another commodity of a different kind, or in its exchange-relation to the-same. The value of commodity A, is qualitatively expressed, by the fact that commodity B is directly exchangeable with it. Its value is quantitatively expressed by the fact, that a definite quantity of B is exchangeable with a definite quantity of A. In other words, the value of a commodity obtains independent and definite expression, by taking the form of exchange-value. When, at the beginning of this chapter, we said, in common parlance, that a commodity is both a use-value and an exchange-value, we were, accurately speaking, wrong. A commodity is a use-value or object of utility, and a value. It manifests itself as this two-fold thing, that it is, as soon as its value assumes an independent form -- viz., the form of exchange-value. It never assumes this form when isolated, but only when placed in a value or exchange relation with another commodity of a different kind. When once we know this, such a mode of expression does no harm; it simply serves as an abbreviation. Our analysis has shown, that the form or expression of the value of a commodity originates in the nature of value, and not that value and its magnitude originate in the mode of their expression as exchange-value. This, however, is the delusion as well of the mercantilists and their recent revivers, Ferrier, Ganilh, [43][23] and others, as also of their antipodes, the modern bagmen of Free-trade, such as Bastiat. The mercantilists lay special stress on the qualitative aspect of the expression of value, and consequently on the equivalent form of commodities, which attains its full perfection in money. The modern hawkers of Free-trade, who must get rid of their article at any price, on the other hand, lay most stress on the quantitative aspect of the relative form of value. For them there consequently exists neither value, nor magnitude of value, anywhere except in its expression by means of the exchange relation of commodities, that is, in the daily list of prices current. Macleod, who has taken upon himself to dress up the confused ideas of Lombard Street in the most learned finery, is a successful cross between the superstitious mercantilists, and the enlightened Free-trade bagmen. Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant 215-2273
Re: Charlie Andrews' book
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/00 05:38PM >>>
Originally, Charles Brown (CB) wrote:
> >CB: Do you happen to recall where Marx makes the distinction between
> >"exchange value" and "value" ? I thought "value" was shorthand for
> >"exchange value" in _Capital_.
I wrote:
>For example, in the first section of ch. 1 of vol. 1, Marx writes that
>"if we abstract from their value, there remains their value... The common
>factor in the exchange relation, or in the exchange-value of the
>commodity, is therefore its value." (Vintage/Penguin ed., p. 128)
>CB: Mine says:
>"We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange-value
>manifests itself as something totally independent of their use-value. But
>if we abstract from their use-value, there remains their Value as defined
>above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the
>exchange-value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their
>value. " (International, 1967) page 38).
>
>"Value" with a capital "V" is defined as exchange, not use, value in the
>"above" section referred to in the text.
This is the same quote but from a different translation. In general, I find
the Vintage/Penguin translation to be better. (I can't read German, but Ben
Fowkes has an excellent reputation and learned from previous translators.)
But the conclusion is the same. Value is "the common substance" that does
not _equal_ exchange-value but instead is _manifested in_ exchange-values.
Carbon is the common substance or factor in diamonds, pure coal, and Bucky
balls. It is manifested in them. But we can't say that diamonds, pure coal,
and Bucky balls are equal to Carbon. We can't use "Carbon" as short-hand
for them. Rather, they are different forms of Carbon.
((
CB: In this analogy, "Carbon" would be shorthand for their "excahnge-Carbon" , not
for diamonds, pure coal and Bucky balls. Those would be differentiated by their
"use-values", their concrete qualities.
The Value of the commodity has no other manifestation but as exchange-value and forms
of exchange-value , such as capital.
It is not true that as you say next Value with a capital V is partly determined by
exchange. Price is partly determined by exchange, supply and demand. One of Marx's
main points is that labor is the only source of all exchange-value. ( Nature can be a
source of use-value, but not exchange-value.). No value is added to by the exchange to
exchange-value or Value of a commodity.
(
It is true that Value with a capital V is partly determined by exchange.
Disagree. See above.
If
a product can't sell, no Value is produced.
((
CB: Disagree. No Value is realized.
If a lazy or incompetent worker
is competing with an abler worker, the former's concrete labor-time counts
as less socially-necessary abstract labor-time than the latter's.
((
CB: Agree. ( Though "lazy worker" is not in the spirit that Marx writes)
(
As far as I can tell, the capitalization or non-capitalization of Value in
the International Publishers edition has no meaning.
CB: It is only capitalized at the point of the quote you mentioned. It isn't
capitalized throughout the text. I take it as a way of signalling exactly the issue we
are discussing, drawing our attention to it so it is clear throughout the rest of the
text.
It's a lack of
consistency in the printing. I know that Marx never makes a big thing about
"value" vs. "Value."
CB: See above. International does not capitalize it throughout the text. Probably Marx
only capitalized in the spot we are discussing to draw attention to the fundamental
distinction that is being made.
(((
I wrote:
>Part of my confusion in reading CAPITAL was that I assumed that "value"
>was short-hand for "exchange value." But it's pretty clear that "value"
>is instead the shared characteristic ("common factor") of all
>newly-produced commodities, whereas all goods for sale, including those
>that aren't newly produced, have exchange-value (or price). It's a big
>mistake to confuse the "essence" (shared characteristic, common factor) of
>something like a commodity (its value) with its "existence," its
>phenomenal form (its exchange-value or price). To do so is to assume that
>all goods are the same, to ignore the heterogeneity of commodities, their
>use-values.
>CB: See above. Value is exchange-value, not use-value, still in my
>translation.
see the above.
>CB: We don't need the third term you introduce to keep the distinction
>between exchange-value and use-value.
I didn't say that Value was use-value. Nor did Marx.
))
CB: Nor did I. I said it is exchange-value. Nor did I say you or Marx said it is
use-value. I say you introduce a thrid term besides exchange-value (value ,Value, in
the one spot in the text only) and use-value.
You say value is something diff
BLS Daily Report
> BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000: > > Today's News Release: EXTENDED MASS LAYOFFS IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2000 > indicates that in the second quarter of 2000 there were 1,187 mass layoff > actions by employers that resulted in the separation of 227,114 workers > from their jobs for more than 30 days, according to preliminary figures. > Both the number of layoff events and the number of separations were > sharply lower than in April-June 1999, with events and separations at > their lowest level for any April-June period since the resumption of the > Mass Layoff Statistics Program in April 1995. > > Unemployment rates stayed at record low levels in most states during > August, as strong payroll job growth continued, according to figures from > BLS. August marked the second time since 1978 that jobless rates were > below 6 percent in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the agency > says (Daily Labor Report, page D-5). > > Construction of new homes and apartments edged ahead 0.3 percent in > August, with increased construction of single family homes outpacing a > sharp decline in multifamily starts, the Commerce Department reports. > August's start rate was a bit weaker than the 1.547 million a year pace > forecast by the panel of economists polled September 15 by Macroeconomics > Advisers in St. Louis. It trailed 3 straight months of declining activity > (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). > __Housing construction rose in August for the first time in 4 months. > Starts on single-family houses increased as mortgage rates declined (The > Washington Post, page E1). > __Construction of new homes increased in August for the first time in 4 > months, as lower mortgage rates renewed interest from buyers (Bloomberg > News, The New York Times, page C2). > __Construction of new homes rebounded modestly last month after a 3-month > decline, but the housing market remained cool compared with its peak > earlier this year (The Wall Street Journal, page A2. The Journal's page 1 > graph is of housing starts, 1998 to the present). > > The world economy has continued to strengthen and will grow 4.7 percent > this year, with the U.S. economy advancing a robust 5.2 percent, the > International Monetary Fund predicts. The IMF's forecast for the global > economy is 0.5 percentage point higher than predicted last April, while > the U.S. forecast is nearly a percentage point higher (Daily Labor Report, > page A-2). > > A World Bank report on global poverty says 1.2 billion people still live > on $1 a day or less, says Robert J. Samuelson, with the comment that > "outside East Asia, little progress occurred in the past decade" (The > Washington Post, op.ed. page, page A33). > > Improved response from many minority communities helped fuel a turnaround > in census response, said Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt in > announcing that a higher share of households returned their questionnaires > this year than in 1990. Prewitt said 67 percent of U.S. households > returned census forms, whether by mail, over the Internet, or via forms > distributed at community centers. That was up from 65 percent a decade > earlier. In April, census officials had said the return had equaled the > 1990 rate (The Washington Post, page A12). > __A higher percentage of households completed and returned census forms > this year than in 1990, reversing a 3-decade trend away from participation > in the national population count, census officials said today. The > officials said 67 percent of the 120 million households that received a > form in the mail, filled it out and sent it back, compared with the 65 > percent that returned the forms 10 years ago. Census Bureau figures that > 29 states raised their response rates from 1999, with five states -- > California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Nevada and Wyoming -- lifting > rates by 5 percentage points (The New York Times, page A23). > > President Clinton yesterday signed into law a bill that extends long-term > care insurance for 13 million federal employees, members of the military > and their families. The employees will pay the premiums, but because of > the size of the group, rates are expected to be 15 to 20 percent below the > cost of individual long-term care policies (The Washington Post, page > A31). > > Despite all the talk about prosperity in this digital age, tax return data > indicates that the rising tide of bits and bytes is lifting the yachts > much more than the rowboats. From 1986 through 1997, the latest year for > which detailed figures are available from the Internal Revenue Service, > the average income of the richest 1 percent of Americans soared 89 > percent, to $517,713 from $273,562. Those figures are after federal > income taxes have been paid, and are expressed in constant 1997 dollars to > eliminate the effects of inflation. To be counted among the top 1 percent > in 1997 required an after-tax income of at least $268,889, suggesting a
Re: The simple/elementary form of value considered as a whole (was Re: Charlie Andrew's book)
>Jim Devine suggested a passage on page 128 (vintage) 38 (progress). The >explicit distinction is on page 152/66. Marx is clear in stating that >value and its magnitude DO NOT originate in exchange value, they are >"expressed" in exchange value. Tom, could you give the full quote? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
The simple/elementary form of value considered as a whole (was Re:Charlie Andrew's book)
Originally, Charles Brown (CB) wrote: > >CB: Do you happen to recall where Marx makes the distinction between > >"exchange value" and "value" ? I thought "value" was shorthand for > >"exchange value" in _Capital_. Jim Devine suggested a passage on page 128 (vintage) 38 (progress). The explicit distinction is on page 152/66. Marx is clear in stating that value and its magnitude DO NOT originate in exchange value, they are "expressed" in exchange value. He also apologizes for misleading the reader at the beginning of the chapter by saying that "a commodity is a use-value and an exchange-value" but he excuses the abbreviation as harmless ONCE WE KNOW the subtle distinction between value, which is embodied in the commodity, and exchange-value, which is manifested only in a relationship with a second commodity of a different kind. Rather than value being a shorthand for exchange-value, Marx used exchange-value as a shorthand for value! Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant 215-2273
Re: Interesting article on World Bank
Ken Hanly wrote: >I thought that the Summers' memo was supposed to have been written by >someone else and generous Lawrence bravely accepted the fallout from it. In >a discussion on Pen-L a while ago someone advanced this viewpoint. Now we >have a different story from the horse's mouth or is it more hot air from the >jackasses' behind? The memo was written by Lant Pritchett, though Summers signed it and took the public heat for it. Not, of course, that it damaged his career any. When I did my impromptu interview with him, I didn't want to give him an out by acknowledging the ghost authorship. Gratuitous ad hominem note: the way Summers ogles women gives lust a bad name. Doug
Re: Prostitution, Disease, and Race (was Fall of Communism sparksjob growth)
I wrote: >>There is an immaculate conception between this topic and the "Market as >>God" thread. Jo wrote: >Yeah? And who emerges from the spotless sheets? You positing a saviour >of some sort, Sandwichman? Don't you mean: And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant 215-2273
Re: Malaysian exchange controls
>Can anyone refer me to material that details what actions Malaysia took in the >1997 financial crisis, and analyses the results? > >Bill Rosenberg There's a little bit on it in: http://www.kc.frb.org/PUBLICAT/SYMPOS/2000/krugman.pdf -- J. Bradford DeLong Professor of Economics, U.C. Berkeley 601 Evans Hall, #3880 Berkeley, CA 94720-3880 (510) 643-4027 voice (510) 642-6615 fax http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Consumerism
Village Voice Book Supplement BUYING UNHAPPINESS REVIEW BY RICK PERLSTEIN Do Americans Shop Too Much? By Juliet B. Schor et al. Beacon, 102 pp., $12 paper The Consumer Society Reader Edited by Juliet B. Schor and Douglas B. Holt New Press, 502 pp., $22.95 We all know the catechism. America is cradled within the longest uninterrupted-uninterruptible!-economic boom in history. Stock prices mint fortunes at the speed of a mouse click. Billionaires live next door. Yak herders carry Palm Pilots. And so on, et cetera, ad nauseam. Just how far, I wonder, can our pundits drift from an accurate picture of reality without melting from shame? It's not that growth in the aggregate economy is not real, not startling. But as social analysis, to say only that is to build a stool missing two legs. Pay attention long enough to mainstream media and you can catch an occasional glimpse of the stool's first absent strut: the exponentially growing levels of economic inequality since the early '70s. But you can look forever and not find a single mention of the second. It is America's new problem that has no name: our unhappiness epidemic. Social scientists have been confirming it again and again in recent studies. Two sociologists examining the accuracy of the Generation X stereotype stumbled upon the fact that not only are people in their twenties more listless, cynical, and morose than kids in past decades-so are people of all ages. One economist demonstrated a steady decrease in the amount of Americans who report themselves to be "very happy" since the end of World War II, inversely proportional to the nation's ever increasing gross national product. Others show how that trend has accelerated since inequality began growing in the '70s. As with most social phenomena that don't fit into the story the media megacorporations and their ilk tell us, it helps to go to academia for your corrective. And these days, the best place to start is the work of Harvard economist Juliet Schor. The broader public first became aware of Schor through her 1992 bestseller, The Overworked American, which argued-with a force great enough, according to some, to inspire the Family Leave Act of 1993-that the average American now works a full month longer per year than the American of 1969. Her 1998 book, The Overspent American, was something like a prequel. It sought to explain how the nation allowed itself to get to this pass in the first place: It's all those bills we have to pay. The heart of that argument is distilled, and argued over by 12 other prominent scholars of consumerism, in the excellent new paperback Do Americans Shop Too Much? (part of a series put out by the MIT-based policy-and-culture bimonthly the Boston Review, a gem among little magazines). In Schor's view, what is new about our economy is not so much the riches it delivers as the aspirations it enforces. For as long as there have been Joneses, Americans have looked to their neighbors for reference on what a house should look like and what it should be stuffed with. Now, however, our references come not so much from the Joneses as from the likes of those wacky kids on Friends with the 4200-square-foot Manhattan apartment. She calls this the New Consumerism. Think of the New Consumerism as a system of taxation-an extra measure of money we're compelled to spend just to stay on an even keel. Because even the most saintly among us derive a proportion of our well-being from our relative position in the status pecking order, when the stock-optioned class ups the consumption ante, most of us cannot but feel pressured, in our own pathetic little ways, to keep up. It is also like a tax in a more literal sense. If you want your child to have an above-average education, you need to buy a house in an above-average neighborhood-which now means moving into a place that looks like only above-above-above-average neighborhoods did a decade ago. And if you want to have an above-average-sized car to stay safe on the road, you need to buy a tank (excuse me, I mean SUV). Think of treadmills. Think of Sisyphus rolling that big rock up the hill. Think of being trapped in that garbage-compactor room in Star Wars. The American savings rate has gone from 8 percent in 1980 to 4 percent in 1990 to less than zero percent now. Typical unpaid credit card balances are $7000 per household (though people always estimate theirs as much lower); to help matters, credit companies send out some 2.5 billion solicitations a year. Bankruptcies are up from 200,000 in 1980 to over 1.5 million now. No wonder people are unhappy. Critics, of course, have had interesting things to say about the growth of commodification and its effect on human life in an unbroken tradition dating back to the 19th century, and some of the best examples are available in another new book from Schor, coedited with Douglas Holt, The Consumer Society Reader. The benchmarks make the book worth buying: Marx on commodity fetishism; Vebl
Malaysian exchange controls
Can anyone refer me to material that details what actions Malaysia took in the 1997 financial crisis, and analyses the results? Bill Rosenberg
Re: Re: Prostitution, Disease, and Race (was Fall of Communism sparks job growth)
Yeah? And who emerges from the spotless sheets? You positing a saviour of some sort, Sandwichman? Jo At 13:18 21-09-00 , you wrote: >There is an immaculate conception between this topic and the "Market as >God" thread. > > >Tom Walker >Sandwichman and Deconsultant >215-2273 >
