Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit

2002-03-12 Thread Rakesh Bhandari

>Michael writes:
>
>>One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value.
>>Marx did offer one simple "proof" of the role of surplus value in the
>>creation of profit.  Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a
>>whole.  If the working-class did not produce anymore than it consumed,
>>profits would be impossible.
>
>Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for
>both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value.  It does
>not follow from this that surplus value has a "role" in the creation of
>profit.  It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a "role"
>in the creation of surplus value.  Similarly, it does it follow that
>"value... is  fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits
>depend on what happens in the sphere of value."  
>
>Gil

I have not read Andrew's paper, but it would be nice to be able to 
assess his provocative claim that the assumption of simultaneous 
valuation *logically* precludes one from asserting that surplus labor 
is a necessary and sufficient condition for positive profit.  Andrew 
seems to have a good taste for difficult, important and in this case 
fundamental problems in the so called modern interpretation of Marx

It would be helpful, I believe, if we could discuss as topics in the 
history of economic thought

(a) the idea of the surplus

(I would like to defend Marx's unappreciated idea, recovered by 
Grossmann, that it has two forms--a value form and a use value form, 
one the product of abstract, general homogenous labor and the other 
the product of concrete labor; Marx,  who was after Babbage perhaps 
the greatest 19th century economic student of science and technology, 
NEVER says that changes in the use value quantity of  physical 
surplus are conditioned solely on changes in the surplus quantity of 
abstract homogeneous, general social labor time ) and

(b) the methodology of comparative statics, in particular its working 
assumption of simultaneous valuation.

For topic a, there is a good, introductory discussion in Peter 
Lichtenstein's  An introduction to post-Keynesian and Marxian 
theories of value and price though I think he misses entirely Marx's 
discovery of the dual form of the surplus. And the existence of two 
surpluses comes up in Andrew and Freeman's work which studies the 
relationship between surplus *value* and the *physical* surplus. I 
have offered a criticism of their treatment.

I do not read them however to be denying the existence of a physical 
surplus but rather to be demonstrating that the attempt to calculate 
the profit rate based soley on the physical surplus (as well as a 
fixed distributional parameter) necessarily presupposes the dubious 
simultaneous assumtion of input=output prices and that such an 
assumption is at odds with both Marx dynamics vision and more 
importantly the dynamics of capital accumulation.

And one can reply: well didn't Marx himself make such an assumption 
of classical natural or equilibrium prices in his own reproduction 
schemes and transformation analyses? Do equilibrium prices not exert 
*any* force at *any* point in the course of capital accumulation or 
the business cycle? Are they of *no* theoretical interest 
*whatsoever*? Isn't it towards an equilibrium point based on the new 
adopted technology that the economy is moving in Schumpeter's 
recession phase of the cycle? Or do Andrew and Alan Freeman reject 
this Schumpeterian assumption just as it is rejected by Alan's father 
Chris Freeman, perhaps the leading economic student of science and 
technology in second half of the 20th century?

What would be a good introductory treatment to problem (b)?

Aside from logical claims, I thought Michael's (as well as Shane's) 
point was not that the labor theory of value is provable or deducible 
but rather that it is a reasonable working hypothesis which can be 
applied on the basis of the categories developed out of it to the 
empirical analysis of capitalist dynamics (Shane's dissertation) and 
in particular to the problems of capitalist crisis (Michael's 
qualitative value theory).

John E has added--and I was hoping for good replies--that it provides 
the best basis for aggregation and the analysis of totalities as well.

Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor theory 
of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex 
capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it shouldn't 
even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems. This 
is not something serious scholars do, it is something propagandists, 
hacks and worse of all metaphysicians do.

And so on.

Rakesh








Re: Re: Re: Roemer and Exploitation

2002-03-12 Thread Rakesh Bhandari

Gil wrote, quoting me:


>
>The basis you offer for the first statement is 
>
>>It is the scarcity of surplus labor in the production process that
>>ensures the relative scarcity of capital with respect to labor: the
>>diminishing flow of surplus value relative to rising minimum capital
>>requirements constrains and discourages the rate of accumulation that
>>would be needed as the OCC rises to absorb not only a growing
>>population but also the proletarians, artisans and peasants
>>continously displaced by technological change and the expansion of
>  >commodity production.


I also had written the following on which Gil did not comment:


>To say that additional capital is increasingly in short supply vis a 
>vis  the new and displaced laboring population as accumulation 
>progresses only means that in the course of accumulation the 
>primordial source of this capital, surplus value, becomes 
>progressively more scarce, too small, in relation to the already 
>accumulated mass of capital


Gil replies:


>I rid, I mean read, this statement as corresponding to Marx's KI/25
>analysis of "the general law of capitalist accumulation," to the effect
>that any rise in wages above subsistence due to demand pressures from
>capital accumulation is necessarily self-limiting, since the resulting loss
>in profit leads to a corresponding reduction in the rate of accumulation.
>(This self-limitation is further reinforced by tendentially rising OCC.)
>
>But I don't see why anyone has to venture into "the hidden mode of
>production" to yield *this* particular point.


which point exactly? the point in the excised paragraph above about 
the primordial source of capital?


>   For example, Marx's argument
>holds if it's true that the only funds for accumulation come from the
>retained earnings of capitalists.  This result could certainly be generated
>by the appropriate (and empirically motivated) Walrasian intertemporal
>model. I took this issue up in my response to Roberto Veneziani when I
>suggested there was no necessary connection between the economic conditions
>leading to the subsumption of labor under capital (i.e., capital's reign
>over the "hidden mode of production" and those capable of explaining the
>persistent scarcity of capital in the face of capital accumulation.

How do you explain persistent scarcity? What do you mean by scarcity? 
You refer at some point to capital constrained equilibrium--is this a 
well understood defintion of scarcity to the economic theorists on 
the list?   Are these questions taken up in your formal reply to 
which Roberto V has referred?

By the way, what do you make of Keynes' argument about the 
relationship between the declining marginal efficiency of capital as 
capital becomes less scarce though not necessarily less physical 
productive?  What is the connection between the scarcity to which you 
refer and Keynes' nebulous idea of capital scarcity (or the lack 
thereof)?





>  I took this issue up in my response to Roberto Veneziani when I
>suggested there was no necessary connection between the economic conditions
>leading to the subsumption of labor under capital (i.e., capital's reign
>over the "hidden mode of production" and those capable of explaining the
>persistent scarcity of capital in the face of capital accumulation.

I am not suggesting a "necessary" connection.

Gil writes:



>
>Exactly.  And *given* such socially-determined differences [in time 
>preferences--rb], I show that one
>can account for the persistence of capitalist exploitation.

Well, this very concept of time preferences surely needs unpacking.

Rakesh




Re: re: Strachey/Robinson debate (wasMoseley/Devine)

2002-03-12 Thread Rakesh Bhandari

>In a pen-l message on March 12, it is asserted that:>It seems that Joan
>Robinson and John Strachey had an argument similar to the recent one between
>Devine and Moseley.<
>
>The record should be clear that there is no similarity between the quoted
>passages to the discussion between myself and Fred. We were talking about
>the causes and importance of empirical fluctuations in the profit rate.
>Jim Devine

Jim,


I have some web addresses for all natural memory boosting supplements 
if you want them--haven't had to use them myself yet--though in your 
case I think a little less blind knee jerk reaction would be the best 
cure.

Are you sure that there is no similarity between what Strachey who 
was at this point in 1938 still, like Fred,  a FROP theorist  was 
trying to say in response to Joan Robinson and what Fred is getting 
at in his response to you?


Even if turns out that careful analysis reveals that there is no 
overlap between the Strachey riposte to Robinson and  what Fred said 
below in a response to you--and I am not denying that your later 
response to Fred was quite reasonable, if not persuasive--I think I 
can be excused for thinking there may be a connection.

After all, I said that the old argument  *SEEMS* similar to the present one.

Show me why not; or please do consider apologizing. I would 
appreciate it. I doubt that Michael will encourage you to do so, but 
that would be nice.

You could also express appreciation for my having taken the time to 
have typed in the hard-to-get quotation from a defunct journal and 
raised the question of whether there are echoes of an old debate in 
the new one.

rb

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 23:56:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Fred B. Moseley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PEN-L:22962] Re: Devine/Moseley discussion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


This is a belated response to Jim D.'s post of Feb. 3.  Jim, thanks again
for your thoughtful posts.  I too have found our discussion
stimulating.  I have been thinking about our agreements and disagreements,
and trying to further clarify my own ideas.

Due to limited time, I want to concentrate on the last part of your post
which deals with the key issue of what adjustments are necessary for a
sustainable recovery from the current recession.  This last part of your
post is as follows:


On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Devine, James wrote:
>
>  > The other crucial question is: what is necessary for a sustainable
>  recovery from the current recession? I argue that a sustainable recovery
>  requires an increase in investment spending, which in turn requires an
>  increase in the rate of profit. One of the main ways to increase the rate of
>  profit is to cut wages. This conflict between profit and  wages is an
>  unavoidable fact of life in capitalism, and it is intensified in
>  recessions. <
>
>  Cutting wages is the "old time religion" for capitalists. (To quote Andrew
>  Mellon, the Paul O'Neill of the late 1920s and early 1930s, "liquidate
>  labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.")  It
>  perhaps makes sense within the logic of capitalism - an essentially
>  anti-human system - that the only way capitalism can prosper is on the backs
>  of the workers.
>
>  But, as I've said in my papers on the origins of the Great Depression of the
>  1930s, this logic only works if there's enough aggregate demand to allow the
>  realization of the increased profits that result from cutting wages
>  (relative to labor productivity). In a serious recession of the sort I think
>  may be developing, business investment spending is blocked by extreme excess
>  capacity, business debt, and pessimistic expectations. In that situation,
>  capitalists are in a double bind: conditions push them to slash wages and
>  speed up labor processes, which helps with profit production but (all else
>  equal) makes the realization problem worse. This is what I've called the
>  "underconsumption trap."  (If, in addition, we get into a full-scale
>  deflation process involving falling nominal wages, that makes things even
>  worse.)
>
>  In this situation, the workers' struggle to prevent wage cuts and the like
>  (or to actually raise wages) actually help capitalism, by allowing consumer
>  spending to stay stable (or to rise).  Keynesian fiscal policy can work
>  here, though of course with the current balance of political power it's
>  likely to involve tax cuts for the rich and increased military spending.
>
>  You seem to be agreeing with me when you say the following: > However,
>  cutting wages will also reduce consumption in the short-run, and thus will
>  make the recession worse. This is especially worrisome at the present time,
>  because of the unprecedented levels of debt of  all kinds -  business debt
>  and household debt and US debt to foreigners. These high levels of debt make
>  the economy vulnerable to a more serious downturn.
>
>  > Theref

RE: capitalism's predictability.

2002-03-12 Thread Devine, James

I had said:>> Marx's definition of what he meant by capitalism took an
entire volume. His understanding of accumulation takes even more (e.g., the
last part of vol. III). This is tragic, of course, since Marx never finished
volumes II and III or the book on wage-labor. <<

Charles writes:> I was just trying to use a phrase that connected to your
saying  the following in which you term Marx not finishing Vol. III as a
tragedy. Perhaps I should have said , "maybe it wasn't such a tragedy but an
intentional act on Marx's part not to give a full and as if "perfect",
quasi-perfect theory all the way through all the issues in Vol. III, because
there is no such theory." And by the logic of the rest of what he says, we
can infer this. So, from the rest of what he says, and what he did in not
completing a theory of capital's movement right down to the most concrete
detail in Volume III, we might infer, without a ouija board, that it wan't a
tragedy.<

It's likely that Marx first dealt with those issues he thought were most
important, so he started CAPITAL with exploitation, not crises. I don't
think Marx wanted the theory of capitalism's laws of motion to be
incomplete, though. He was the type who wanted to understand what was going
on. 

I don't know if it's a good thing that he never finished his crisis theory
or not. It did leave the opportunity to be creative to future generations. 

I answered: >>... (2) The anarchy of production is just one structural
problem that's inherent
in capitalism. Another is the aggressive competition amongst capitals (a
related issue, but not the same as the anarchy of production). (It's
possible that something like that might show up in a different form in a
planned system, e.g., as competition amongst state bureaucrats. Maybe that
had something to do with the blood purges in the USSR in the 1930s and
after.) More important is the structural antagonism between the two main
classes. A fully socialist revolution would get rid of all of these
structural tensions, replacing anarchy, competition, and class with
democracy.<<

Charles writes: >That is an intereting question. Does Marx forecast no
competition in socialism and communism ?  As far as I can see , thinking
about it, the problem with competition is when it impacts the working class
in its role in the process of unemployment-poverty in general in a crisis or
not.  But competition's role in this is through anarchy. The competition
spurs overproduction among the competitors as a whole, i.e. it produces an
misfit between supply and demand, i.e. anarchy. Competiton between
enterprises, friendly, fair and not cutthroat, organized like sports, might
have a place in socialism and communism.<

I thought I was clear that I was talking only about "aggessive competition."


Jim Devine




RE: Re: Defending civilised values by torture

2002-03-12 Thread Devine, James

>Since this is an economics list we should also recognise that  torture may
be much cheaper in Egypt and other places -as well as the fact that the
torturers have a family values advantage because family members can also be
threatened. It may be a question of presumed value per torture dollar so to
speak. <

so that some countries might have a comparative advantage in torture
services? 
Jim 




re: Strachey/Robinson debate (was Moseley/Devine)

2002-03-12 Thread Devine, James

In a pen-l message on March 12, it is asserted that:>It seems that Joan
Robinson and John Strachey had an argument similar to the recent one between
Devine and Moseley.<

The record should be clear that there is no similarity between the quoted
passages to the discussion between myself and Fred. We were talking about
the causes and importance of empirical fluctuations in the profit rate. 
Jim Devine




the role of monopsony

2002-03-12 Thread Devine, James

[was: RE: [PEN-L:23852] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer] 

I wrote:>>... I think that it's a big mistake -- or even a rhetorical bait
and switch -- to suddenly change over to talking about monoposony in
labor-power markets. I read Shane [Mage] as talking about monopoly in
product markets, not monopsony. <<

Maybe it wasn't a "bait & switch," but it definitely changing the subject
away from what Shane was talking about. Thus, I've changed the title above. 

Gil now writes:>I don't think it's a mistake, because in Chapter 5 [of
volume I of CAPITAL, hereafter "KI/5"], where this issue arises, Marx makes
no distinctions about *which* commodity markets he's talking about. If the
argument holds for the expression of price-setting power in one commodity
market, it should hold for the expression of price-setting power in *any*
commodity market (including the commodity called "labor power").<

Marx clearly distinguishes amongst commodities, especially between
labor-power and non-labor-power commodities. (In most of KI after chapter 3,
he abstracts from the use-value of non-labor-power commodities.) Of course,
it makes sense to treat labor-power differently than other commodities, as
Marx does throughout CAPITAL, since it's not produced by capitalists as part
of the M-C-M' process. This is but one reason why serious students of Marx
have always singled out labor-power as a peculiar commodity. 

Unlike for other commodities, Marx explicitly assumes that the price of
labor-power is fixed in KI/5. I believe that he did this partly because he
wanted to make the case that the problem with capitalism was _not_ that
workers were paid too low a wage; Marx saw the case of "low wage"
exploitation -- or what's called super-exploitation -- as easy or trivial to
understand (see below). (Marx probably saw this type of exploitation as a
distraction from the main point of the book, though he does talk about the
depression of the wage below the value of labor-power later on.) 

On the other hand, the case of exploitation that exists _despite_ the
assumed fact that wages were set according to "bourgeois right" (which here
means that its price is in proportion to its value) is more problematic,
i.e., needing of explanation. Thus, he does not do for labor-power what he
does for other commodities in this chapter, i.e., look at the effects of
price/value deviations. 

The big problem here is that the value of labor-power is inherently vague &
an object of struggle, unlike the value of other commodities. (I think Marx
made a mistake to embrace the Ricardian tradition on this one, despite his
move away from the "physicalist" definition of subsistence; it usually is.)
But another, clearer, way to see what Marx was talking about -- one that
fits with the fact that in KI after ch. 3 he was dealing with capital in
general (abstract capital) in conflict with labor in general (abstract
labor) -- is that he aimed to understand how the societal _average_ rate of
surplus-value could be positive. In chapter 5 and the rest of CAPITAL (even
volume III), his main focus was not deviations of the rate of surplus-value
between industries, with some involving super-exploitation. (He does talk
about super-exploitation within industries, as with the workshops that had
backward technology in competition with mechanized workshops having to make
up for it by super-exploiting their workers.) In general, he doesn't deal
with the heterogeneity of labor, since almost all of his emphasis is on
abstract labor. 

Gil said:>>>... due to the empirically relevant fact that workers face
significant costs of job search (...). Then more monopsony power, and thus
more surplus value, for one capitalist does not imply less for any other
capitalist.  Rather it implies that workers as a class perform more surplus
labor.<<<

said I:>>You'd think that in a neoclassical world, the "capitalists" would
also face search costs in their efforts to hire employees. This would give
the employees who currently have jobs a little bit of monopoly power
vis-a-vis their employers. There's no reason in the neoclassical world for
the monopsony power of the employers to _a priori_ exceed the monopoly power
of the employees, so that we've got a indeterminate bilateral monopoly
situation.<<

Gil: >There's also no necessary grounds in neoclassical terms for insisting
on bilateral search costs.  The point here is theoretical possibility, not
generality.<

Okay, let's grant this "theoretical possibility" (despite its clear
improbability). Suppose that some capitalists have monopsony power and more
importantly that this is a big enough phenomenon on the societal level that
it raises the (aggregate average) rate of surplus-value. The latter
assumption is needed to make sure that the super-exploitation isn't
counterbalanced on aggregate by the below-average degree of exploitation in
other sectors. (A real-world example might be capitalism under the Nazis,
where employers were given all sorts of marke

Zoellick weighs in

2002-03-12 Thread Ian Murray

[Financial Times]
The reigning champions of free trade
Robert Zoellick insists that the US was within its rights to
impose tariffs on steel, and warns against ill-considered
retaliatory measures.
Published: March 12 2002 20:04 | Last Updated: March 12 2002 20:53



President George W. Bush acted last week to help the US steel
industry regain its footing in accordance with World Trade
Organisation rules. We have explained since last June that the
problems of the global steel industry - overcapacity traced to a
long history of government subsidies, market controls and
protections - called for multilateral action, not finger-pointing.
In that same spirit, I should like to share the Bush
administration's views on this issue.

First, we should put this action in perspective. The US imports
well over $1,000bn (£700bn) a year in goods from around the world,
of which all steel products account for roughly 1 per cent. Last
year the US ran a $427bn trade deficit. It is not unreasonable in
these circumstances to use the domestic and international tools
available to help a US industry cope with an influx of imports
that has contributed to massive bankruptcies and loss of jobs.

Some of our trading partners have expressed concern that this
heralds a protectionist turn in US policy. They are wrong. Within
only a year, this administration has forged strong free trade
credentials. From the launching of new global trade negotiations
in Doha, to ending the impasse blocking China and Taiwan's entry
into the WTO, to completing trade agreements with Jordan and
Vietnam, to pushing ahead with negotiations to form the Free Trade
Area of the Americas, the world's biggest open market, Mr Bush has
time and again demonstrated his commitment to open trade. And he
is determined to extend the benefits of open markets to the
world's poorer nations by seeking to expand preferential access to
US markets and exploring free trade agreements with countries in
Africa, Central America and the Asia-Pacific.

Each of these stepping stones will ultimately lead to a trading
system that creates sustainable prosperity for America, our main
trading partners and the world's developing nations.

As for the decision itself, the US has long been the market of
first and last resort for steel, as evidenced by our status as a
leading steel importer. That fact, together with the drop in
demand in Asia for steel as a result of the meltdown of Asian
economies in the late 1990s, plus a continuing strong dollar that
fuels export-led growth globally, has conspired to bring an
unprecedented flood of imports into US markets.

WTO rules allow for safeguard measures precisely to enable
countries to cope with such disruptions. Today about 30 per cent
of US steel-making capacity has filed for bankruptcy. Domestic
steel prices in the last quarter of 2001 were at their lowest for
20 years and nearly all US steel operations, regardless of
efficiency or business model, were spilling red ink. Since 1997,
45,000 US steelworkers have lost their jobs.

To try to tackle these problems comprehensively, Mr Bush launched
multilateral talks last June to press the fragmented global
industry to close down inefficient capacity. The talks were also
aimed at tackling rampant market distortions, traced to a long
history of national planning for "Commanding Heights" industries.

The president also made clear that we would not just wring our
hands while diplomats met in drawing rooms: he asked the
International Trade Commission, an independent agency, to
investigate the effects of imports on the US's steel industry and
its workers. In response to the ITC's unanimous finding that
imports were a substantial cause of serious injury to the US steel
industry, the Bush administration imposed the carefully
constructed "safeguard" measure to give the industry adequate
breathing space while minimising the impact on steel consumers.

The US action on steel is temporary. Tariffs will be phased out
over a three-year period, during which time US steel-makers are
expected further to restructure, reduce excess capacity and
increase productivity - a process that the US government will
monitor closely. We hope that steel companies worldwide will
follow that lead to produce a healthier, freer international steel
market.

Beyond the short-term nature of the relief, the administration has
taken steps to minimise the impact of steel safeguards on our
trading partners. For example, we exempted countries that have
committed to the highest level of reciprocal market access - our
North American Free Trade Agreement and FTA partners. The
safeguard includes generous quotas for the crucial steel products
of Russia and Brazil. There are important exclusions for other
nations, including Australia and South Korea. Most developing
countries will continue to enjoy open access to the US market. All
these measures are consistent with WTO rules and represent the US
effort to lessen any disruptions the temporary safeguards ma

Everybody play nice....

2002-03-12 Thread Ian Murray

Steel war 'threatens global trade round'

Charlotte Denny
Wednesday March 13, 2002
The Guardian

The incoming head of the World Trade Organisation has warned the
United States and Europe that they are endangering the new round
of global trade talks with their increasingly acrimonious dispute
over American steel tariffs.

Supachai Panitchpakdi, a former Thai deputy prime minister who
takes over as director general of the WTO in September, urged the
combatants to try to resolve their differences through dialogue
rather than letting the row escalate.

"[The steel issue] is coming at a time that we might be needing a
larger degree of international cooperation for the final solution
for the [trade liberalisation] round," Mr Supachai said.

President Bush enraged the EU and other steel producers last week
when he announced tariffs of up to 30% on foreign imports. Europe,
Japan, Australia and New Zealand have already challenged the US
decision at the WTO. Mr Supachai said he was concerned that the
steel issue could derail progress on other trade issues ahead of
the Geneva-based body's next ministerial conference, in 2003 in
Mexico. "We should move ahead in spite of the steel conflict. We
should move ahead as much we can on trade negotiations," he said.

Trade experts said EU threats to explore ways of short-circuiting
the WTO's disputes procedures could sour the atmosphere in Geneva.
Among the options being considered by Brussels is a WTO provision
allowing it to impose its own tariffs if Washington refuses to
compensate it for lost steel sales.

"Nobody has ever done that before," said Rachel Thompson, a trade
analyst at Apco. "That would really raise the temperature."

A spokesman for trade commissioner Pascal Lamy said Brussels was
still exploring its options. "Whatever we do, we will play by the
rules."

Brussels has given Washington 30 days to respond to the call for
compensation, and will have to give a further 30 days' notice if
it decides to impose tariffs of its own on US goods.





Re: urpe@assa

2002-03-12 Thread Gil Skillman

Mathew, the URPE@ASSA coordinator is Mieke Meurs at American University.  I
can look up her e-mail address if you need it.  The deadline is generally
not until May or June, so you're not under the gun here.  If Mieke doesn't
send an announcement directly to PEN-L, I'll forward the announcement when
I get it.  Nothing has been sent out yet, as far as I know.  Gil

>Does anyone know the details on submitting session proposals for the
>URPE meetings at ASSA, D.C., 2003--deadline, who to send it to, e-mail,
>etc.?
>




urpe@assa

2002-03-12 Thread Forstater, Mathew

Does anyone know the details on submitting session proposals for the
URPE meetings at ASSA, D.C., 2003--deadline, who to send it to, e-mail,
etc.?




Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit

2002-03-12 Thread Gil Skillman

Charles, you write
>
>CB: Your argument for this is probably in your previous posts, but could you 
>reiterate it ?  Does it follow from something else that surplus value is a 
>necessary condition for profit ?  Marx makes surplus value part of the 
>definition of profit.
>

First things first:  where does Marx make surplus value part of his
definition of profit?

>
> It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a "role"
>in the creation of surplus value.  Similarly, it does it follow that
>"value... is  fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits
>depend on what happens in the sphere of value."   
>
>^^^
>
>CB: Is that "does not follow..."  ?

Yes

Gil




Re: Marx vs. Roemer

2002-03-12 Thread Gil Skillman

Charles, thanks for your post.  It is entirely appropriate to demand care
in definition and usage of terms, especially in these first steps.  

>>Regarding your discussion below, are you saying that because one necessary 
>>condition for _surplus_ value is that it follow a circuit of capital, that 
>>Marx contradicts his earlier declarations that labor is the only source of 
>>new exchange-value ? That he contradicts his idea that no new value is 
>>created in the exchanges between capitalists ?
>
>Gil : No.  As I state in point (2) below, value is determined by socially
>necessary labor time. 

>CB: Because we are examining this somewhat rigorously, I would just comment 
>that the _magnitude_ of value is what is determine by socially necessary 
>labor time. I don't know if that distinction matters to your argument. 

I agree with the distinction you're drawing.  I don't think it matters,
since my statement presupposes that labor is the source of value as Marx
defines the term in KI/1, but better safe than sorry.  In the same spirit,
I'll note that I'd favor the statement that "labor is the only source of
value" over the statement "labor is the only source of new exchange-value,"
since Marx draws a distinction between the two, such that exchange-value is
understood as the necessary "mode of expression, of form of appearance, of
value."   Again, I don't think it matters for the purpose at hand, but
there's at least one point in the argument to follow where the distinction
may arise.

> Gil: What I am saying is that Marx stipulates *2*
>conditions for the existence of surplus value, as reflected in his Chapter
>5 comment  "Capital cannot therefore arise from circulation, and it is
>equally impossible for it to arise apart from circulation.  It must have
>its origin both in circulation and not in circulation."  (p. 268, Penguin
>ed.)  My point is that Marx's argument in Chapter 5 never addresses the
>possibility that surplus value's "origin...in circulation" may *require* at
>least targeted price-value disparities, *entirely granting* the point that
>the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value
>because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value.
>Because of this lacuna, his subsequent conclusion that price-value
>disparities are mere "disturbing incidental circumstances which are
>irrelevant to the actual course of the process" (p. 269, footnote) is
>invalid.  
>
>
>CB: (Again, just because we are doing a fine tooth comb treatment, "surplus 
>value" and "capital" are not entirely identical, but it may not matter. I'm 
>not trying to be picky, but I am thinking that as you are doing a very fine 
>graded analysis,  these types of details cause a question mark to sort of 
>popup in one's mind)

No, that's fine, it's better to make these choices explicit.  As far as I
can tell, "capital" in the passage I cited above is shorthand for "the
transformation of money into capital," a phrase that Marx uses in the
passages immediately preceding and immediately following the one I cite.
Again as far as I can tell, Marx uses "the transformation of money into
capital" as a corollary of "creation of surplus value"--compare, for
example, his usage of "surplus value" at the top of p. 268 and the
near-parallel use of "transformation of money into capital" near the bottom. 

>When you say " *entirely granting* the point that
>the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value
>because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value." what 
>does "the latter" refer to ? "Targetted price-value disparities " ?

Oops.  The first "the latter" refers to the phrase "at least targeted
price-value disparities" and the second "the latter" refers to "surplus
value." 

>I'm trying to get this still. What are targetted price-value disparities ?

I'm making a distinction here between *general* disparities between
commodity values and their respective prices, treated by Marx on pp
263-264, and disparities between the price and value of a specific
commodity or type of commodity.

>
>This point is more than just a logical issue, but to keep things focused
>I'll stick with the logical point for now:  if you establish that condition
>A is not *sufficient* for condition B, you have not validly established
>that A is "incidental" to B, since the possibility remains that condition A
>is *necessary* for condition B.  Marx never addresses the latter possibility 
>one way or the other in his Chapter 5 argument.

>CB: Are you saying that "price-value disparities might be both necessary and 
>sufficient for surplus-value ?  Sorry if I am not quite following the 
>reasoning.

No, I'm saying that Marx's Chapter 5 argument demonstrates the claim that
"price-value disparities are not sufficient to explain the existence of
surplus value."  But he makes no demonstration one way or the other
concerning the claim "price-value disparities are not necessary for the
existence of surplus value

Enough already: Marx vs. Roemer

2002-03-12 Thread Charles Brown

Enough already: Marx vs. Roemer
by Justin Schwartz
11 March 2002 22:15 UTC 

^^^

Charles: Justin, my recall  is that , like a number of themes on this group of related 
lists, this one ( Analytical Marxist reading of Marx, etc.) comes and goes. So, I have 
a feeling we will revisit it. I may try to get some questions on your paper to you 
offlist.

^



Keep saying, it Charles, and maybe people will believe it. However, you've 
worn me out, so you must be right, Marx solved all our problems, and I 
embrace the true faith and swear on the hammer and sickle never to doubt the 
LTV or write any more recipes for future cookshops. Just kidding. But I am 
worn out on these topics. The LTV doesn't even interest me that much, and I 
have set market socialism on a back burner for a bit. Call me what you like, 
I don't see these discussions going anywhere. We don't convince each othe, 
and I don't even think we much illuminate each other, except for the stray 
post, like your nice last on SV. So let it go, let it go. So, denounce and 
expose me as fraud, a faker, a cowardly bourgeouis sell-out, I don't care, 
I'm tired, I was up all night, I quit. If you have questions about issues 
raised in my papers other than these, which were not central to those 
papersa nd were not discussed in them except incidentally, I'll address them 
if I have anything to say. I won't ride your hobbyhorses any more.

jks






marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit

2002-03-12 Thread Charles Brown

 marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
by Gil Skillman
12 March 2002 17:55 UTC  


Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for
both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value.  It does
not follow from this that surplus value has a "role" in the creation of
profit. 

^

CB: Your argument for this is probably in your previous posts, but could you reiterate 
it ?  Does it follow from something else that surplus value is a necessary condition 
for profit ?  Marx makes surplus value part of the definition of profit.

^


 It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a "role"
in the creation of surplus value.  Similarly, it does it follow that
"value... is  fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits
depend on what happens in the sphere of value."   

^^^

CB: Is that "does not follow..."  ?






Marx vs. Roemer

2002-03-12 Thread Charles Brown

 Marx vs. Roemer
by Gil Skillman
12 March 2002 16:06 UTC  

Charles, you ask

>Regarding your discussion below, are you saying that because one necessary 
>condition for _surplus_ value is that it follow a circuit of capital, that 
>Marx contradicts his earlier declarations that labor is the only source of 
>new exchange-value ? That he contradicts his idea that no new value is 
>created in the exchanges between capitalists ?

Gil : No.  As I state in point (2) below, value is determined by socially
necessary labor time. 

^

CB: Because we are examining this somewhat rigorously, I would just comment that the 
_magnitude_ of value is what is determine by socially necessary labor time. I don't 
know if that distinction matters to your argument. 

^



 Gil: What I am saying is that Marx stipulates *2*
conditions for the existence of surplus value, as reflected in his Chapter
5 comment  "Capital cannot therefore arise from circulation, and it is
equally impossible for it to arise apart from circulation.  It must have
its origin both in circulation and not in circulation."  (p. 268, Penguin
ed.)  My point is that Marx's argument in Chapter 5 never addresses the
possibility that surplus value's "origin...in circulation" may *require* at
least targeted price-value disparities, *entirely granting* the point that
the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value
because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value.
Because of this lacuna, his subsequent conclusion that price-value
disparities are mere "disturbing incidental circumstances which are
irrelevant to the actual course of the process" (p. 269, footnote) is
invalid.  


CB: (Again, just because we are doing a fine tooth comb treatment, "surplus value" and 
"capital" are not entirely identical, but it may not matter. I'm not trying to be 
picky, but I am thinking that as you are doing a very fine graded analysis,  these 
types of details cause a question mark to sort of popup in one's mind)

When you say " *entirely granting* the point that
the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value
because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value." what does "the 
latter" refer to ? "Targetted price-value disparities " ?

I'm trying to get this still. What are targetted price-value disparities ?






This point is more than just a logical issue, but to keep things focused
I'll stick with the logical point for now:  if you establish that condition
A is not *sufficient* for condition B, you have not validly established
that A is "incidental" to B, since the possibility remains that condition A
is *necessary* for condition B.  Marx never addresses the latter possibility one way 
or the other in his Chapter 5 argument.

^^^

CB: Are you saying that "price-value disparities might be both necessary and 
sufficient for surplus-value ?  Sorry if I am not quite following the reasoning.




Gil

>1)  Although monopoly power (or perhaps more to the point, monopsony power
>exercised by capitalists in markets for labor power) may increase the rate
>of surplus value, other things equal, it is not necessary for the
>*existence* of surplus value in Marx's analytical framework.
>
>2)  What *is* necessary for the existence of surplus value, by Marx's
>stipulation, is that new value is produced subsequent to, and dependent on,
>the initiation of a circuit of capital (denoted M--C--M'). Since value
>magnitudes are determined by socially necessary labor time expended in
>production, surplus value therefore cannot arise merely from the
>redistribution of value that existed prior to the initiation of the
>circuit.  Thus, the mere existence of monopoly power in commodity markets
>is also not *sufficient* to account for the existence of surplus value as
>Marx defines the term.
>
>3)  It does not, however, follow from (1) or (2) that disparities between
>commodity values and their respective prices are "incidental" to the
>existence of surplus value, as Marx explicitly claims at the end of Volume
>I, Chapter 5.  What Marx affirms in Chapter 5 is that such disparities are
>not *sufficient* of themselves to account for the existence of surplus
>value.  However, this leaves entirely open the possibility that particular
>price-value disparities might be *necessary* (and therefore not
>incidental!) to the existence of surplus value, *and Marx doesn't address
>this possibility one way or another in Chapter 5.*  The reason this is
>potentially relevant is that Marx stipulates *two* conditions for the
>existence of surplus value:
>
>A) As noted above, new value must be produced subsequent to, and financed
>by, the initiation of a circuit of capital.
>
>B)  A portion of the newly produced value must be appropriated by someone
>(i.e., the capitalist) *other* than the one(s) who created that value (cf
>Marx's discussion of the "leather and boots" example on p. 268 (Penguin
>ed.)).  
>
>Granting that *targe

RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit

2002-03-12 Thread Drewk

All of the interpretations of Marx's value theory in which inputs
and outputs are valued (priced) simultaneously imply that
surplus-labor is *neither* necessary nor sufficient for positive
profit.

This is proved for even for economies without joint production,
that are able to reproduce themselves over time, in Andrew J.
Kliman, "Simultaneous Valuation vs the Exploitation Theory of
Profit," _Capital and Class_ 73, Spring 2001.

So there are lots of people who do dispute "that surplus *labor*
is a necessary condition for ... the existence of profit," by
virtue of adhering to the interpretations they hold.

Andrew Kliman

P.S.  I hope to say more about this and related matters in a week
or two, but I thought it necessary (and sufficient) to make this
factual correction here.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gil Skillman
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23879] Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value
and
profit


Michael writes:

>One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus
value.
>Marx did offer one simple "proof" of the role of surplus value in
the
>creation of profit.  Suppose, he says, that we take the working
class as a
>whole.  If the working-class did not produce anymore than it
consumed,
>profits would be impossible.

Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary
condition for
both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value.
It does
not follow from this that surplus value has a "role" in the
creation of
profit.  It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has
a "role"
in the creation of surplus value.  Similarly, it does it follow
that
"value... is  fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and
profits
depend on what happens in the sphere of value."

Gil





calming predicates in the New York Times

2002-03-12 Thread Ken Hanly

I have never seen the phrase "calming predicate" beforeI wonder how
reassured allies will be in being assured that they will be included and
play their part in US-led coalition against terrrorism.

Cheers, Ken

Mr. Bush's remarks, delivered on a brilliant but cold morning with the
Washington diplomatic corps in attendance and the flags of 179 nations
behind him, seemed an attempt to reassure nations unsettled by the
unilateralist tone of his State of the Union Address on Jan. 29. Today the
president reached out to the same allies he had not even mentioned in the
earlier speech, praising them as a "mighty coalition of civilized nations"
in what appeared to be a calming predicate for action against Iraq.





A calming predicate from the New York Times

2002-03-12 Thread Ken Hanly

What is a calming predicate? Is Justin freelancing for the New York Times ;)
?
I guess calling US allies a mighty coalition of civilized nations is meant
to calm them down, or sedate them perhaps, so that they dont get upset when
the US attacks Iraq or they are asked to contribute to just cause, enduring
freedom, etc. or whatever calming description is the phrase of the day.

Cheers, Ken Hanly


Mr. Bush's remarks, delivered on a brilliant but cold morning with the
Washington diplomatic corps in attendance and the flags of 179 nations
behind him, seemed an attempt to reassure nations unsettled by the
unilateralist tone of his State of the Union Address on Jan. 29. Today the
president reached out to the same allies he had not even mentioned in the
earlier speech, praising them as a "mighty coalition of civilized nations"
in what appeared to be a calming predicate for action against Iraq.





Re: Re: Roemer and Exploitation

2002-03-12 Thread Gil Skillman

Hello, Rakesh.  You write in part

>Production (P) is explanatorily fundamental to the scarcity of DOPA 
>(S) and thus the persistence of exploitation (E).
>
>That is, P=>E implies P+S=>E
>
>It's into the hidden abode of production one must enter to explain 
>the persistence of scarce DOPA relative to labor, no?
>
>Walrasianism Marx is not suited for that kind of investigation, is it?

I'm going to tread lightly here, because we both know from our mutual
experience on OPE-L that we're probably not going to end up agreeing in any
case.  All I want to do, therefore, is address your question in good faith
by indicating the  grounds for an alternative viewpoint that allows for the
relevance of Roemer's analysis to Marx's Volume I argument concerning the
persistence of exploitation.  I don't thereby assume that you'll find these
logical grounds appealing or relevant.  

You suggest above that "Production (P) is explanatorily fundamental to the
scarcity of DOPA 
(S) and thus the persistence of exploitation (E)", and suggest further that
"Walrasianism Marx" is not suited for that kind of investigation."  

The basis you offer for the first statement is  

>It is the scarcity of surplus labor in the production process that 
>ensures the relative scarcity of capital with respect to labor: the 
>diminishing flow of surplus value relative to rising minimum capital 
>requirements constrains and discourages the rate of accumulation that 
>would be needed as the OCC rises to absorb not only a growing 
>population but also the proletarians, artisans and peasants 
>continously displaced by technological change and the expansion of 
>commodity production.

I rid, I mean read, this statement as corresponding to Marx's KI/25
analysis of "the general law of capitalist accumulation," to the effect
that any rise in wages above subsistence due to demand pressures from
capital accumulation is necessarily self-limiting, since the resulting loss
in profit leads to a corresponding reduction in the rate of accumulation.
(This self-limitation is further reinforced by tendentially rising OCC.)   

But I don't see why anyone has to venture into "the hidden mode of
production" to yield *this* particular point.  For example, Marx's argument
holds if it's true that the only funds for accumulation come from the
retained earnings of capitalists.  This result could certainly be generated
by the appropriate (and empirically motivated) Walrasian intertemporal
model. I took this issue up in my response to Roberto Veneziani when I
suggested there was no necessary connection between the economic conditions
leading to the subsumption of labor under capital (i.e., capital's reign
over the "hidden mode of production" and those capable of explaining the
persistent scarcity of capital in the face of capital accumulation.

>>(1) differences in preferences are the typical neoclassical argument 
>>to justify differences in wealth, and Roemer explicitly rejects this 
>>sort of argument. See for instance, the discussion about differences 
>>in rates of time preference in Roemer 1981, p.85, and Roemer, 1982, 
>>p.12. (A particularly detailed discussion is in "Free to loose", but 
>>I do not have the reference because I left my copy in Italy!!).

>Gil, what are the page numbers here, do you know?

pp 60-63.  But I want to take exception to the sense of RV's objection
here.  I agree emphatically with RV and Roemer that differences in (time)
preferences cannot legitimately be used to justify differences in wealth.
I never suggest they could be.  Rather, wealth-induced differentials in
time preference are invoked in my model to *explain*, not justify,
persistent exploitation, and this is entirely consistent with Roemer's
discussion, where he says:

"Marxists and left-liberals view rates of time preference as socially
determined.  Therefore in their view it is not possible to justify
exploitation and inequality by appealing to different rates of time
preference, for those differences arose from prior conditions of inequality
and oppression."  

Exactly.  And *given* such socially-determined differences, I show that one
can account for the persistence of capitalist exploitation.

Gil




Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit

2002-03-12 Thread Gil Skillman

Michael writes:

>One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value.
>Marx did offer one simple "proof" of the role of surplus value in the
>creation of profit.  Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a
>whole.  If the working-class did not produce anymore than it consumed,
>profits would be impossible.

Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for
both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value.  It does
not follow from this that surplus value has a "role" in the creation of
profit.  It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a "role"
in the creation of surplus value.  Similarly, it does it follow that
"value... is  fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits
depend on what happens in the sphere of value."   

Gil




Re: Defending civilised values by torture

2002-03-12 Thread Ken Hanly

Further to your remark here is a summary of some of the material from CIA
training manuals used at the School of  the Americas and elsewhere. The
School was not closed down but it was renamed since the original brand name
was so tarnished. Of course this is in the past before the US became the
defender of civilised values and was merely projecting its power and
protecting its interests. More material is available at:
http://www.soaw.org/manuals.htm

Cheers, Ken Hanly

>From Bad to Worse: The CIA Manuals
The two recently declassified CIA manuals make even more chilling reading.
The CIA had written KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation in 1963 for use
by US agents against perceived Soviet subversion. (KUBARK was the CIA's code
name for itself. ) While it was not intended to train foreign military
services, its successor, Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual ---
1983, which drew heavily on material in KUBARK, was used in at least seven
US training courses conducted in Latin American countries between 1982 and
1987, according to a June 1988 memo placed inside the manual. This 1983
manual originally surfaced in response to a June 1988 congressional hearing
which was prompted by allegations by the New York Times that the US had
taught Honduran military officers who used torture. The 1988 hearing was not
the first time such manuals had surfaced. In 1984, a CIA manual for training
the Nicaraguan Contras in psychological operations created a considerable
scandal.
These two CIA textbooks deal exclusively with interrogation and devote an
entire chapter each to "coercive techniques." Human Resource Exploitation
recommends surprising suspects in the predawn hours, arresting,
blindfolding, and stripping them naked. Suspects should be held
incommunicado, it advises, and deprived of normal routines in eating and
sleeping. Interrogation rooms should be windowless, sound proof, dark, and
without toilets. The manuals do admonish that torture techniques can
backfire and that the threat of pain is often more effective than pain
itself. However, they then go on to describe coercive techniques ''to induce
psychological regression in the subject by bringing a superior outside force
to bear on his will to resist.'' These techniques include prolonged
constraint, prolonged exertion, extremes of heat, cold, or moisture,
deprivation of food or sleep, disrupting routines, solitary confinement,
threats of pain, deprivation of sensory stimuli, hypnosis, and use of drugs
or placebos.
According to the Baltimore Sun, "the methods taught in the 1983 manual and
those used by [the US-trained Honduran] Battalion 316 in the early 1980s
show unmistakable similarities." The paper cites the case of Ines Murillo, a
Honduran prisoner who claimed she was held in secret jails in 1983, given no
food or water for days, and kept from sleeping by having water poured on her
head every ten minutes.
Dismissive of the rule of law, Human Resource Exploitation Training
Manual-1983 states the importance of knowing local laws on detention, but
then notes, "Illegal detention always requires prior [headquarters]
approval.'' The manual also refers to one or two weeks of "practical work"
with prisoners as part of the course, suggesting that US trainers may have
worked with Latin American militaries in interrogating actual detainees.
This reference gives new support to the claims by Latin Americans held as
prisoners and by US nun Dianna Ortiz, tortured by the Guatemalan army in
1989, that US personnel were present in interrogation and torture rooms.
In 1985, in a superficial attempt to correct the worst of the 1983 manual, a
page advising against using coercive techniques was inserted and handwritten
changes were haphazardly introduced into the text. For example, "While we do
not stress the use of coercive techniques, we do want to make you aware of
them and the proper way to use them," has been coyly altered to, "While we
deplore the use of coercive techniques, we do want to make you aware of them
so that you may avoid them." But the entire chapter on coercive techniques
is still included, again with some items crossed out. Throughout, the reader
can easily read the original underneath the "corrected" items. These
corrections were made in response to the 1984 scandal when the CIA training
manual for the Contras hit the headlines.
The second manual, KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation, is clearly the
source of much of the 1983 manual; some passages are lifted verbatim. KUBARK
has a similar section on coercive techniques, and includes some even more
abhorrent elements, such as two references to the use of electric shock. For
example, one passage requires US agents to obtain "prior Headquarters
approval ... if bodily harm is to be inflicted," or "if medical, chemical,
or electrical methods" are to be used. A third condition for obtaining prior
approval is, ominously, whited out.
*

- Original Message -
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

FW: (SCPEL) U.C. Billions in Reserve

2002-03-12 Thread michael pugliese



>--- Original Message ---
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: SCPEL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 3/11/02 11:47:49 AM
>

>=
>Santa Cruz Progressive Email List (SCPEL)
>=
>
>  - Message begins -
>
>
>
>Tomorrow, Tuesday, March 12th, there will be two *special*
>presentations by 
>respected economist Dr. Peter Donohue, Ph.D on UC's budget.
>
>The Coalition of University Employees (CUE), the union that
>represents UC 
>clericals across the state, his hosting Dr. Donohue, who has
been 
>researching UC's finances for the past year and found that UC

>has billions 
>of dollars in unrestricted reserves it could use to fund 
>better salary 
>increases.  CUE is in bargaining with UC right now and UC is

>offering a 1% 
>cost of living increase for 2001-2002.
>
>This is a great opportunity to learn more about CUE's
>assertions that UC has 
>accrued billions of dollars in surplus funds over the last 
>decade and that 
>there's plenty of money to give clericals and other workers
a 
>decent wage 
>increase.  Please check out 
>http://www.cuesantacruz.org/Donohue.htm to get 
>more info about Dr. Donohue, to download a flyer and read the
press
>release!
>
>There will be TWO meetings on March 12th:
>
>Main UCSC Campus:  Noon-1:00pm at the Kresge Seminar Room (room
159 at 
>Kresge College).
>
>Downtown Santa Cruz: 5:30pm-7:00pm in room 232 at the University
Town
>Center
>
>Please forward this email to all you think might be interested!
>
>
>
>Questions?
>Contact CUE organizer Leslie, 420-0258
>
>_
>Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
>http://www.hotmail.com
>
>  - Message ends -
>
>=
>Was your message not posted? Visit:
>http://members.cruzio.com/~spitzer/scpel.html#criteria
>
>Submit messages to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To subscribe, send a blank email to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To unsubscribe, see below.
>=
>
>==^
>This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?ausWeS.a26nIH
>Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
>http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
>==^
>
>




Re: Defending civilised values by torture

2002-03-12 Thread Ken Hanly

Of course it could very well be that the US uses torture as well as shipping
people out to be tortured to maintain a pretense that it does not. Since
this is an economics list we should also recognise that  torture may be much
cheaper in Egypt and other places -as well as the fact that the torturers
have a family values advantage because family members can also be
threatened. It may be a question of presumed value per torture dollar so to
speak. I gather though that some intelligence experts are against torture on
pragmatic grounds. People being tortured might say or confess to anything in
an attempt to avoid the torture and so information obtained through torture
is often false.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:07 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:23874] Defending civilised values by torture


> Defending civilised values by torture
> by Ken Hanly
> 12 March 2002 06:42
>
>
> CB: The Big Brother mindcontrol technique in this article is the soft
implication that torture is not done by the CIA or other US secret police,
but isn't it ? Why do we accept the U.S. secret police's claim that it
doesn't use torture especially with respect to foreign agents of various
types ? Didn't the CIA train the Shah's police in torture, for example ?
>
> ( No criticism of Ken Hanly implied).
>
> ^^
>
> US sends suspects to face torture
>
> Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
> Tuesday March 12, 2002
> The Guardian
>
> The US has been secretly sending prisoners suspected of al-Qaida
connections
> to countries where torture during interrogation is legal, according to US
> diplomatic and intelligence sources. Prisoners moved to such countries as
> Egypt and Jordan can be subjected to torture and threats to their families
> to extract information sought by the US in the wake of the September 11
> attacks.
>
>




Re: Defending civilised values by torture

2002-03-12 Thread Gil Skillman

Talk about your "axis of evil"!  No wonder the US has so little global
credibility:  it keeps trying to have its moral cake and eat it, too.  On
the one hand, we're waging a "war on terrorism,"  which is used to justify
the amazing cloak of secrecy over our military's actions.  On the other,
the prisoners captured in this "war" are yet somehow not "prisoners of
war"?  What?  On one hand, the US is the land of rights and liberty,
fighting the evil foes of same.  On the other, the US hands over these
prisoners to regimes that are *certain* to violate those rights in the
extreme.  I wonder if Amnesty International might be petitioned to
investigate and raise the visibility of these violations? 

Gil


>US sends suspects to face torture
>
>Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
>Tuesday March 12, 2002
>The Guardian
>
>The US has been secretly sending prisoners suspected of al-Qaida connections
>to countries where torture during interrogation is legal, according to US
>diplomatic and intelligence sources. Prisoners moved to such countries as
>Egypt and Jordan can be subjected to torture and threats to their families
>to extract information sought by the US in the wake of the September 11
>attacks.
>The normal extradition procedures have been bypassed in the transportation
>of dozens of prisoners suspected of terrorist connections, according to a
>report in the Washington Post. The suspects have been taken to countries
>where the CIA has close ties with the local intelligence services and where
>torture is permitted.
>
>According to the report, US intelligence agents have been involved in a
>number of interrogations. A CIA spokesman yesterday said the agency had no
>comment on the allegations. A state department spokesman said the US had
>been "working very closely with other countries - It's a global fight
>against terrorism".
>
>"After September 11, these sorts of movements have been occurring all the
>time," a US diplomat told the Washington Post. "It allows us to get
>information from terrorists in a way we can't do on US soil."
>
>The seizing of suspects and taking them to a third country without due
>process of law is known as "rendition". The reason for sending a suspect to
>a third country rather than to the US, according to the diplomats, is an
>attempt to avoid highly publicised cases that could lead to a further
>backlash from Islamist extremists.
>
>One of the prisoners transported in this way, Muhammad Saad Iqbal Madni, is
>allegedly linked to Richard Reid, the Briton accused of the attempted "shoe
>bomb" attack on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December.
>He was taken from Indonesia to Egypt on a US-registered Gulfstream jet
>without a court hearing after his name appeared on al-Qaida documents. He
>remains in custody in Egypt and has been subjected to interrogation by
>intelligence agents.
>
>An Indonesian government official said disclosing the Americans' role would
>have exposed President Megawati Sukarnoputri to criticism from Muslim
>political parties. "We can't be seen to be cooperating too closely with the
>United States," the official said.
>
>A Yemeni microbiology student has also been taken in this way, being flown
>from Pakistan to Jordan on a US-registered jet. US forces also seized five
>Algerians and a Yemeni in Bosnia on January 19 and flew them to Guantanamo
>Bay after the men were released by the Bosnian supreme court for lack of
>evidence, and despite an injunction from the Bosnian human rights chamber
>that four of them be allowed to remain in the country pending further
>proceedings.
>
>The US has been criticised by some of its European allies over the detention
>of prisoners at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After the Pentagon
>released pictures of blindfolded prisoners kneeling on the ground, the
>defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was forced to defend the conditions in
>which they were being held.
>
>Unsuccessful attempts have been made by civil rights lawyers based in Los
>Angeles to have the Camp X-Ray prisoners either charged in US courts or
>treated as prisoners of war. The US administration has resisted such moves,
>arguing that those detained, both Taliban fighters and members of al-Qaida,
>were not entitled to be regarded as prisoners of war because they were
>terrorists rather than soldiers and were not part of a recognised, uniformed
>army.
>
>
>




Defending civilised values by torture

2002-03-12 Thread Charles Brown

Defending civilised values by torture
by Ken Hanly
12 March 2002 06:42 


CB: The Big Brother mindcontrol technique in this article is the soft implication that 
torture is not done by the CIA or other US secret police, but isn't it ? Why do we 
accept the U.S. secret police's claim that it doesn't use torture especially with 
respect to foreign agents of various types ? Didn't the CIA train the Shah's police in 
torture, for example ?  

( No criticism of Ken Hanly implied). 

^^

US sends suspects to face torture

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Tuesday March 12, 2002
The Guardian

The US has been secretly sending prisoners suspected of al-Qaida connections
to countries where torture during interrogation is legal, according to US
diplomatic and intelligence sources. Prisoners moved to such countries as
Egypt and Jordan can be subjected to torture and threats to their families
to extract information sought by the US in the wake of the September 11
attacks.





Chronicle on Prewitt's resignation

2002-03-12 Thread Forstater, Mathew

Monday, March 11, 2002

Resignation at New School U. Adds to Ph.D. Students' Fears About
Programs Being Shortchanged  
By CHRISTOPHER FLORES
  
  Ph.D. students at the New School University are worried that
  last week's resignation of a graduate dean -- after less than
  a year in office -- is the latest sign that their programs are
  being shortchanged financially.
  
  Kenneth Prewitt, who was appointed dean of the graduate
  faculty of political and social science in April 2001,
  tendered his resignation of the position to Bob Kerrey, former
  U.S. senator and president of the university. The resignation
  is effective as of July 1.
  
  Mr. Kerrey, who appointed Mr. Prewitt to the position, said in
  a memorandum to the university community that Mr. Prewitt's
  decision stemmed from his desire to focus on his research.
  
  "Ken Prewitt did submit a letter of resignation, but it is
  possible that he may rescind that resignation," Mr. Kerrey
  said. "There is no question that in addition to the desire to
  do research that he has had a considerable amount of
  frustration in his first year here."
  
  Students of the graduate school, however, said they believed
  that Mr. Prewitt had resigned in protest of what they view as
  the administration's shortchanging of the graduate faculty.
  Mr. Prewitt could not be reached for comment.
  
  About 100 students forced their way into the university
  leaders' annual budget meeting on Thursday, demanding an
  explanation for the failure of the administration to make
  promised hires in weakened departments. Student are especially
  concerned about the anthropology department, which is
  currently operating with only one senior and two junior
  professors. Additionally, the sociology and philosophy
  departments were each promised two new hires that have not
  come through, according to several students.
  
  "This semester, the anthropology department has been on the
  edge of collapse," said a student who spoke on the condition
  of anonymity. "There has been at least one anthropology class
  -- a Ph.D. class -- which has been run by the students
  themselves. There was a promise four weeks ago by the
  administration that they would make three senior hires for the
  anthropology department. There was nothing to indicate that
  this was going to take place, and the next thing we knew
  Prewitt -- our staunchest defender -- had resigned."
  
  On a broader scale, students are concerned that the
  administration is sacrificing the academic quality of the
  university in the hopes of balancing budgets by reducing
  costs, eliminating tenured positions, and not replacing
  professors.
  
  "This is a very fragile institution. It's got exceptional
  academic excellence, but it's got a financial foundation that
  needs to be strengthened," said Mr. Kerrey. "The anthropology
  department has suffered some losses. The department chair
  left, as well as two other faculty members. We are in a search
  to try to solve that problem, but [students] are
  understandably concerned about our ability to do that."
  
  "When Ken Prewitt came on, he made it clear to us that he was
  strongly committed to furthering the needs of the graduate
  faculty in order to make it a stronger academic institution,"
  said another student. "He committed himself to a two-year
  contract because he felt that this would be sufficient time to
  get the ball rolling. So word of his resignation caused panic
  because it indicated that clearly there is some crisis. We
  found it hard to believe that someone so committed to the
  graduate faculty would just leave to pursue his own academic
  interests. It's an insult to our intelligence."
  
  Mr. Kerrey maintains that Mr. Prewitt's stated reason for
  resigning was to focus on his research, but concedes that
  frustration may have played a role in the decision.
  
  "Part of the problem is that ... in academia, when someone
  submits a letter of resignation, there is an expectation that
  the recipient can either accept it or reject it," said Mr.
  Kerrey. "In my experience, when somebody resigns, it's a
  resignation; it's not the opening round of a negotiation. But
  the door is open for Ken to stay, and I hope that he will."
  
  Mr. Prewitt will address the concerns of the graduate faculty
  in a meeting on Wednesday.
  
  Before coming to the New School last April, Mr. Prewitt was
  director of the U.S. Census Bureau.




Re: Enough already: Marx vs. Roemer

2002-03-12 Thread Waistline2

In a message dated Mon, 11 Mar 2002  5:10:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Justin 
Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Keep saying, it Charles, and maybe people will believe it. However, you've 
> worn me out, so you must be right, Marx solved all our problems, and I 
> embrace the true faith and swear on the hammer and sickle never to doubt the 
> LTV or write any more recipes for future cookshops. Just kidding. But I am 
> worn out on these topics. The LTV doesn't even interest me that much, and I 
> have set market socialism on a back burner for a bit. Call me what you like, 
> I don't see these discussions going anywhere. We don't convince each othe, 
> and I don't even think we much illuminate each other, except for the stray 
> post, like your nice last on SV. So let it go, let it go. So, denounce and 
> expose me as fraud, a faker, a cowardly bourgeouis sell-out, I don't care, 
> I'm tired, I was up all night, I quit. If you have questions about issues 
> raised in my papers other than these, which were not central to those 
> papersa nd were not discussed in them except incidentally, I'll address them 
> if I have anything to say. I won't ride your hobbyhorses any more.
> 
> jks
> 
> >From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: [PEN-L:23841] Marx vs. Roemer
> >Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:36:46 -0500
> >
> >  Marx vs. Roemer
> >by Justin Schwartz
> >08 March 2002 17:08 UTC
> >
> >
> >
> >Marx was wrong not to
> > >want to write recipes for the cookshops of the future and
> > >
> > >^^^
> > >
> > >CB: I take it you mean that a "coherent and defensible notion of
> > >exploitation" AS SOMETHING THAT IS WRONG WITH CAPITALISM must be opposed 
> >by
> > >Marx with a superior socialist alternative. So, you this is a sort of
> > >philosophical version of Thatcherite TINA.
> >
> >Justin : No, it;s the obverse of TINA. TINA is ana rgument for capitalism. 
> >To refute
> >it, you have to show TIAA.
> >
> >^^^
> >
> >CB: Yes, the obverse.  Marx does show a TIAA as much as you do. You don't 
> >demonstrate the viability of market socialism any better than Marx 
> >demonstrates the viability of non-market socialism, planned socialism.
> >
> >^^^
> >
> >
> >
> >   Seems something of an overstatement to say that Marx didn't give us very
> >important elements of communism: no state, no war, no poverty. That's an
> >enormously superior alternative to capitalism as it has actually existed.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >Justin: No, anyone can list a pie in the sky story about hwo wonderful 
> >things will
> >be if only. What is need to show TIAA is to specidy the institiuonal
> >structure in outlinew ithout enough detail to answer plausible objections.
> >If it won't work in theory,w hy think it will work in practice?
> >
> >
> >^^^
> >
> >CB: But your version is as much pie in the sky and wonderful things. Marx's 
> >version does work in theory. Your objections to his theory fail.
> >
> >^
> >
> >
> >
> > >  (b) that the labor
> > >theory of value, in the form Marx uses it, is indefensible
> > >
> > >
> > >^
> > >CB: Indefensible from what ?  Everytime you raise some "attack" , it has
> > >been very readily refuted. The whole discussion of doubly "free" labor,
> > >labor as a commodity, labor as the source of all new value  stands up in
> > >the face of what you say. You haven't raised any successful arguments
> > >against Marx's law of value, and whole theory of value.
> > >
> >
> >Justin: I don't awntto get into this. Obviously I don;t agree, and you 
> >won't agree,
> >so let's leave it, eh? I see no point in spinning our wheels on this one.
> >
> >
> >^^^
> >
> >CB: You do get into it all the time. You keep claiming that Marx's theory 
> >doesn't work out in theory, but it does. If you don't demonstrate it, then 
> >I might as well keep pointing out that you haven't demonstrated it. You 
> >keep asserting that Marx's theory doesn't work out ,but you don't support 
> >your assertion. You must be constantly called on that.
> >
> >^
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >Charles: When I started that with your paper in front of me, you ended the 
> >thread.
> >What's up on that ? I mean you can summarily assert said validity, but it 
> >is
> >a fake move not to discuss the specifics of your paper. Now a few of the
> >concepts have come out here and there over many discussions, so some of 
> >what
> >you have said has been responded to here. I have not yet seen a point where
> >Marx did not seem to have the better of the disagreement with you. I will
> >address the specifics of your paper, but it is shell game to refuse to
> >discuss it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Justin: Pose me a specific question, and if I ahve the energy and 
> >inclination, i
> >will try to answer it.
> >
> >I alsoo lookeda t those exchanges, and I don't read them as evasive or
> >refusing to answer any concrete question.
> >^^^
> >
> >CB: I have posed a number

the global village

2002-03-12 Thread Diane Monaco


A newer version of the global village...

http://www.luccaco.com/terra/terra.htm




Re: Re: Protection, Contagion, Reflation

2002-03-12 Thread Diane Monaco

Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>At any rate, the US ruling class is saying to its counterparts that the 
>rate of accumulation which it sustains on the basis of American style 
>hyper-exploitation and massive indebtedness is no longer strong enough to 
>carry the burden of ensuring the expansion of East Asian and European 
>capital as well.
>
>The fraternity of capital has broken down.

Applause! Applause! ...and an important applause from the "developing" 
world within which the US now places our foreign investment starving 
friends from South Africa on this issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1857000/1857968.stm

I say let the US-EU trade wars continue!

Diane




Global banks go local in Asia to fund growth

2002-03-12 Thread Ulhas Joglekar

The Economic Times

Monday, March 11, 2002

Global banks go local in Asia to fund growth

REUTERS

TOKYO: Liberalisation since Asia's financial crisis has enabled banks with
global ambitions to accelerate their strategy of serving markets locally
instead of funding business across borders, the Bank for International
Settlements said.

The BIS said newly compiled data showed Asian banking markets to be more
globalised than had previously been thought, but it raised the question
whether the trend would continue once the wounds of the 1997 crisis had
fully healed.

In its latest Quarterly Review, released for publication on Monday, the
Basel-based BIS measures the trend by comparing a bank's locally funded
foreign assets to its total foreign (cross-border plus local) assets.

In 1985, the ratio for Asia and the Pacific excluding Japan was 15.21 per
cent. It climbed gradually to 34.74 per cent by 1997 but then took off and
reached 75.56 per cent by last year.

The BIS listed several reasons for the sea change, not least the impact of
the third-world debt crisis of the early 1980s, when several governments
imposed payment moratoriums on cross-border loans because of
foreign-exchange crises.

Once bitten twice shy, banks shifted from the strategy pursued during the
1960s and 1970s of typically funding foreign assets with eurocurrency
deposits: locally funded assets, though risky, are in principle not affected
by payment moratoriums.

"Whether adopting a global consumer or wholesale model, banks are
increasingly looking to serve customers through a local presence funded
locally," the BIS said.

DISTRESS
The phenomenon is not confined to Asia. In Latin America, the ratio of the
BIS reporting banks' locally funded foreign assets to total foreign claims
is 0.97. In North America, it is 0.76.

Yet the sharp increase in Asia's ratio does not denote that foreign banks
are sweeping all before them. Their locally funded lending accounts for less
than 10 per cent of domestic bank credit, compared with nearly 50 per cent
in Latin America.

But the BIS said the shift was notable as a reflection in part of the
distress of many banking systems caused by the 1997 crisis.

The fragile state of local banks jolted governments into relaxing
restrictions on foreign ownership and made it easier for multinational banks
to grab market share.

Just last Friday, South Korea's Woori Finance Holding Co, a government-owned
company that owns Hanvit Bank and four other financial institutions, said
U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers had offered to invest up to $1 billion
in what could be one of the largest foreign investments for the country.

"Banks with global ambitions have found it attractive to buy local banks put
up for sale following crisis-related nationalisations owing to loan losses,"
the BIS said.

Seoul pledged to privatise its financial sector as one of the conditions of
a $58 billion rescue arranged by the International Monetary Fund during the
1997 financial crisis.

Taiwan is committed to opening up its banking market, as is China following
its entry into the World Trade Organisation.

Nevertheless, the BIS sounded a note of caution as to the future of the
local-funding trend.

Unlike Latin America, which runs a current deficit, Asia is generating
substantial surpluses and so will have a natural inflow of liquidity to find
investment. It might not need to keep bending over backwards forever to
accommodate foreign banks.

"Will East Asia continue to open its domestic markets to foreign banks even
after local banks repair the damage sustained during the Asian crisis?" the
BIS asked.

Copyright © 2002 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.




Strachey/Robinson debate (was Moseley/Devine)

2002-03-12 Thread Charles Brown

Strachey/Robinson debate (was Moseley/Devine)
by Rakesh Bhandari
12 March 2002 00:58 UTC 

-clip-

And Strachey replies:

"Marx did not say the ever increase rate of accumulation necessary to 
keep the wheels of capitalism turning could oly be achieved by 
'reducing consumption.' What he did say was that in capitalist 
societies consumption could not be allowed to increase, at any rate 
substantially, rapidly, or to be precise, in proportion to the 
increasing productivity of labour, because of the necessity to 
maximize accumulation. Thus 'the pivot of the whole argument' is is 
not that 'investment cannot increase unless consumption declines.' 
The pivot of the argument is that investment (or accumulation) cannot 
be increased sufficiently rapidly to keep the wheel of industry 
turning if consumption is allowed to rise as fast as teh rise in the 
productivity of labour. It is this which blocks the way to all those 
attractive solution by means of a policy of high wages with which we 
are familiar." pp. 246-47



CB: But Marx would not say the partisans of the working class should not raise reform 
demands for a policy of high wages.  Marx did not tailor the First International's 
program to helping the capitalists raise their profits back up as the way of getting 
out of crises, would he ?





Marx vs. Roemer

2002-03-12 Thread Charles Brown

 Marx vs. Roemer
by Gil Skillman
11 March 2002 21:31 UTC  < < < 

^

Gil,

Regarding your discussion below, are you saying that because one necessary condition 
for _surplus_ value is that it follow a circuit of capital, that Marx contradicts his 
earlier declarations that labor is the only source of new exchange-value ? That he 
contradicts his idea that no new value is created in the exchanges between capitalists 
?

Charles



CB writes

>>CB: To be more precise, Marx's position is that labor is the only source of 
>>new value, exchange-value.  Individual capitalists may increase or lose 
>>some of their share of the total surplus value by various "buying and 
>>selling" of all types among themselves. Marx's recognizing this does not 
>>contradict his basic proposition that labor is the only source of new 
>>value, exchange-value.

and JKS replies

>Right, so you have profit taht is generated by possession of monoply 
>advantages that does not represent value in Marx's sense. Note that this 
>profit is not a result of redistribution of SV, a point that can be made if 
>we imagine a situation with two capitalists, one of whom acquires a monopoly 
>and behaves as monopolists due. His monopoly rent is not redistribute from 
>the other guy, it's due rather to his possession of the monopoly (Marx's 
>point): so, profits without value that are therefore NOT due to the 
>expoloitation of labor--rather to the exploitation of consumers. Right, Gil?

I'm not sure, given some syntactical and spelling oddities in your
statement above.  Let me try to address that point directly:  

1)  Although monopoly power (or perhaps more to the point, monopsony power
exercised by capitalists in markets for labor power) may increase the rate
of surplus value, other things equal, it is not necessary for the
*existence* of surplus value in Marx's analytical framework.

2)  What *is* necessary for the existence of surplus value, by Marx's
stipulation, is that new value is produced subsequent to, and dependent on,
the initiation of a circuit of capital (denoted M--C--M'). Since value
magnitudes are determined by socially necessary labor time expended in
production, surplus value therefore cannot arise merely from the
redistribution of value that existed prior to the initiation of the
circuit.  Thus, the mere existence of monopoly power in commodity markets
is also not *sufficient* to account for the existence of surplus value as
Marx defines the term.

3)  It does not, however, follow from (1) or (2) that disparities between
commodity values and their respective prices are "incidental" to the
existence of surplus value, as Marx explicitly claims at the end of Volume
I, Chapter 5.  What Marx affirms in Chapter 5 is that such disparities are
not *sufficient* of themselves to account for the existence of surplus
value.  However, this leaves entirely open the possibility that particular
price-value disparities might be *necessary* (and therefore not
incidental!) to the existence of surplus value, *and Marx doesn't address
this possibility one way or another in Chapter 5.*  The reason this is
potentially relevant is that Marx stipulates *two* conditions for the
existence of surplus value:

A) As noted above, new value must be produced subsequent to, and financed
by, the initiation of a circuit of capital.

B)  A portion of the newly produced value must be appropriated by someone
(i.e., the capitalist) *other* than the one(s) who created that value (cf
Marx's discussion of the "leather and boots" example on p. 268 (Penguin
ed.)).  

Granting that *targeted* price-value disparities cannot, by definition,
account for condition (A), Marx's argument in Chapter 5 entirely fails to
address whether they might in any case be *necessary* for condition (B).
And since he does not consider this possibility, he cannot validly conclude
at the end of Chapter 5 that price-value disparities are merely "disturbing
incidental circumstances which are irrelevant to the actual course of the
process."  [p. 269, footnote]

NB, I'm making no claims here about the significance of this lacuna
vis-a-vis Marx's Volume I argument.  If the reader feels that this logical
deficiency is unimportant in the larger scheme of things, so be it.

Gil