Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
This discussion is of no interest to the list. How do you know that?
Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
I am not going to rise to your bait. Your love of stirring up controversy keeps you from being able to be a positive contributor to the list. Ricardo Duchesne wrote: This discussion is of no interest to the list. How do you know that? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
I dont want to disrupt the deep discussion on the dictatorship of the proletariat; or perhaps I dont have to considering its strong similarity with what's going on below: the enlightenment trust in one's ability to achieve "pure moral insight": of living in a world system charecterized by systemic inequalities, yet reject the "dominant culture (US) and my own culture" yet become "a true cosmopolitan" in that same world system! Mine Doyran Phd student Political Science SUNY/Albany
Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Simulating activism is not the only way to be positive...guess I blew it again. I'll be on my periodical unsub anytime soon, anyways. I am not going to rise to your bait. Your love of stirring up controversy keeps you from being able to be a positive contributor to the list. Ricardo Duchesne wrote: This discussion is of no interest to the list. How do you know that? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Mine, Am only trying to argue that one cannot take on such a huge moral burden as "liberation of third world from western oppression", or from capitalism, without examining one's social position within the West. There's a real moral dilemma when a person living in it up in the West demands that the TW refrain from western consumerism/technologies, or when a TW immigrant who is really westernized though still pretends to be from the TW, receives a hundred thousand or more salary, collects large research grants, has a lot of time off from teaching, as well as many opportunities for travel and lecturing around the world - like going to Vienna, the old capital of the Austro-Hungarian empire, criticizing the West, or pretending to speak for the "peasant class" or believing that their "radical" writing is a form of political engagement with "popular struggle". Be honest with yourself (and I don't me you personally, Mine, nor anyone here: you are carrying an argument with other cultural elites. Nothing wrong with that.
Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Mine wrote: Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details), the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors shift to producing commercial movies? Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here. African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965. Now you are getting high on pity which is another trait of third worldists who think that suffering is the defining characteristic of the Third World and who, with a sense of "survivors guilt", draw the inaccurate conclusion that the West is solely (or at least primarily) responsible for the poverty of the TW. Yet when TW people start building industries, attending university or consuming Western movies, third wordists view it as a sign that these countries are being corrupted by Western influence - which brings us back to that other trait, getting high on paradise; yes, Jameson really has the best of both worlds: the joys of a high paying academic salary combined with the innocence and purity of the TW!
Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Ricardo, you keep skating close to the edge. You say that you do not intend to provoke, but you seem to poke and poke -- maybe just to get a reaction. We do not need that here. Ricardo Duchesne wrote: Now you are getting high on pity which is another trait of third worldists who think that suffering is the defining characteristic of the Third World and who, with a sense of "survivors guilt", draw the inaccurate conclusion that the West is solely (or at least primarily) responsible for the poverty of the TW. Yet when TW people start building industries, attending university or consuming Western movies, third wordists view it as a sign that these countries are being corrupted by Western influence - which brings us back to that other trait, getting high on paradise; yes, Jameson really has the best of both worlds: the joys of a high paying academic salary combined with the innocence and purity of the TW! -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] NotExactly FreeTrade
In a message dated 00-05-08 18:36:14 EDT, you write: No more unknown governors from small southern states... What about relatively well known ex-Senators from small Southern states, Brad? --jks Better than unknown governors from *large* southern states... Brad DeLong
Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly Free Trade
Once again, American workers at the lower rungs of the pay scale are being asked to sacrifice their jobs and wages on the altar of "free trade," so that the poorer countries of the world might pursue an economic development strategy that offers little hope for the vast majority of their own populations. Over the last 25 years, we have lost more than a million jobs in textiles and apparel... Name: Mark Weisbrot Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly Free Trade
Since capital is so much more mobile than labor, the free movement of capital will give far more advantages to the employers then the employees. Part of the story is also the opening up of agriculture to free trade so that people will be swept off the land and forced into low-wage jobs which will not create much opportunity. We saw this in Mexico. Brad De Long wrote: Once again, American workers at the lower rungs of the pay scale are being asked to sacrifice their jobs and wages on the altar of "free trade," so that the poorer countries of the world might pursue an economic development strategy that offers little hope for the vast majority of their own populations. Over the last 25 years, we have lost more than a million jobs in textiles and apparel... Name: Mark Weisbrot Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: [weisbrot-columns]
Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Someone calls this attitude "getting high on paradise": that the West may find redemption by returning to the innocence and purity of the past and that this past may be found in the Third World; which is why I heard once that Jameson was rather upset when Indian movie directors he admired wanted to make more "commercial" films, he opined against it and insisted they keep making movies for people like him, which even if they make no money, he can always write about it; not that he had planned to cash on that! But now I may be half teasing.
Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Since capital is so much more mobile than labor, the free movement of capital will give far more advantages to the employers then the employees. Part of the story is also the opening up of agriculture to free trade so that people will be swept off the land and forced into low-wage jobs which will not create much opportunity. We saw this in Mexico. Michael Perelman Roger Milliken thinks that he will lose a *lot* of money if the quotas on African textile imports into the United States are removed. Are you saying that he is a bad judge of his own interests, and that he will actually profit *more* if Africans export more textiles to America? Brad DeLong
Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details), the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors shift to producing commercial movies? Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here. African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965. Mine Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Someone calls this attitude "getting high on paradise": that the West may find redemption by returning to the innocence and purity of the past and that this past may be found in the Third World; which is why I heard once that Jameson was rather upset when Indian movie directors he admired wanted to make more "commercial" films, he opined against it and insisted they keep making movies for people like him, which even if they make no money, he can always write about it; not that he had planned to cash on that! But now I may be half teasing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Much of the poverty of Africa has to do with the devastation imposed by Europe and North America. Yes, they have been plauged by corrupt leaders also, but that was probably also fostered by the same powers. Now, the idea is to intergrate more closely into the global economy with a minimum of local control. Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational. Brad De Long wrote: Since capital is so much more mobile than labor, the free movement of capital will give far more advantages to the employers then the employees. Part of the story is also the opening up of agriculture to free trade so that people will be swept off the land and forced into low-wage jobs which will not create much opportunity. We saw this in Mexico. Michael Perelman Roger Milliken thinks that he will lose a *lot* of money if the quotas on African textile imports into the United States are removed. Are you saying that he is a bad judge of his own interests, and that he will actually profit *more* if Africans export more textiles to America? Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details), the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors shift to producing commercial movies? Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here. African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965. Mine Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? If I understand what you are saying, it is that (a) eugenic laws were practiced here in the U.S. until 1965, and so (b) African textile businesses should be prohibited from exporting more than a narrowly-limited quota of goods to the U.S. I'm missing something here... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not ExactlyFreeTrade
Much of the poverty of Africa has to do with the devastation imposed by Europe and North America. Yes, they have been plauged by corrupt leaders also, but that was probably also fostered by the same powers. Now, the idea is to intergrate more closely into the global economy with a minimum of local control. Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational. -- Michael Perelman Ummm... You said that AGOA was in Milliken's interest--that capital was more mobile than labor, and hence that (American) capital would benefit rather than (African) labor from removing the quotas on exports of textiles from Africa. Are you now withdrawing that claim? It seems so. I agree that your initial claim was false. But I would like to know on what grounds you then oppose AGOA, if you now agree that it will make Roger Milliken somewhat poorer... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
At 09:09 AM 5/8/00 -0700, you wrote: Once again, American workers at the lower rungs of the pay scale are being asked to sacrifice their jobs and wages on the altar of "free trade," so that the poorer countries of the world might pursue an economic development strategy that offers little hope for the vast majority of their own populations. Over the last 25 years, we have lost more than a million jobs in textiles and apparel... Name: Mark Weisbrot Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? if the (neo)liberals in government (a group that included Brad awhile ago) would push to adequately compensate workers who lose their jobs due to trade-related problems (not to mention capital flight), then you would see many fewer unions and pro-union folks siding with slimy folks like Milliken. Give me Speaker Gephardt and Majority Leader Daschle, and we would do it...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Michael P writes: Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational. it's important to avoid Brad's style of argument here, which seems similar to guilt-by-association: If Roger Milliken (boo, hiss) is for something, it _must be_ bad. That's like saying that just because Farrakan or the UC-Berkeley economics department is for something, it must be wrong. Jim Devine BULLSHIT!!! Michael Perelman said that he was opposed to AGOA because capital was internationally mobile--hence the beneficiaries from AGOA are not (African) labor but (American) capital. I pointed out that Roger Milliken--American textile capital--thinks that AGOA is not in his material interest, suggesting that (as I believe) the beneficiaries from AGOA will be (among others) African labor. No guilt-by-association.
Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Brad, this sentence does not belong to me. My post was a reply to Ricardo's post about Indian film producers. please, read Ricardo's entire response, then you will make the connection. merci, Mine I did not write: Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Brad De Long wrote: I wrote: Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details), the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors shift to producing commercial movies? Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here. African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965. Mine Somebody wrote (NOT ME) Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Brad replied: If I understand what you are saying, it is that (a) eugenic laws were practiced here in the U.S. until 1965, and so (b) African textile businesses should be prohibited from exporting more than a narrowly-limited quota of goods to the U.S. I'm missing something here... Brad DeLong -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Michael P writes: Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational. I wrote: it's important to avoid Brad's style of argument here, which seems similar to guilt-by-association: If Roger Milliken (boo, hiss) is for something, it _must be_ bad. That's like saying that just because Farrakan or the UC-Berkeley economics department is for something, it must be wrong. Brad writes: BULLSHIT!!! wow. Michael Perelman said that he was opposed to AGOA because capital was internationally mobile--hence the beneficiaries from AGOA are not (African) labor but (American) capital. That makes sense, in that as soon as the African laborers start getting significant wage-gains, capital will move on to greener pastures. Of course, fixed capital isn't totally mobile, so in the meantime, the interested capitalists would support explicitly anti-labor governments that repress unions and suppress wages. As part of this, they would use the threat of capital mobility to avoid need to actually move capital (as they do in the US). In addition, the mobility of capital would speed up the commercialization of agriculture, which would imply an amply supply of labor to the cities, keeping wages down. I pointed out that Roger Milliken--American textile capital--thinks that AGOA is not in his material interest, suggesting that (as I believe) the beneficiaries from AGOA will be (among others) African labor. No guilt-by-association. Wait a sec! the logic of this is that RM is against AGOA, then it _must_ be good for others. Suppose that he's against flying the Confederate flag on the S. Carolina statehouse. In that case, would it be good for others to fly it? I don't know about his position on that issue, so turn to a different one: I am sure that RM is against the "expropriation of the expropriators" (which includes capitalists such as himself). Does that mean that it's good for others to expropriate the capitalists' assets? I'd say so (if it's done in the right way), but I doubt that you say so. Thus, using RM's position to justify your favoring of free trade _is_ akin to a guilt-by-association argument. (Because a special interest like RM is against AGOA, it must go against the public interest, however defined.) Instead of using his opposition to AGOA as part of your argument in favor of that act, you should argue that the act is good in itself. BTW, I myself have a bias in favor of free trade. But unlike orthodox economists, for whom this bias seems like the only consideration, I have other biases which keep things in balance. On this issue, I don't know if I ever told pen-l about a cousin who works for Pat Buchanan (as a "think" tanker). He's against free trade because it leads to rising class antagonism and disrupts society. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
if the (neo)liberals in government (a group that included Brad awhile ago) would push to adequately compensate workers who lose their jobs due to trade-related problems (not to mention capital flight), then you would see many fewer unions and pro-union folks siding with slimy folks like Milliken. Give me Speaker Gephardt and Majority Leader Daschle, and we would do it... We should all hope so, but why didn't our boyz Foley and Mitchell 'do it' in 1993? mbs
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not ExactlyFreeTrade
if the (neo)liberals in government (a group that included Brad awhile ago) would push to adequately compensate workers who lose their jobs due to trade-related problems (not to mention capital flight), then you would see many fewer unions and pro-union folks siding with slimy folks like Milliken. Give me Speaker Gephardt and Majority Leader Daschle, and we would do it... We should all hope so, but why didn't our boyz Foley and Mitchell 'do it' in 1993? mbs Damned if I know... I remember people wanting to stack striker replacement between the budget (with the EITC) and NAFTA, before health care began. The arguments I always heard from the White House were that it would be easier to do striker replacement after health care was won... I still remember the days when Bill Clinton used to argue that in the context of rapidly-rising income inequality the Democrats could not afford to nominate someone as conservative as Paul Tsongas. And I fell for it. No more unknown governors from small southern states... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
No more unknown governors from small southern states... How about senators from small southern states who are known only because of the success of their 1992 running mates (and who have been simply following orders for the last 7 years) or governors from large southern states who are known because of their fathers' fame? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
actually, there is hardly any opposition to neo-liberal program in the US. United Steel Workers already allied with big steel industry to protect US jobs, thanks to bourgeois unions. Free trade and protectionism are the sides of the same coin=imperialism, capitalism and core hegemony, which is part of the US strategy of "divide and rule" for centuries. I think US liberal acedemics, especially of the pro-free trade kind, should stop idealizing what they don't have.. or they should seriously think about why socialism does not work in this part of the universe. Mine Jim Devine wrote: -- If the US capitalist class and its government thinks that free trade (and more importantly, free mobility of capital) is so all-fired important why don't they pay US workers to compensate for the inevitable costs of freeing up trade? This would undermine the opposition to their neo-liberal program. Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not ExactlyFreeTrade
Brad, I cannot follow what is that your saying. Ummm... You said that AGOA was in Milliken's interest--that capital was more mobile than labor, and hence that (American) capital would benefit rather than (African) labor from removing the quotas on exports of textiles from Africa. Are you now withdrawing that claim? No. It seems so. I agree that your initial claim was false. In what way. Capital can benefit even though an individual capitalist might be inconvenienced. But I would like to know on what grounds you then oppose AGOA, Because such legislation will be detrimental to the long run prospects of Africa and to a lesser extent the interests of labor in this country. if you now agree that it will make Roger Milliken somewhat poorer... Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
In a message dated 00-05-08 18:36:14 EDT, you write: No more unknown governors from small southern states... What about relatively well known ex-Senators from small Southern states, Brad? --jks
