Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: is marx's capital nothing but an out of date textbook replete with irrelevant controversializing? Not at all - it's the best thing ever written on the subject! But there are some things missing, and it does lead people into some strange detours. A few years ago, I heard Paul Mattick Jr give a talk on the Asian financial crisis, which he prefaced with the declaration that he was abstracting from financial markets, capital flows, and nation-states. The resulting explanation was...the falling rate of profit. I'd thought the thing to be explained was why the crisis happened when and where it did. But having abstracted from all the interesting questions, he ended up with a truism, true always and everywhere, that explained nothing. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: is marx's capital nothing but an out of date textbook replete with irrelevant controversializing? Not at all - it's the best thing ever written on the subject! But there are some things missing, and it does lead people into some strange detours. A few years ago, I heard Paul Mattick Jr give a talk on the Asian financial crisis, which he prefaced with the declaration that he was abstracting from financial markets, capital flows, and nation-states. The resulting explanation was...the falling rate of profit. I'd thought the thing to be explained was why the crisis happened when and where it did. But having abstracted from all the interesting questions, he ended up with a truism, true always and everywhere, that explained nothing. Doug, what Paul was getting at is what the physicists call bridge laws, i believe. that is, how do we move from the idealizations on which theoretical reasoning is dependent to empirical phenomena. Nancy Cartwright has written a book titled how the Laws of Physics Lie. I think what Paul was suggesting is that we have to be very careful from moving from the laws of accumulation as Marx develops them theoretically to an explanation of any one particular crisis. This shows just how seriously Paul takes what Marx wrote; that is, we can't just pound on Das Kapital and announce that everything is there to explain any crisis. A lot of thought has to go from moving from the conceptually isolated capitalism Marx analyzed to the dynamics of the world market. His was an argument not only for patient theoretical reasoning but also for the limits thereof. Rakesh
Re: Re: textiles
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Can't we make an argument that New Zealand spends millions of dollars on protecting 1% of the labor force by paying import duties on textile, and NZ also spends $279 million in foreign aid to developing nations who would need less of it if they could develop their domestic industries (first of all textile) by gaining a better market access to NZ and other rich markets. Let us cut tariffs and foreign aid and spend the savings on education, job creation, and income maintenance for displaced workers, as well as on development of sustainable industrial policy. At the same time, let us take global leadership in debt cancellation for Third World nations (as we did in nuclear disarmament), so they may re-develop their economies and buy what we could sell them? -- Yoshie In general the principle that if tariff reductions/elimination makes for a more efficient economy then workers should see the proceeds of that, is a useful one. That of course begs the question which the list has been debating as to when that course of action _is_ more efficient. However, from the experience of about 15 years of tariff cutting, as I alluded to previously, education, job creation, and income maintenance for displaced workers still leaves many workers worse off than before. Laid off car assembly workers for example often ended up in low paid service jobs - or no jobs - despite such measures supposedly being in place. In addition, provincial communities and minority groups have been badly afected. That is why something more concrete and positive is required. If by development of sustainable industrial policy you mean the development of industry that will ensure that workers see the proceeds of the more efficient economy, and that it is where it is needed, then that's good. I'd like to see more on how that might be done. By the way, just to fill in a few gaps - the NZ Herald report was dated before the change to the current government. Protests from unions, local governments, and manufacturers stopped the right-wing govt in power in 1997 from implementing its cuts to TCF tariffs (though it did remove all tariffs on the car assembly industry, which has now completely disappeared, losing several thousand jobs). The new centre-left Labour/Alliance govt in 1999 had a policy of a tariff freeze on TCF until 2005 - but is now compromising that in two ways. The first is in signing free trade agreements with whoever is willing (Singapore signed, Hong Kong in negotiation). The second is relevant to your suggestion. Last year the new government (without any consultation) removed all tariffs on all imports from the 48 least developed countries, taking effect from 1 July 2001. There has been a strong campaign in New Zealand for it to support debt cancellation, which has been unsuccessful, and given this govt's generally neo-liberal international economic policies (which contrast somewhat with its domestic policies) it is unlikely to support debt cancellation. We keep on trying. Cutting foreign aid? Except that about half the aid goes to the Pacific, which already has preferential trade access to New Zealand, including for example garments made in free trade zones in Fiji. (Of course, some that aid has been advising them on how to implement neoliberal policies...) This opens up the question as to what aid is really about, and whom it benefits. Bill Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Bill R. says: Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Protecting a severely uncompetitive industry must cost money. If you mean it costs the government money - not in the short run anyway. On the contrary, it provides a few hundred million dollars in tariff income, plus income taxes and the like. The standard trade analysis says it costs consumers money (assuming retailers will reduce prices when tariffs are cut), but ignores workers' loss of income if their jobs go and they can't find other work at similar pay. In the long run, IF there were more productive industry that could replace it, then there is an opportunity cost in maintaining TCF, but that is the crucial if which we are debating when we debate trade theory, isn't it? Can't you abolish tariffs on textile, clothing, and footwear and spend the saving on education, income maintenance, job creation for displaced workers? If the saving is not enough, you can cut foreign aid also. There are large amounts spent on education, income maintenance, and job creation for displaced workers (there could always be more of course), but it doesn't create sufficient permanent jobs, even less does it create well paying ones in the right regions. I got the following info from the Internet: * TEXTILE WORKERS WARY OF TARIFF-CUT OUTLOOK While all eyes before Christmas were on the tariff cuts affecting the car assembly industry, hundreds of employees in the clothing, textile, footwear and carpet industries were also watching the tariff axe
Re: textiles
This is a very relevant question for New Zealand. Our textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry has been reduced from 40,000 to 20,000 workers over a decade, largely as a result of tariff cuts. Many of the remainder are at risk of being sacrificed to a FTA currently being negotiated with Hong Kong. This is jobs issue, but more than that: most of those employed are women, Maori and Pacific Islanders, and people in small provincial towns, for whom there is little hope of other employment (leave alone relatively skilled employment) if/when the TCF manufacturers close down. On the other hand the unions representing those workers - among them one the best organising unions in the country - recognise the significance of TCF to developing countries, and maintain strong relationships with representatives of workers in many of those countries. So their advocacy of continued tariff protection is not one-eyed. (Incidentally, TCF tariffs are for practical purposes about the only remaining tariffs New Zealand has.) What would a progressive strategy be? Protecting a severely uncompetitive industry must cost money. Can't you abolish tariffs on textile, clothing, and footwear and spend the saving on education, income maintenance, job creation for displaced workers? If the saving is not enough, you can cut foreign aid also. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: Re: textiles
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Protecting a severely uncompetitive industry must cost money. If you mean it costs the government money - not in the short run anyway. On the contrary, it provides a few hundred million dollars in tariff income, plus income taxes and the like. The standard trade analysis says it costs consumers money (assuming retailers will reduce prices when tariffs are cut), but ignores workers' loss of income if their jobs go and they can't find other work at similar pay. In the long run, IF there were more productive industry that could replace it, then there is an opportunity cost in maintaining TCF, but that is the crucial if which we are debating when we debate trade theory, isn't it? Can't you abolish tariffs on textile, clothing, and footwear and spend the saving on education, income maintenance, job creation for displaced workers? If the saving is not enough, you can cut foreign aid also. There are large amounts spent on education, income maintenance, and job creation for displaced workers (there could always be more of course), but it doesn't create sufficient permanent jobs, even less does it create well paying ones in the right regions. That's why I suggest that to be serious about removing protection from TCF, there has to be a conscious industrial development policy to suitably replace those industries. On the other hand, there is no assurance that sufficient industry will survive without protection to provide enough jobs, so somehow decisions have to be made on what mix of industry should be maintained (and how to maintain it) to create full employment. Bill This is a very relevant question for New Zealand. Our textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry has been reduced from 40,000 to 20,000 workers over a decade, largely as a result of tariff cuts. Many of the remainder are at risk of being sacrificed to a FTA currently being negotiated with Hong Kong. This is jobs issue, but more than that: most of those employed are women, Maori and Pacific Islanders, and people in small provincial towns, for whom there is little hope of other employment (leave alone relatively skilled employment) if/when the TCF manufacturers close down. On the other hand the unions representing those workers - among them one the best organising unions in the country - recognise the significance of TCF to developing countries, and maintain strong relationships with representatives of workers in many of those countries. So their advocacy of continued tariff protection is not one-eyed. (Incidentally, TCF tariffs are for practical purposes about the only remaining tariffs New Zealand has.) What would a progressive strategy be? Protecting a severely uncompetitive industry must cost money. Can't you abolish tariffs on textile, clothing, and footwear and spend the saving on education, income maintenance, job creation for displaced workers? If the saving is not enough, you can cut foreign aid also. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: textiles
Doug Henwood wrote: The whole set-up is DESIGNED [emph added] to foment an us-vs.-them consciousness. You don't mean this. The 'set-up' does indeed generate such a consciousness, and various interests seize on that nad fan the flames as it were -- but no one _designed_ it. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
Classy move On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 09:05:32AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: After this last post, I retract all criticism of Doug regarding trade issues. He returned my vinegar with honey. He has thought hard and long about the problems that we are facing. And I do benefit from his perspective that begins as always with the class struggle at home. All the best, Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: textiles
Bill R. says: Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Protecting a severely uncompetitive industry must cost money. If you mean it costs the government money - not in the short run anyway. On the contrary, it provides a few hundred million dollars in tariff income, plus income taxes and the like. The standard trade analysis says it costs consumers money (assuming retailers will reduce prices when tariffs are cut), but ignores workers' loss of income if their jobs go and they can't find other work at similar pay. In the long run, IF there were more productive industry that could replace it, then there is an opportunity cost in maintaining TCF, but that is the crucial if which we are debating when we debate trade theory, isn't it? Can't you abolish tariffs on textile, clothing, and footwear and spend the saving on education, income maintenance, job creation for displaced workers? If the saving is not enough, you can cut foreign aid also. There are large amounts spent on education, income maintenance, and job creation for displaced workers (there could always be more of course), but it doesn't create sufficient permanent jobs, even less does it create well paying ones in the right regions. I got the following info from the Internet: * TEXTILE WORKERS WARY OF TARIFF-CUT OUTLOOK While all eyes before Christmas were on the tariff cuts affecting the car assembly industry, hundreds of employees in the clothing, textile, footwear and carpet industries were also watching the tariff axe hovering over their own heads. Manufacturers fear that the government's determination to cut tariffs to 15% by 2000 will just as seriously affect the job prospects of the 25,000 people directly or indirectly working in the textile sector. Apparel and Textile federation chief executive Marcia Dunnett predicts that at least half the jobs and business will go if the government took the same approach as for cars and rapidly moved to zero tariffs between 2000 and 2002. The Minister of Commerce John Luxton is said to favour a more rapid reduction of the tariffs. The whole sector is waiting for the current review of tariffs by the government, which will be completed in March and announced in May. What is at stake here? James Gardiner reports in the New Zealand Herald that the textile sector employs 10% of our industrial workforce. The sector achieves sales of $2.5 billion, of which exports amount to $0.5 billion. Women make up 74% of the employees in this sector, and 32% of the employees are Maori, Pacific Islanders, or Asian. The cost to consumers of retail import duty amounts to about $1.50 for each item of general clothing. For a t-shirt it is about 50c, for a pair of briefs about 15c, and $2 for each pair of shoes. Source -- New Zealand Herald 20 December 1997 Industries shudder at tariff-cut outlook by James Gardiner http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl07100.htm * As you noted, the tariff reduction has taken its toll, and now workers in the NZ textile sector are about 20,000, but retail import duties do cost NZ consumers, though not very much, according to the above figures (which I assume are in New Zealand dollars). The NZ labor force is about 1.88 million, so the NZ textile workers are about 1% of the labor force. New Zealand spent US$116 million on official development assistance in 2000 (from http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp). Is that about NZ$279 million? Can't we make an argument that New Zealand spends millions of dollars on protecting 1% of the labor force by paying import duties on textile, and NZ also spends $279 million in foreign aid to developing nations who would need less of it if they could develop their domestic industries (first of all textile) by gaining a better market access to NZ and other rich markets. Let us cut tariffs and foreign aid and spend the savings on education, job creation, and income maintenance for displaced workers, as well as on development of sustainable industrial policy. At the same time, let us take global leadership in debt cancellation for Third World nations (as we did in nuclear disarmament), so they may re-develop their economies and buy what we could sell them? -- Yoshie * Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: Re: textiles
On Friday, December 28, 2001 at 20:35:07 (-0800) Michael Perelman writes: Part of the question seems to be how do you organize in the absence of international solidarity? In short, how do you make Cambodian wages move up instead of US wages moving down? Wouldn't the center of gravity of a competitive international wage be close to China? The intellectually easy, but practically hard strategy -- within the bounds of capitalism -- would be to find ways to create high wage jobs in the US, but in doing that say by building high tech textile equipment would still destroy jobs in the 3rd world. Without getting into rancorous exchanges, what would a progressive strategy be. Of course, socialism would be desirable, but Wouldn't the foundation of this be full employment policies, say, as proposed by Jamie Galbraith? Bill
Re: Re: Re: textiles
yes, that would certainly help. On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 06:33:57AM -0600, William S. Lear wrote: On Friday, December 28, 2001 at 20:35:07 (-0800) Michael Perelman writes: Part of the question seems to be how do you organize in the absence of international solidarity? In short, how do you make Cambodian wages move up instead of US wages moving down? Wouldn't the center of gravity of a competitive international wage be close to China? The intellectually easy, but practically hard strategy -- within the bounds of capitalism -- would be to find ways to create high wage jobs in the US, but in doing that say by building high tech textile equipment would still destroy jobs in the 3rd world. Without getting into rancorous exchanges, what would a progressive strategy be. Of course, socialism would be desirable, but Wouldn't the foundation of this be full employment policies, say, as proposed by Jamie Galbraith? Bill -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: textiles
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: the timing suggests that the problem is the recession in which us based plants are having difficulty holding market share, no? Yup. But you'd asked, not without a touch of suspcion, where the numbers came from, and I was answering. Doug
Re: Re: Re: textiles
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Aside from that, don't U.S. textile and apparel workers deserve some sort of attention? My soundbite is protect the worker, not the job, but I'd like to hear what you think should happen to disemployed workers in this sector, who are disproportionally nonwhite and female and generally rather ill-paid. Doug Doug, I have put a lot of thought in my previous attempts to answer this question that you put to me over and over; and i must say that i think you have put very little thought in your replies as is obvious from the above. Which disparity is interesting sociologically. How do you know how much thought I put into this? From what follows, it seems you've paid no attention to anything I've said about this for the last few years. I'm generally opposed to protection; when I said protect the job not the worker it meant favoring generous unemployment and re-employment strategies over trade barriers. I'm completely opposed to the us-against-them mentality common in union circles. It's very hard to argue rationally against such an inherently irrational position, which seems deep down to be yours and Max's and the unions' and perhaps the Labor Party's as well. I can't speak for Max or the Labor Party, but when I was involved in the LP's economic strategizing, I argued strongly against protectionism. But we should recognize it for what it is--irrational nationalist sentiment backed by imperial power. You know, I completely agree with this. Why don't you recognize the sentiment driving your question? Our workers are oppressed; theirs are oppressed. We might as well make sure that our workers get as much of global direct investment and global capital flows as there is to be had in this globally depressed economy. Our capitalist state won't spend for public works and pump up effective demand in general; but alas maybe it'll give us a hypocritical trade regime--no so-called restrictive business practices for them, MFA and susidies for us; may as well go for it; let's make a bunch of noise in seattle and through such ritual reinforce our in group identity; next target China. This is just slanderously innacurate. There's a reason that Nader trade honcho Lori Wallach denounced me as not progressive on trade issues. well as i said we should begin by getting the facts straight; how much of the loss of employment in this sector should be attributed to imports in the first instance? how much employment is there to be lost in heavily automated factories, anwyay (correlatively, how much employment is there to be gained in the exporting countries)? how much do imports really only compete with each other? if textile or steel imports were curtailed, would the decrease in the supply of the dollars abroad raise the dollar and thus cost jobs in other export sectors (e.g., aircraft, speciality machine tools, etc)? how many of the net jobs which americans lost result from imports or an open global economy anyway? I've said many of these things - though more about NAFTA than textiles. I've said that the UAW's biggest problem is nonunion parts plants in Ohio, not Mexico - adding that it's always easier to blame the foreign worker than organize at home. Your argument is with someone else, not me. second, i don't see how the above justifies the Nation's (double meaning meant) lack of consideration of the consequences of actions taken to protect the American worker. I have no influence over Nation editorial policy. I can give you the editor's email address offlist if you like. I think we should start with recognition that there are no good immediate solutions to the problems at hand. At least one can be honest and report the truth. No good solutions until the revo? third, perhaps we should be asking why there aren't some monies available for something other than huge tax cuts for the rich. You know, transition programs, public employment, etc. No kidding. That's exactly the questions I'd ask - which brings me back to the soundbite, protect the job not the worker. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Aside from that, don't U.S. textile and apparel workers deserve some sort of attention? that's not the question; they get attention embodied in protective law. And, excuse me, is that a question at all or is it an accusation? Are you implying that I (with that foreign born name written on my CT birth certificate) am not concerned with american workers and thus unpatriotic? Not at all. You're as American as I am, but even if you weren't, it wouldn't matter a bit. And I don't consider patriotism a virtue, so that question is irrelevant. what is *your* unit of analytical concern: US workers, non ruling class Americans, the global worker? From whose perspective do you see things? The global working class. I do notice, however, that sometimes non-working class leftists in the First World don't consider the American worker as part of it. Kind of like Engels dismissing the English w.c. as paid stooges of imperialism. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
After this last post, I retract all criticism of Doug regarding trade issues. He returned my vinegar with honey. He has thought hard and long about the problems that we are facing. And I do benefit from his perspective that begins as always with the class struggle at home. All the best, Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
Doug writes: Your argument is with someone else, not me. Just to say it again: you are right, and I am wrong. Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: After this last post, I retract all criticism of Doug regarding trade issues. He returned my vinegar with honey. He has thought hard and long about the problems that we are facing. Thank you. A seasonally appropriate bit of peacemaking is always gratifying. And I do benefit from his perspective that begins as always with the class struggle at home. Only because it's right at hand and what I know best. In the larger picture, proximity carries no moral weight. Doug
Re: Re: Re: textiles
Bill L writes: Wouldn't the foundation of this be full employment policies, say, as proposed by Jamie Galbraith? But what if the available full employment policy is the export of unemployment? galbraith has got his accomodating fed but deficits perhaps only 1/5th as big as he would like. If we begin with capital as a global relation, then we can enquire into the size of the global reserve army of labor and surplus population as they are products of on-going primitive accumulations, the concentration and centralization of capital on a global scale, and the slow down in the rate of accumulation (remember there are no nation states in Marx's theory; he begins with capital as a global social relation purified of any relation with any non capitalist mode of production); then going from the macro to the micro or from the more abstract to the more concrete we can investigate whether these populations are non randomly distributed across nations (just as long term unemployment is non randomly distributed according to race in the US). And then we can make the determination of whether a national employment policy is solving the problem (e.g., taxing capital for the expansion of good public sector employment as Mat F often recommends) or just pushing it on to others. That is, making sure that the losses fall as much as possible on the other. That is, we eliminate their excess capacity, not ours or our firms abroad are allowed to circumvent local content rules and the like but we don't accept their competitive imports or their non competitive imports if they don't use say our fibre; or we silently benefit from the capital inflow that we enjoy while we wail about how much aid we imagine that we give to them. The problem of course is that a working class which is imprisoned by these us/them terms may not be able to protect itself in the long term. Rakesh
Re: Re: textiles
On Saturday, December 29, 2001 at 10:57:55 (-0800) Rakesh Bhandari writes: Bill L writes: Wouldn't the foundation of this be full employment policies, say, as proposed by Jamie Galbraith? But what if the available full employment policy is the export of unemployment? ... Most distasteful --- I was thinking of full employment globe-wide. Any unemployment should be seen as a failure of the private market --- leaving employable adults unemployed is inefficient, after all (disregarding the noxious notion of frictional unemployment). As long as we are going to have markets uber alles, we should hold them accountable for failures, and so we should be pushing them toward full employment everywhere. A generous welfare state under capitalism is a moral imperative, but so is providing stable work, at reasonable wages and reasonable hours, for those who want to work. Transfer payments, though very necessary, only paper over the problem --- the problem is free market inefficiency and waste of human capital. Not that free markets are my ideal economic system, mind you, given the unmistakable whiff of slavery they exude. Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: remember there are no nation states in Marx's theory; he begins with capital as a global social relation Which is a bit of a problem, because currencies are national, states are national, and markets in the larger countries are still largely national (around 90% in the case of the U.S., Japan, and the EU taken as a whole). The whole set-up is designed to foment an us-vs.-them consciousness. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: remember there are no nation states in Marx's theory; he begins with capital as a global social relation Which is a bit of a problem, because currencies are national, states are national, and markets in the larger countries are still largely national (around 90% in the case of the U.S., Japan, and the EU taken as a whole). The whole set-up is designed to foment an us-vs.-them consciousness. Doug i may be wrong that marx begins with capital as a global social relation; however, i certainly don't think his is a theory of the early stages of british capitalism. His work is not simply empirical descriptive. Marx is clear that he uses british data only because the uk was at the time the most highly developed and purified (so to speak) capitalism--that is, closet to the purified, self contained capitalism on which he conducts his thought experiment in Das Kapital. What is Marx's Capital a theory of? Or what kind of object has the theory itself created? the ontological status of that object? and what do the althusserians and leswak nowak have to say about this? Perhaps inspired by Sismondi's abstract theorizing--so says Grossmann, as Rick Kuhn shows--Marx seems to have made of his magnum opus a rather highly abstract--nay, positively unreal--thought experiment (in vol 1 there's no foreign trade despite brief mention of an industrial division of labor suited to the industrial countries, no on going relation with non capitalist modes of production the decimation of which is recorded in part 8 , only two classes; moreover, we have commodity money that is simply assumed to have constant value!!! so all changes in price are due to changes on the commodity, rather than money, side of equation--so no fiat money either; in fact no state; no credit for that matter, etc.) what then does marx's theory illuminate about the real history of capitalism in which there has been foreign trade, starts and stutters in the development of a global division of labor; there has been violent relations with non capitalist modes and primitive accumulation through land reform to the present day, there have always been more than two classes each of which are highly internally variegated, the link to gold has been broken, credit monies proliferate, and there is international monetary chaos. is marx's capital nothing but an out of date textbook replete with irrelevant controversializing? rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
This is a very relevant question for New Zealand. Our textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry has been reduced from 40,000 to 20,000 workers over a decade, largely as a result of tariff cuts. Many of the remainder are at risk of being sacrificed to a FTA currently being negotiated with Hong Kong. This is jobs issue, but more than that: most of those employed are women, Maori and Pacific Islanders, and people in small provincial towns, for whom there is little hope of other employment (leave alone relatively skilled employment) if/when the TCF manufacturers close down. On the other hand the unions representing those workers - among them one the best organising unions in the country - recognise the significance of TCF to developing countries, and maintain strong relationships with representatives of workers in many of those countries. So their advocacy of continued tariff protection is not one-eyed. (Incidentally, TCF tariffs are for practical purposes about the only remaining tariffs New Zealand has.) What would a progressive strategy be? While, as Bill Lear suggests, general economic policies to reclaim full employment (which New Zealand had until the mid-70's) are of course the basis for any sensible social policy, isn't that begging the question? For example, I suggest that a full employment policy must include (at least for New Zealand) some mechanism to ensure current account balance, such as by use of tariffs, quotas and foreign investment controls. Otherwise the deficit is managed by means that translate into reducing wages or employment. But to take particular industries, such as the TCF industry, even a full employment policy won't assure those workers of jobs of the right kind in the right places. Don't we need an active industrial development strategy that addresses both such particulars as well as general development needs - even in developed economies? Bill Michael Perelman wrote: Part of the question seems to be how do you organize in the absence of international solidarity? In short, how do you make Cambodian wages move up instead of US wages moving down? Wouldn't the center of gravity of a competitive international wage be close to China? The intellectually easy, but practically hard strategy -- within the bounds of capitalism -- would be to find ways to create high wage jobs in the US, but in doing that say by building high tech textile equipment would still destroy jobs in the 3rd world. Without getting into rancorous exchanges, what would a progressive strategy be. Of course, socialism would be desirable, but -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RE: Re: textiles
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: michael pugliese wrote: Yesterday on NPR it was said that 75,000 textile jobs have been lost in the last yr. lost due to national and global recession? loss of jobs that would have been added if not for recession? lost due to automation? lost to specifically defensive automation in the face of imports? lost due to surge of imports? how was this number arrived at? what is it an estimate of? Total employment, from the BLS establishment survey (thousands) 11/00 11/01 change Textile mill products... 514447 - 67 Apparel and other textile products.. 611532 - 79 total textile apparel -146 Doug
Re: textiles
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: An old nemesis who runs marxmail.org was kind enough to send this to me this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/27/opinion/27BRAI.html For no reason other than to stir up trouble, I presume. Doug and Liza, have USAS said anything about all this yet? It's not a cynical question. I have no idea, and I just asked Liza, and she doesn't either. In general, USAS is anti-protectionist, and this has been a source of tension with their union friends. Aside from that, don't U.S. textile and apparel workers deserve some sort of attention? My soundbite is protect the worker, not the job, but I'd like to hear what you think should happen to disemployed workers in this sector, who are disproportionally nonwhite and female and generally rather ill-paid. Doug
Re: Re: textiles
Aside from that, don't U.S. textile and apparel workers deserve some sort of attention? My soundbite is protect the worker, not the job, but I'd like to hear what you think should happen to disemployed workers in this sector, who are disproportionally nonwhite and female and generally rather ill-paid. Doug Doug, I have put a lot of thought in my previous attempts to answer this question that you put to me over and over; and i must say that i think you have put very little thought in your replies as is obvious from the above. Which disparity is interesting sociologically. first, how do we know whether protection is what we should do unless we can determine whether it is imports or defensive innovation in the face of imports that is responsible for job loss? raffer and singer argue that trade is quite exaggerated. maybe the real problem is a slow down in the global growth machine and the lack of global keynesianism? Well of course, one may say. There are losses to be had; they may as well fall on others? why should we not go ahead and win a zero sum game on behalf of fellow Americans with whom we have some pre rational fellow feeling? It's very hard to argue rationally against such an inherently irrational position, which seems deep down to be yours and Max's and the unions' and perhaps the Labor Party's as well. But we should recognize it for what it is--irrational nationalist sentiment backed by imperial power. Why don't you recognize the sentiment driving your question? Our workers are oppressed; theirs are oppressed. We might as well make sure that our workers get as much of global direct investment and global capital flows as there is to be had in this globally depressed economy. Our capitalist state won't spend for public works and pump up effective demand in general; but alas maybe it'll give us a hypocritical trade regime--no so-called restrictive business practices for them, MFA and susidies for us; may as well go for it; let's make a bunch of noise in seattle and through such ritual reinforce our in group identity; next target China. This is not about keeping jobs for union workers against unorganized as Max fantasizes; it's about at times keeping our union jobs away from their union jobs; it's about keeping our open shop jobs from their open shop jobs. Us and them seem like obvious categories to the sociologically naive; they are not to me for intellectual and personal reasons. At any rate, do you want me to make a rational argument against this sentiment? What kind of argument would be convincing to a good American boy (as opposed to the bad subject that I thought you were)? well as i said we should begin by getting the facts straight; how much of the loss of employment in this sector should be attributed to imports in the first instance? how much employment is there to be lost in heavily automated factories, anwyay (correlatively, how much employment is there to be gained in the exporting countries)? how much do imports really only compete with each other? if textile or steel imports were curtailed, would the decrease in the supply of the dollars abroad raise the dollar and thus cost jobs in other export sectors (e.g., aircraft, speciality machine tools, etc)? how many of the net jobs which americans lost result from imports or an open global economy anyway? maybe the drive to think in terms of us and them at an international level has led to a misdiagnosis of the problem? second, i don't see how the above justifies the Nation's (double meaning meant) lack of consideration of the consequences of actions taken to protect the American worker. I think we should start with recognition that there are no good immediate solutions to the problems at hand. At least one can be honest and report the truth. third, perhaps we should be asking why there aren't some monies available for something other than huge tax cuts for the rich. You know, transition programs, public employment, etc. Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: textiles
Total employment, from the BLS establishment survey (thousands) 11/00 11/01 change Textile mill products... 514447 - 67 Apparel and other textile products.. 611532 - 79 total textile apparel -146 Doug the timing suggests that the problem is the recession in which us based plants are having difficulty holding market share, no? Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: textiles
Rakesh, I have enjoyed your posts on pen-l and elesewhere, but it is necessary that you avoid provocative, personal statements like this On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 04:47:19PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Doug, I have put a lot of thought in my previous attempts to answer this question that you put to me over and over; and i must say that i think you have put very little thought in your replies as is obvious from the above. Which disparity is interesting sociologically. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: textiles
Aside from that, don't U.S. textile and apparel workers deserve some sort of attention? that's not the question; they get attention embodied in protective law. And, excuse me, is that a question at all or is it an accusation? Are you implying that I (with that foreign born name written on my CT birth certificate) am not concerned with american workers and thus unpatriotic? what is *your* unit of analytical concern: US workers, non ruling class Americans, the global worker? From whose perspective do you see things? look again at your question; tell me what is implicit in it. My soundbite is protect the worker, not the job, but your published work on globalization has hardly delved into the double standards in the trade regime. Which seems to imply to me that your unit of analytical concern is the American worker. but I'd like to hear what you think should happen to disemployed workers in this sector, who are disproportionally nonwhite and female and generally rather ill-paid. what is the question? what do i think should happen *to* them? or what do i think those permanently unemployed by this system should do themselves? Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Re: textiles
Part of the question seems to be how do you organize in the absence of international solidarity? In short, how do you make Cambodian wages move up instead of US wages moving down? Wouldn't the center of gravity of a competitive international wage be close to China? The intellectually easy, but practically hard strategy -- within the bounds of capitalism -- would be to find ways to create high wage jobs in the US, but in doing that say by building high tech textile equipment would still destroy jobs in the 3rd world. Without getting into rancorous exchanges, what would a progressive strategy be. Of course, socialism would be desirable, but -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: textiles
Wasn't the textile industry cave in the key to getting fast track passed in the house? On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 10:48:05AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: An old nemesis who runs marxmail.org was kind enough to send this to me this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/27/opinion/27BRAI.html Doug and Liza, have USAS said anything about all this yet? It's not a cynical question. Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: textiles
Wasn't the textile industry cave in the key to getting fast track passed in the house? the nyt reporter at the time suggested that it was indeed quite important. rb
RE: Re: textiles
Yesterday on NPR it was said that 75,000 textile jobs have been lost in the last yr. in the U.S. Compared to 15,000 in steel. Michael Pugliese P.S. If Roger Milliken, a major bankroller of the Birch Society and a textile tycoon is in that textile industry association, how much noise did he make? From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12/27/01 10:57:06 AM Wasn't the textile industry cave in the key to getting fast track passed in the house? On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 10:48:05AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: An old nemesis who runs marxmail.org was kind enough to send this to me this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/27/opinion/27BRAI.html Doug and Liza, have USAS said anything about all this yet? It's not a cynical question. Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: textiles
michael pugliese wrote: Yesterday on NPR it was said that 75,000 textile jobs have been lost in the last yr. lost due to national and global recession? loss of jobs that would have been added if not for recession? lost due to automation? lost to specifically defensive automation in the face of imports? lost due to surge of imports? how was this number arrived at? what is it an estimate of? is it reliable? why we should we be concerned only with job loss in one sector, not net job gain or loss due to globalization or regional markets (i.e., why not include jobs gained directly and indirectly from capital inflow, including foreign direct investment; jobs gained from exports)? why not estimate how successful the 'North' has been in slowing down the loss of industries in which they have no comparative advantage as well as the human consequences that this had on poor countries? Michael, I remember when you were sending around *very* low estimates of the human destruction wrought by the us sanctions on iraq, while suggesting that they were authoritative because some person with impeccable leftist credentials had made them. It did not seem to me to be a very credible way of proceeding. Rakesh
RE: Re: RE: Re: textiles
Rakesh, the speaker was not identified but he did not sound like someone with academic credentials, probably got the stat from his shop steward in UNITE! On the Iraq #ers, that was from The Nation and the background stuff I added about David Cortright was a fyi in the interests of just saying in effect this not some guy like Anthony Cordesman from the Georgetown CSIS or some such. Plus those numbers came from Lancet, the UK medical journal. I get so tired of (others, not you!) exaggerated figures on the deaths due to sanctions. When the truth is horrible why inflate? Anyway, good questions below, maybe I'll track down the NPR reporter that did the story and send her a e-mail. Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- From: Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12/27/01 11:22:48 AM michael pugliese wrote: Yesterday on NPR it was said that 75,000 textile jobs have been lost in the last yr. lost due to national and global recession? loss of jobs that would have been added if not for recession? lost due to automation? lost to specifically defensive automation in the face of imports? lost due to surge of imports? how was this number arrived at? what is it an estimate of? is it reliable? why we should we be concerned only with job loss in one sector, not net job gain or loss due to globalization or regional markets (i.e., why not include jobs gained directly and indirectly from capital inflow, including foreign direct investment; jobs gained from exports)? why not estimate how successful the 'North' has been in slowing down the loss of industries in which they have no comparative advantage as well as the human consequences that this had on poor countries? Michael, I remember when you were sending around *very* low estimates of the human destruction wrought by the us sanctions on iraq, while suggesting that they were authoritative because some person with impeccable leftist credentials had made them. It did not seem to me to be a very credible way of proceeding. Rakesh
