At 11:14 PM 2/8/98 -0800, Harry Pollard wrote:
>I've said similar things before and almost invariably
>receive a reply that says that free trade has been ended and
>therefore free trade is a baddie.
I agree and think that everyone, except a small number of 'ultra-localist'
environmentalists, know that trade is a good thing, but that we need to
think more carefully about the conditions in which trade occurs.
>As I earlier mentioned, you should read Henry George's
>"Protection or Free Trade" arguably the best book on Free
>Trade ever written - particularly as it ends by showing that
>the benefits of free trade don't reach the people at the
>bottom. But, before you say "Hah!", the argument of George
>applies to capital and all the other ways we have learned to
>create production.
I vaguely recall reading Henry George's _Progress and Poverty_, and seem to
remember that George sees land-based resources as a value-numeraire.
>It makes more sense not to belabor Free Trade, or curse
>machines as did the Luddites - but to concentrate on why
>their benefits don't reach everyone.
I agree, although I don't think unfettered 'free' trade determines the
answer to that question. I think that the basic impact of the current form
of free trade is that it involves extending the space of monopoly
competition, but as I said, firm structure and the financial sector are much
more important to consider as part of these overall processes.
>John, I fear, doesn't say much, but uses some entirely
>unnecessary words to conuse things.
Sorry...
>> I agree with Eva that the forced subsumption of the worker
>> into the capitalist labour market is not an act so easily
>> explained by the simplistic, entirely incomplete and
>> bourgeois legacy of the early
>> liberal political economists.
>
>What does the forced inclusion of a worker into the
>capitalist 'worker' market mean?
I think the point was made earlier about the impact of industrialism on the
possibilities of self-sufficiency outside of the capitalist economic system.
Marx wrote of the 'formal' (creation of the worker by separation from the
land-base and incorporation into town and industry) and 'real' (the
establishment of capitalist control over labour-power, e.g. through the
separation of conception from execution of Taylorism). That's also what I
was trying to get at, in relation to Eva Durant's previous post.
>The classicals thought in terms of people. That may make
>them simplistic - but it also makes them relevant. Their
>analysis was complete in spite of their "bourgeois legacy" -
>whatever that means. Nowadays, as a Futureworker mentioned,
>the reality is buried in such nonsense as the "average GNP"
>which hides the great incomes and the subsistence level
>wages.
I agree with the observation that average GDP is a useless indicator in the
context of a polarizing social structure.
The contribution of classical economists to our understanding of the
functioning of capitalism has been profound. Nonetheless, theories that
locate the economic problem outside of capitalism, such as (to continue with
the 19th century references) Marxist and syndicalist theories, have better
helped us understand the 'dysfunctioning' of capitalism. Regardless, any
system of thought that views itself as complete and self-contained is likely
merely ahistorical. I think that neoclassical economics has definitely
earned such a reputation, with its ill-conceived policy ideas of how to
respond to economic crises.
By 'bourgeois' legacy I mean both the predominant ideology of capitalism,
and the acceptance of class rule, and methodological individualism.
>What we should all remember is that the job of science is to
>simplify. Most social sciences have kind of lost their way
>and complication has taken the place of understanding.
Put simply, there is no a priori reason to believe that more free trade will
forever solve the problems of sustainable accumulation and distribution.
Cheers,
John
John Hollingsworth (613) 231-2431
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 2-216 James St. K1R 5M7
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
