Bill,
I would appreciate that reference.
It didnt mean to say, did I? that deregulation was driven by
multinational capital. I see the drive coming from the limits of the
internal market for NZ national productive capital - the LOV
asserting itself.. That's where I differ from the MNC bogey theory,
and the local finance capital madness theory.
Dave
> Gidday Dave
> Yeah I pretty much agree with the first paragraph, from my perspective
> differential rent on pastoral production was the basis for NZ's sad and
> deeply flawed little variant of fordism - fordism in the sense that Jessop
> has advanced (Bastard keynesian economics+welfare state+some way of paying
> for it). I'm getting into the business of trying to quantify some of the
> these flows and work shy wide boy that I am I was fishing to see if you had
> any quantitative data.
> Interestingly enough for this argument Dave Neilson has just recently
> marked a doctorate for a student of Rob Stevens that deals pretty much with
> the role of differential rent in the NZ & Aussie economies. I havent read it
> yet but I'll dig out the reference if you like.
> I'm probably closer to Rob Steven than you in that I see the economic
> patterns evident in the NZ economy prior to the seventies as being
> intimately related to the consumption patterns of the english worker,
> strongly prior to WWIIless directly post war.
> I've been trying to get a model of the NZ economy to fly thats built round a
> variant of the post keynesian idea of balance of payment constrained growth
> (thirlwall's law) that has our propensity to export being exogenously (to
> our economy) determined and an endogenous determination of the propensity to
> import. Sadly this is flying as well as a one winged jumbo at the moment-
> maybe its just a bad idea but I like it.
> I'd agree that NZ's existence has become, unlike myself, less bloated and
> more emaciated with time but would tend to see this as related to the
> decline in the differential rent on pastoral production that we have
> extracted from the carnivorous denizens of the core capitalist countries.
> As to the removal of protection for the internal economy I dont think this
> is reducible to the needs of international financial capital alone, though
> it very well maybe compatible with their interests, as I'm sure that
> international financial capital could have lived with considerably less in
> the way of liberalization in NZ - Why did we go so far so fast when other
> economies have been way more circumspect in pursuing this trajectory?\
> cheers
> Bill
>
>
> ----------
> >From: "Dave Bedggood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: M-TH: Is NZ a bloated semi-colony?
> >Date: Fri, Oct 8, 1999, 5:43 AM
> >
>
> > Gidday Bill,
> > Yes NZ earned differential rent on its pastoral production for much
> > of its history I agree. But a lot of this dissappeared into the hands
> > of the financiers, banks etc who had the mortage on the land etc.
> > i.e. much of it back to the motherland. That part which was retained
> > by the owners of the best land became the capital fund for a weak
> > national bourgeoisie which set up factories in backyard sheds with
> > tariff protection and then state subsidies to survive.
> >
> > I don't take the view that NZ was part of the centre living off the
> > British working class (like Rob Steven) or the periphery for that
> > matter, but like most of the white-setter colonies was a 'special'
> > sort of privileged semi-colony so long as protection was tolerated by
> > and profitable for imperial finance capital. I would venture to
> > say that the loss of this protection has sent NZ down the
> > semi-colonial stakes towards a less bloated and more emaciated
> > existence.
> >
> > What do you say?
> > Dave
> >
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
