>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/18/01 12:34PM >>>
Charles wrote:
>CB: What is competitive austerity ? Is it competition between governments
>to see who can cut social spending and public enterprise the most ? Is the
>difference between this and the 1930 situation that there weren't welfare
>state institutions as much in place then as in the period out of which
>competitive austerity is taking us now ?
Max writes: > There is tax competition between states and countries, but
the effect in distorting tax structures is much
more important, IMO, than the impact on the size of government. There is
pressure on the size of Gov, but it stems from ideological and
(anti-)redistributive concerns, not very much from actual competitive
pressure.
>There is the conservative notion that devolution will cause the public
sector to shrink, but so far this has not happened, in the U.S. at least.<
this is another reason why Max shouldn't leave the list. He's got it
exactly right. Different political units are competing for the favors of
the multinationals by cutting taxes & wages and the like.
((((((((
CB: Cutting taxes on multinationals, but not on workers ? Cutting wages or working
class incomes , in part, by cutting social spending , this neo-liberalist austerity ?
((((((
They also are
competing to push exports. This could lead to deepening world
depression.
((((((((
CB: Is it the pushing exports and the cutting taxes and wages that could lead to
deepening world depresssion , or mainly the competing to push exports ? How does
competing to push exports tend toward deepening world depression ? Is it that the
competition cuts prices ( "deflationary effects " ?) and thereby incomes and profits
of the competing neo-colonial , non- G-7 countries and their companies ?
((((((
It's encouraged by the World Bank & the IMF (and the weakness
of labor and other non-capitalist forces). Until 2000, the deflationary
effects of this part of the "race to the bottom" was counteracted by the US
being the world's consumer of last resort. (These days, the US is
broadcasting recession to the world.).
((((((((
CB: So, any move in the direction of protectionism, as in godley model, due to
aggravating current accounts deficit could aggravate a move of US to being less of a
world consumer of last resort, combining with any recession in the U.S. in this
tendency to be less of a world consumer of last resort, and stiffening the competition
of neo-colonial companies and countries to sell imports ?
>CB: Would Bush be going back to the old Republican trend if he protects
>the U.S. steel industry ?
more likely, he'd be giving in to special-interest pressure. The powers
that be -- both Republican and Democratic -- are all in favor of "free
trade." I doubt that they'll give up on this philosophy until the US stops
being the hegemonic power.
(((((((
CB: Isn't this in part because a lot of the "imports" into the U.S. are from U.S
controlled transnationals from their capital and production outside of the
geographical U.S. ( the "U.S." still exporting capital muchly ) ?
But as was just said elsewhere, there is no escape in this capital chasing its tail
for, ultimately capital is its own chief barrier, i.e. Marx's critical insight that
the chief barrier
to capital is capital itself ('Capital' vol 3 and the 'Grundrisse') and
therfore, at a certain point, capital has to *attempt to escape its own
laws of motion*. and "in fact, capital moved from its 'progressive' phase of free
competition, free market, free trade etc to the imperilaist epoch, where it
has to try to escape the law of value through interfering with all these
things. It attempts to escape its own barriers through export of capital,
monopoly, foreign trade, the division of the world into oppressed and
oppressor nations, state intervention etc etc etc. This was an *objective*
trend. One which is clearly still with us.
or not ?
And so at some point, might the U.S. hegmonic powers that be contradict their main
tendency to adhere to and promote "free trade" and oppose tariffs in the U.S. ? Won't
depression in the rest of the world ( the could be deepening world depression you
mention above ) eventually cause political instability there, forcing the U.S. world
hegmonic corporations to circle the wagons around the U.S. ? Or can the current
balancing act be maintained for decades ?
P.S. this is not meant to be a pro-recession/depression post
