Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: economics on pen-l

[soula avramidis]

i found myself once next to a wealthy man in a cold war peace rally, i asked him what he was doing there since it was something the commies put together in part, he says a nuclear bomb or an ecological disaster will poor and rich alike. i think there in international culture a heavy humanist heritage for change not to be influenced by it, but on the other hand, you maybe right if neccessary elements are missing.

 Eugene Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I share Soula Avramidis' insight and worry about natioanl chauvinism.
Separately, I see an environmental calamity close at hand, but I think
that it will tear humanity apart rather than bring it together.

Gene Coyle

soula avramidis wrote:
>
>
> I refer back to an item that says that the conservative desocialising
> agenda is at work under George w. if so and I am sure cuts in social
> spending are abound, then to what degree is a fall in the average level
> of education of the American working class fosters ultra nationalism and
> imperial aggression abroad, or does it really matter how social spending
> goes in America since the ideological framework of education and
> everything else fosters a sort national chauvinism sentiment across
> classes, and therefore, in the absence of a strong counter > internationalist ideology, nothing short of an environmental calamity
> will bring humanity together. at least in the foreseeable future.
>
> Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> Business Week recently had an article that seemed to agree with
> Peter. I did not save the ref, but it was from the last few
> weeks.
>
> Peter Dorman wrote:
>
> > Devine, James wrote:
> >
> >> Peter D writes:>...
> >> I'm wondering whether foreign central banks are already
> >> financing the
> >> US current account deficit, in light of the weakness in US
> >> financial
> >> markets. <
> >>
> >> don't you think that it's foreign financiers that are doing
> >> so, rather than central banks? they're buying up US assets,
> >> allowing the US to run a current account defici! t. If the CBs
> >> are doing anything, it's accumulating dollars and
> >> dollar-denominated short-term assets because they are useful
> >> reserves (since the dollar acts as world money). Do you think
> >>! ; that the CBs play a big role?
> >
> > My suspicion is that the private inflow of investment has not
> > kept up with the US need for half a trillion a year. Certainly
> > not in equities, and perhaps also not in debt assets, due to
> > possible exchange rate risk. The dollar is indeed the world's
> > liquidity, but its days (OK, years) are certainly numbered, and
> > sensible investors would want to avoid too much exposure. As I
> > recall, there was also a year during the early 80s when foreign
> > CB's stepped in to cover for the reluctance of private
> > wealth-holders. I'm guessing that 2002 will also turn out to
> > be ! such a year, but I could be wrong.
> >
> > As to why the CB's would do this, you could take your pick from
> > (1) it's not in anyone's interest to have the dollar crash and
> > bring down the global economy with it, (2) they are protecting
> > the private positions in the dollar taken by t! heir own
> > nationals in particular, (3) they are supporting the US as a
> > bastion of free-market rectitude, and (4) they are supporting
> > an overvalued dollar to sustain their own export surpluses.
> >
> >> >... If so, what implications, if any, does this have for
> >> global
> >> political economy? How can we explain Bushite unitaleralism
> >> and
> >> in-your-face hegemony in light of the increasing fragility of
> >> the US
> >> external position?<
> >>
> >> the role of the dollar as worl! d money is based on the power
> >> of the US. Bushite hegemonism seems just one way to maintain
> >> and extend that power, centering on the military side. The
> >> Clintonoids put greater emphasis on the financial/economic
> >> side of US power along with trying to encourage consent among
> >> the governed, don't you think? But these are variations on a
> >>! theme.
> >
> > The strength of the dollar depends entirely on the willingness
> > of the rest of the world to accumulate them at the rate of
> > one-half trillion a year. Private wealth-holders will do so
> > based on expectations of risk (exchange rate and liquidity) and
> > rate of return. Public dollar repositories (CB's) will do so
> > for either economic (including liquidity) or political
> > reasons. It seems to me that the Bushies cannot afford to
> > alienate t! he interests that govern CB decision-making. The
> > current military power buildup may be seen as a basis for
> > supporting the dollar (an implicit quid pro quo if you will),
> > or it may be seen as reckless and overly unilateral. How would
> > you analyze the effect of US militarism on the willingness of
> > CB's to accumulate dollars?
> >
> >
> >> >Moreover, if we assume that serious money is now
> >> international
> >>! ; (international portfolios and their mirror-image,
> >> international
> >> ownership of corporations, financial institutions and
> >> tradeable funds),
> >> how do we think about the constraints, if any, on US economic
> >> policy?
> >> (It doesn't look like we have vehicles for domestic
> >> constraints at the
> >> moment.) Or is US policy really reflective! of a global
> >> consensus among
> >> the rich?<
> >>
> >> maybe a consensus, but one that reflects US power.
> >>
> >> It's quite possible that the value of the dollar is currently
> >> too high given the level of US power. But we can't know for
> >> sure.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting
> - Let
> the expert host your site

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site