On 2/23/07, michael a. lebowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 14:59 22/02/2007, yoshie wrote:
>I've been following inflation stories about Iran and Venezuela (as
>well as India, China, Mexico, etc.).
>
>Both governments clearly want to avoid raising interest rates and
>curtailing social spending, orthodox solutions to inflation. But if
>not those, what else can they do? I've been reading about the Chavez
>government threatening to jail hoarders, removing three zeroes from
>the bolivar, lowering VAT, threatening to nationalize grocery
>distribution and retail, etc., but they don't seem to be working.
Too soon to say whether the campaign vs stores hoarding necessities
is working. That is to be policed by neighbourhood committees. I
think that what is important to stress is that the response to a
capital strike (the holding of items off the market in order to
pressure for the price controls to be increased) and to the evasion
of controls has not been to give in but to move in. The proclamation
of a law vs speculation and monopolisation, calling for expropriation
of enterprises engaging in these, transforms a situation in which the
government was initially on the defensive; and by calling for
communities to monitor (and then run such enterprises), it becomes a
'teachable moment.' (Incidentally, the opposition is calling these
moves 'unconstitutional'--- contrary to the guarantee of
'economic freedom'.)
This part of policy reminded me of Martin Hart-Landsberg's piece on
successful price control in the USA during WW2: "Equally important,
the OPA [Office of Price Administration] eventually mobilized tens of
thousands of volunteers to administer and ensure retail compliance
with its new control system. The combination of new controls and
popular participation in their application proved to be a success.
Between the spring of 1943 and April 1945, consumer prices rose less
than 2 percent. Thanks to subsidies and rollbacks, food prices
actually declined by more than 4 percent. This record is especially
noteworthy in that it was achieved over the last years of the war,
when employment was at a maximum and consumer goods production highly
restricted" (at
<http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/hartlandsberg071105.html>). But war
socialism in the USA also reduced citizens' purchasing power by war
bonds, no strike pledges, etc.
On 2/23/07, soula avramidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This may be an a tangent but the situation in Iran could have been much
better if they avoided sectarianism and got involved with the resistance in
Iraq. now too late...
You mean getting involved in "the resistance" in a way that Washington
charges Tehran with doing, i.e., militarily supporting Iraqi fighters?
I doubt that would have been a good idea, even if there had been
groups of Iraqi fighters who desired such support.
What would have been undoubtedly a good idea is for Tehran -- as well
as other governments, Western liberals and leftists, etc. -- to refuse
to recognize the "Iraqi government." The "elections" in Iraq had
worse effects on Iraq than the US invasion itself, for they
essentially set up a Shi'i-dominated government and sowed the seeds of
a sectarian civil war.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
