Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Dear Thomas, I think JG's argument is a 'thought experiment': As a first step, imagine a national economy entirely closed to trade. Such an economy will have three basic types of activity in it. He never claims that reality operates in this fashion. Trade has been part of most national economies for centuries. Both of you are right, it is just the JG's carefully constructed analysis and the terms he uses are designed to provide a proof that is different than that which current economic theory holds as true. Your information, in my opinion, is to prove that the current levels of population and their effect upon the earth resources is the real problem. I agree with both of you. Current economic theory also rejects notions of 'irrational human demand' and 'limits to growth'(book title by Donella Meadows). Seeking or claiming to know "the real problem" is IMO fruitless. Wholesystem analysis precludes linear causation in the big picture. I offer no solution, but resist ideological, single faceted ones. I do believe population is a signinicant factor that has been avoided for decades. Regards, Steve
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Sorry Jim, no specific references come to mind. However, if you are of a similar age to me, you must remember that at one time you needed 25% down to get a mortage. Now, you can borrow your down payment on a credit card and you need 5% or in some cases less. These changes have come about in less than 40 years. Something is definetly not right, either this is the way it should be or that is the way it should be but both conditions cannot co-exist. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Jim Dator [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith Date: Mon, May 31, 1999, 7:28 PM Thank you very much for that explanation. It was not clear to me from what you originally sent that this was so, but now I see it could not have been otherwise. I will definitely have to get the book to read more now. Do you (or anyone else on this list) have additional sources to recommend about the role of consumer credit in both fueling the current economy, and skewing it in the way Galbraith/Lunde demonstrate? I, too, feel this is the big dark secret that is never discussed in these terms (to my knowledge) in the general press, or politics.
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
-- From: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Thomas, Your argument about "natural/material" value, rather than token value has some merit. I would appreciate your comments in the context of Galbraith (not in quote) who gives these figures. 10% are employed in the knowledge sector, 10% in the manufacturing of goods and 80% in the providing of services. Dear Steve: I truly appreciate your lengthy answer. Rather than going through it point by point and as I am probably, rather imperfectly trying to defend JG's ideas, it is probably more honest for me to take some time to transcribe his descriptions from which I made my comments. Page 90 from Created Equal As a first step, imagine a national economy entirely closed to trade. Such an economy will have three basic types of activity in it. Some workers, perhaps a fairly small number, will be employed as machine makers. Highly skilled, they build the instruments that others use and develop the technologies that lead from one generation to the next. We can call them K-workers, where K stands for knowledge, or equally, for "capital goods." K-workers are those who produce airplanes and machine tools and who write software, as well as the architects and engineers and some of the other professionals who give shape to the society in which we live. They include Reich's symbolic analysts, and then some. We can often usefully distinguish between the truly irreplaceable knowledge workers, those who actually control the keys to the kingdom, and their production-line subordinates within the knowledge-based industries. Depending on the nature of the production process, the latter may, or may not, be in a position to share the bonanza of a technological gold strike. But the K-sector as a whole is the conceptual entity to be reckoned with, right down to its janitors and secretaries in many cases. A large number of workers will be employed using the machines designed in the K-sector. They will produce the goods that the whole population actually consumes: food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and entertainment. They will do so in factories using machinery accumulated over the years from the K-sector output. Some of their equipment will be new, some older, some on the verge of retirement. We can call these workers, the machine users, the C-sector, where C stands for "consumption goods." The C-sector, which includes much run-of-the-mill machinery and intermediate goods production as well as all of the mass production of consumer goods, is no monolith. Some factories are new, technologically advanced, up and coming, and profitable. Others are old, run down, overstaffed, costly to maintain, and barely able to turn a profit. Some C-sector factories employ directly the amies of clerks, janitors, and secretaries they need to support their productive operations-and pay these service workers wages scaled to the C-sector norms. Others contract out their service functions and perhaps pay less for these easily replaceable supporting workers. This description of diversity within the C-sector is offered at the level of the factory, but it can be extended to the full range of companies and of industries as well. Companies are groups of factories. Industries are groups of firms. At each level of grouping up, we will find differences of efficiency, as unit cost, market power, and potential profitability at each level of demand. (To use a fancy phrase from a new branch of mathermatics, fractal theory, we can say that these entities are "self-similar at different scales.) The C-sector is highly hetrerogenous. Finally, there will be a large group of workers who use little or no capital equipment, and who do not produce machinery or goods and are not employed by companies that do. These are the service workers, the S-sector, who live by their labor alone. They are the janitors, clerks, cashiers, secretaries, hairdressers, nurses and orderlies, masseurs and masseuses who in the actual economy of the United States make up 80 percent of the working population, often employed in companies specialized to the provison of services and the distribution of goods. Thomas: As I reread your answer, I am struck by the difference between JG's main argument, that it is the inequality of wages that has created our current problems in society, while your answer moves more into a wider environmental aspect of the problems of our current industrial age. Both of you are right, it is just the JG's carefully constructed analysis and the terms he uses are designed to provide a proof that is different than that which current economic theory holds as true. Your information, in my opinion, is to prove that the current levels of population and their effect upon the earth resources is the real problem. I agree with both of you. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Dear Thomas, TL: Your argument about "natural/material" value, rather than token value has some merit.
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Thank you for that reply, Thomas. I am both dismayed and heartened by your answer--that no specific references come to mind. They don't to me either, and I have not heard any suggestions from others on this list or others like it. The role of the huge and rapid increase of consumer credit--and consumer debt--is virtually undiscussed in either the popular press or serious economics, it seems. Could that be true? Or am I just not finding what I am looking for which abundantly exists? And if consumer debt (and easy bankruptcy too, in the US, let's not forget) is NOT discussed in serious economics, why is this? Is it because it is too trivial an issue to consider, or too serious an issue to consider? When I recently serarched online for information about this, I retrieved literally hundreds of sites all dealing with helping the reader cope with her debt burden, and NOTHING analyzing the role of this burden (and the "purchases" which were made "on credit) in the real economy. Why? And yes, Thomas, I am of the age that remembers when consumer credit was very rare, difficult to get, and limited in its use--but also comparatively cheap. Now, most of my mail is composed of offers for credit cards or other lines of credit. On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Thomas Lunde wrote: Sorry Jim, no specific references come to mind. However, if you are of a similar age to me, you must remember that at one time you needed 25% down to get a mortage. Now, you can borrow your down payment on a credit card and you need 5% or in some cases less. These changes have come about in less than 40 years. Something is definetly not right, either this is the way it should be or that is the way it should be but both conditions cannot co-exist. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Jim Dator [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith Date: Mon, May 31, 1999, 7:28 PM Thank you very much for that explanation. It was not clear to me from what you originally sent that this was so, but now I see it could not have been otherwise. I will definitely have to get the book to read more now. Do you (or anyone else on this list) have additional sources to recommend about the role of consumer credit in both fueling the current economy, and skewing it in the way Galbraith/Lunde demonstrate? I, too, feel this is the big dark secret that is never discussed in these terms (to my knowledge) in the general press, or politics.
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Dear Jim: This, as I understand it is one of the main thesis's of the book. That a major redistribution of income has occurred since 1970 towards those who recieve income from interest rather than from labour. He also identifies the "transfer state" as the other area of change in income redistribution. I don't have the book in front of me know, but one of his most insightful graphs to me was the one that showed 16% of income is recieved from interest by the very rich and 16% of income is redistributed to the poor, the elderly, the handicapped for a total of 32%. In the 1960's, only 3% of income was earned through interest and 3% redistributed through transfers. This growth in "interest" income comes from the pocketbooks of the middle class, those who have credit. Following this logic is the angst of the middle class who still earn their income through labour and wages and find that interest and taxes which fund the transfer payments are both taken from their earnings. This leaves them with less. The neo-cons, with their call for tax relief are responding to only one half of the problem, high taxes which fund transfer payments while keeping the middle class in the dark about the other half of the problem, the amount of their income which is going to pay interest. His solution to the transfer payments problem is to go back to a full employment policy that he claims was in effect from 1945 till 1970. More people working means less transfers to those who are not working. His solution to the interest problem is to raise wages, the logic being that we cannot save or have disposable income when are wages are too low and we compensate by using credit which increases the wealth of those who use capital to gain interest rather than using capital for the investment in capital goods production. Rspectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Jim Dator [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith Date: Mon, May 31, 1999, 5:23 AM Does Galbraith discuss the role of the rapid expansion of easy consumer credit during the time frame of his analysis?
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
There is nothing wrong with equal responsibility taken for family income, if the responsibility for housekeeping and childrearing is also shared, not only by fathers, but also by society, such as shorter working hours, cheap and excellent public nursery-schools and after-school childcare, cheap public restaurants, etc. Not attainable in the present system. Research results do not support your claim that stay-home mothers and absantee fathers mean good family life, on the contrary. Eva I couldn't agree more and of course it is not only immigrants but the massive entry into the labour force of women - not that women shouldn't work but that, in a large number of cases they didn't work in the 50's and 60's but were - in many cases - forced into work in the 70's by the deliberate sabotage of wages which made the one income family obsolete in most cases for a middle class lifestyle. These people wanted the best for their children and made the necessary adjustments in their family life to provide income, often at the very expense of that family life. Penny wise and pound foolish perhaps as we look at the social dysfunctions in our society. Respectfully Thomas Lunde -- From: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith Date: Sun, May 30, 1999, 9:46 PM Hi Thomas all, Thanks for the clear, informative review. I've interacted with JG, and he has shied away from my questions about the impact of the sharp rise in the size of the labor force since WWII. I'm *not* disputing any of the factors described in the review; I'm suggesting that at the same time that technology and globalization have empowered capital and entrepreneurship at the expense of labor, the sharp rise in population has added to the woes of the lower and middle classes. Demand for housing and services rise, while wages are supressed. Policy and values don't operate in a vacuum. Industries desire for a passive, compliant labor supply has resulted in a continual high level of immigrants. In the US, this has finally been grasped by many in the African American, Latino, and other minority communities. Their wages and opportunities for self-improvement are directly impacted by immigration policy. Of course much of the migration pressure stems from global overpopulation. But numbers are a factor in wellbeing in North America nonetheless. Consider also the recent explosion of sprawl articles and discussions. Cheers, Steve (excerpt from TL) All of these changes had the effect of breaking down the structures of solidarity that had held the American middle class together for the first quarter-century after the end of World War II. The new instability of macroeconomics gave a powoerful boost to investment and techology, both in absolute terms and as compared with consumption. With each recession, waves of older factories disappeared. With them went the hard-won, high-paying jobs of the traditional blue-collar workforce. But with each recovery, firms faced an imperative to replace lost capacity, and to do it in the most cost-saving, labor-saving, technologically advanced way available at that moment in time. Waves of layoffs were followed by waves of investment. But the new investments were never designed to relieve the distress of the previously unemployed. They were designed instead to substitutue entirely for them, and this they accomplished. At the same time, incomes policies were abandoned. The idea that all society should benefit equally from national productivity gains was replaced by an ideology of the market, in which winner-take-all and the devil-the-hindmost. Minimum wages were allowed to fall in real terms; safety net social expenditures came under assault. There began a cult of the entrpreneur, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
So, the answer is yes, and the explanation for the failure of the welfare-state was far from adequate... We might as well go for something new if we have to go against the tide... We are running out of time, we cannot repeat past mistakes. Eva the suggestion is to go back to keynesian economy, isn't it? Dar Eva: Far be it for me after reading one difficult book to answer this question definitively. And yet, you have hit the nail on the head. Galbraith argues that it was movement from a Keynesnian economy to a monatarist policy that removed the goal of full employment from the economic equation. The monetarist with their Nairu which made unemployment a deliberate part of economic policy effectively destroyed the concept of full employment, one of the main planks of the Keynesians. With that decision, came the following consequences, high transfer payments to the unemployed, lower wages because of surplus workers and income transfers from the middle class to the capitalist class which had capital to loan. But that came to an end in the 70s due to unsustainable public borrowing and cuts in profits/recession, didn't it? Thomas: I don't know. Which came first, the chicken or the egg. Did we borrow more because unemployment went up and new social services were put in place to alleviate and compensate those who were unemployed. Was it because the lords and masters of government didn't follow Keynesian Theory which said stimulate in downturns and pay back in good times and they just forgot to pay back? Was it macroeconomics in terms of the basic price in energy in 1973? Was it the elimination of work because of computerization? Think, would we still have full employment if we had not invented the computer? Possibly. Now we reached the same "result" through a re-hashed monetarist and then neo-liberal avenue. What would be the new feature in this suggestion of renewed state intervention in re-distribution? Thomas: If the governments (plural) had constantly raised the minimum wage, for example, in Ontario were I reside, it is $6.85 Canadian which is about $4.25 American to try and get a baseline number. In 1968, Galbraith states the minimum wage was equivalent to $6.50 American in 1994 - probably about $7.00 American in 1999 giving us poor, a shortfall of approximately $3.75 less for every hour worked than I would have made in Ontario in 1968. This amounts to a shortfall of $150 a week or $600 a month for a person working for minimum wage. Now, if all the working poor were working making an extra $600 a month, this would constitute a "state intervention". My logic says that would make a considerable difference from the current situation. How come the word "capitalism" was not mentioned? Non-virtual profits are falling - there is not enough to re-distribute. Is the mechanism - markets/profits is working? The global markets are limited - there is, I'm afraid, the classic contradiction. Do you really think it can be fixed? Thomas: Well of course there is another answer to the comment "not enough to redistribute" and that is there is no demand because 50% the people have very little disposable income. And Galbraith argues, to me quite successfully, it is because the working poor after rent, grocery's and transportation costs are broke. And of course all those on welfare, pensions, disability, etc have in most cases not seen any COLA increases while small quarterly inflation figures constantly add up over the years. My mother who is on governemt pension got her COLA increase for the last year, I think it was $.52. That is not realistic, is it? Galbraith also argues that it is not just full employment that is necessary but that prices should also be managed to some degree. Part of the problem of low profits is that competition - that highly touted good - has taken all the profit out of goods production. With little or no profit in the production of goods, then the corporate tax contribution is almost nil, which leaves governments to make up the shortfall through borrowing or taxing labour income even more. I am not against profits, as long as profits are taxed fairly. In the 60"s, government income was roughly equal with 50% coming from labour income and 50% coming from corporate profit income. The ratio is now, 80% labour income and 20% corporate income. As to virtual profits earned by speculation, when times are good, they reinvest and do not declare any profits and when they lose, they claim their loses and do not pay any taxes or greatly reduced taxes. One of the thoughts I had was that labour should have the same option. If I get laid off a good paying job and take a lesser paying job, why can I not deduct my loss of income as a valid income loss just like business and speculators do? Eva [EMAIL PROTECTED] Respectfully, Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
-Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: lundi 31 mai 1999 19:26 Onderwerp: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith Greetings again, Thomas Lunde wrote: As to virtual profits earned by speculation, I have debunked this misconception on prior occasions. Trading in futures, options, and other leveraged instruments (which is the usual method of determining just who are speculators in financial markets) is a zero sum game. Losses and profits net out. How many investors are nowadays buying (and holding on to) stocks for the dividends they produce? Nowadays stocks are bought primarily because their value is expected to rise. Between 1990 and 1993 the capital involved in the international financial circuit has tripled to $3 trillion (Newsweek, October 3, 1994). In ten years the value of the most traded stocks (as shown in the Dow Jones index) rose by 246%, while in that same period the economy expanded by just some 30% (average growth rate of 2.6% over the ten year period). Then how do you account for that? Hardly a zero sum game. The fact is you are calling speculators only a certain type of short term high risk speculators, while actually practically the whole market is speculating. A lesser gain is not the same as an outright loss. It is more akin to an 'opportunity loss'. Wasn't that one of the things transnational companies wanted to be refunded for in the MAI propositions? Regards Jan Matthieu Flemish greens
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Hi Jan, Jan Matthieu wrote: How many investors are nowadays buying (and holding on to) stocks for the dividends they produce? Nowadays stocks are bought primarily because their value is expected to rise. In my outline essay on this subject I exclude direct investment in equity markets. They are growth facilators, and are not a zero sum game. I agree that the motivation is capital appreciation, not dividends; however much of the money invested stays long term in retirement accounts, mutual funds, and pension funds. This has always been called 'investment' rather than speculation. I also agree that the pricing of the US equity market in general is ridiculously high, perhaps 300%. When savings are needed for emergencies and necessities (next bad recession), a serious bear market is likely in my opinion. (snip) Then how do you account for that? Hardly a zero sum game. I think I explained this above. The fact is you are calling speculators only a certain type of short term high risk speculators, while actually practically the whole market is speculating. As far as % of all capital committed long term vs short term (few weeks-months), I don't think you are correct. However the prices make it seem like all speculation. There is little savings in bank accounts these days; wait till the money is needed. Recall the 80s when the Japanese economy was king of the hill; in '89 the Nikki Dow was 39,000, real estate prices in Tokyo were astronomical, and a canteloupe was US$40. Then their economy collapsed. The Nikki has rallied this year from 14,000 to 16,000! Y2K may begin the end of the US mania. A lesser gain is not the same as an outright loss. It is more akin to an 'opportunity loss'. Wasn't that one of the things transnational companies wanted to be refunded for in the MAI propositions? Probably! Rational corporate executives will try to maximize profits externalize costs. I'm not supporting the system or its main players - the superrich 400. But humans will seek security (as Thomas Lunde said)in whichever way they think it is most readily available. They are currently deluded into buying overvalued stocks. I don't blame Joe Jane public; they don't know they are setting themselves up for a fall. Steve
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Dear Thomas, TL: Your argument about "natural/material" value, rather than token value has some merit. I would appreciate your comments in the context of Galbraith (not in quote) who gives these figures. 10% are employed in the knowledge sector, 10% in the manufacturing of goods and 80% in the providing of services. A 'cradle to grave' analysis of many service occupations may surprise you. Fast food is called a 'service' industry. Think about the calories used to serve a hamburger: pump and transport water for irrigating fields, manufacture transport petro-based fertilizers, pesticides fungicides, run harvest machines, transport workers to from fields, transport grain, process grains into cattle feed(incl transp. of employees), transport the feed to feedlots. Cowboys drive trucks now, the calves must be transported have water pumped to them, waste removed...Then cattle shipped to slaughterhouses, electricity used to butcher, run conveyors, deliver via refrigerated trucks, warehouses, grinding shaping patties, lighting and climate control at all processing stages, transporting patties to food outlets, transporting workers to food outlets, climate control, refrigeration, dishwasher machines, disposable napkins, mimipacks of salt/pepper/ketchup/relish, waste removal in restaurants... How would JG classify the above? What % "manufacturing of goods"? Yes their may be limits on the amount of phospate or oil but in truth, it seems that when it comes to employment most of us are exchanging human energy for other humans satisfactions rather than hard manufactured goods. Waste sinks don't differentiate the human purpose or classification of the behavior producing the overload of pollutants! The electricity running our computers is made by converting resources into usuable energy and waste products, incl heat. And all we're producing is hot air. :-) What does a lawyer, accountant, dance instructor Think of their locomotion, on job energy requirements, and infrastructure manufacture, maintenance, deterioration... required for their work. No element escapes as pure; to think requires calories! , janitor or lawn service cleaning/fertilizing/pesticide/herbicide/fungicide chemicals, energy to run the waxing machine, vacuum, lawn mowers, leaf blowers.. employee create in terms of the limits of "natural/material" goods, other than some small amount of supplies in paper or fuel or use of a building. It's not what the workers "create", it's what is utilized in the total process of existing as the most consumptive species on earth, no matter what the occupation. Not small. Huge. Include the manufacture of the buildings, transport manufacture of all furniture, decor, plumbing, wiring, ducts, furnaces, air conditioners, continual energy usage, depreciation and replacement if every item involved. In fact, if we went to a durable model of goods rather than a planned obsolence model of goods, we could extend the life considerably of the "natural/material" world. Yes, we could improve the situation somewhat. Have you heard of "Factor Four", or "Factor 10" These refer to improvement via clean technology of conservation and waste reduction. I wish it were as easy as you imply. Regards, Steve
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
At 13:06 -0400 5/31/99, Steve Kurtz wrote: Dear Thomas, re: The real question is which ideology should be dominant - democracy or capitalism. The people continually, whether marxists, socialists or capitalists, at their human individual level, continually opt for more security. The problem to me seems less in how we elect them, but rather in how we can make them produce the effects they promise. I agree with you here. George Soros has come to the same conclusion, at least the way I read you both. William Greider in *Who Will Tell the People?* points out that the intermediary institutions that connect the citizenry with their representatives have been weakened (as in the case of labor unions) or taken over by the power elite (the media). Without institutions of this kind, the voters are limited to an up or down vote every four years. A representative government, by itself, is no panacea for the abuses of power. The problem is to either rebuild the existing intermediary institutions or come up with new ones - I believe it was Robert Theobald who called for "social entrepreneurship". Robert Putnam of Harvard has done considerable work on voluntary civil institutions: http://epn.org/prospect/putn-cor.html Tom Lowe _ Tom LoweJudge a moth Jackson, Mississippi by the beauty of its candle [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Rumi http://www.jacksonprogressive.com
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Durant wrote: Non-virtual profits are falling - there is not enough to re-distribute. (snip) The global markets are limited - there is, I'm afraid, the classic contradiction. Do you really think it can be fixed? I agree with Eva here! But it is not *just* markets profits that are limited Fiat money is valued by what it can buy now, how it is perceived relative to other currencies going forward. Thus all credits/tokens are in a sense 'virtual'; and the natural/material perpetual pie (gross per capita) shrinks daily. Redistribution of tokens may be desirable in the views of many, but it would at best be temporary, short term 'symptomatic' medicine. Physical limits are real, and humans have already hit the wall in the opinion of many scientific experts. Steve
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
-- From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith Date: Sun, May 30, 1999, 10:36 PM To me the essence of this excellent Review is in the Summary paragraph While the problem is clearly stated; the potential remedy of Direct Democracy is unstated Colin Stark Dear Colin: Let me answer your implied question by quoting the first paragrapgh of an excellent book out from England called The Age of Insecurity by Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson - two writers who actually can make all this stuff interesting and exciting - I highly recommend it. Quote PageVII The central struggle of our time is that between laissez-faire capitalism, which represents the financial interest, and social democracy, which represents democratic control of the economy in the interests of ordinary people. These ideologies are incompatible, in that at the heart of social democracy is the one economic feature specifically and unashamedly ruled out by the resurgent free market: security. Social democracy offers nothing if it does not offer security; the free market cannot offer security (to the many at least) without ceasing to be itself. Instead it provides security to the financial interest at the expense of the majority, upon whom is shifted the entire burden of risk and "adjustment" whenever ther system hits one of its peiodic crises. Thomas: Whether we have a DD system or a Representative System, the will of the people is constant. Security is the goal of all people. People continually vote for more security, medicare, unemployment insurance, pensions and other supports. Elected governments continually promise security. And then - yes you guessed it, the ideology of laissez-faire capitalism subverts the politicians into other directions from which they recieved a mandate to act. We then turf the buggers out because the next group convincingly sings the theme song of security only to be subverted once again. The real question is which ideology should be dominant - democracy or capitalism. The people continually, whether marxists, socialists or capitalists, at their human individual level, continually opt for more security. The problem to me seems less in how we elect them, but rather in how we can make them produce the effects they promise. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde "Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way, behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to tolerate unemployment. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently. It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth of trade. It was, in sense, done deliberately. That is the real evil of the time." * At 01:11 PM 5/30/99 +, you wrote: A lengthy book review by Thomas Lunde Lower taxes scream the headlines of the business press in Canada. We are not competitive shout the neo-cons and their corporate masters. These and similar mantras have been bombarding us with relentless waves of media support. In fact whole political party platforms such as Reform have made this their guiding light. snip Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way, behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to tolerate unememplyemnt. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently. It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth of trade. It was, in sense, done delibertately. That is the real evil of the time.
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Dear Steve: I couldn't agree more and of course it is not only immigrants but the massive entry into the labour force of women - not that women shouldn't work but that, in a large number of cases they didn't work in the 50's and 60's but were - in many cases - forced into work in the 70's by the deliberate sabotage of wages which made the one income family obsolete in most cases for a middle class lifestyle. These people wanted the best for their children and made the necessary adjustments in their family life to provide income, often at the very expense of that family life. Penny wise and pound foolish perhaps as we look at the social dysfunctions in our society. Respectfully Thomas Lunde -- From: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith Date: Sun, May 30, 1999, 9:46 PM Hi Thomas all, Thanks for the clear, informative review. I've interacted with JG, and he has shied away from my questions about the impact of the sharp rise in the size of the labor force since WWII. I'm *not* disputing any of the factors described in the review; I'm suggesting that at the same time that technology and globalization have empowered capital and entrepreneurship at the expense of labor, the sharp rise in population has added to the woes of the lower and middle classes. Demand for housing and services rise, while wages are supressed. Policy and values don't operate in a vacuum. Industries desire for a passive, compliant labor supply has resulted in a continual high level of immigrants. In the US, this has finally been grasped by many in the African American, Latino, and other minority communities. Their wages and opportunities for self-improvement are directly impacted by immigration policy. Of course much of the migration pressure stems from global overpopulation. But numbers are a factor in wellbeing in North America nonetheless. Consider also the recent explosion of sprawl articles and discussions. Cheers, Steve (excerpt from TL) All of these changes had the effect of breaking down the structures of solidarity that had held the American middle class together for the first quarter-century after the end of World War II. The new instability of macroeconomics gave a powoerful boost to investment and techology, both in absolute terms and as compared with consumption. With each recession, waves of older factories disappeared. With them went the hard-won, high-paying jobs of the traditional blue-collar workforce. But with each recovery, firms faced an imperative to replace lost capacity, and to do it in the most cost-saving, labor-saving, technologically advanced way available at that moment in time. Waves of layoffs were followed by waves of investment. But the new investments were never designed to relieve the distress of the previously unemployed. They were designed instead to substitutue entirely for them, and this they accomplished. At the same time, incomes policies were abandoned. The idea that all society should benefit equally from national productivity gains was replaced by an ideology of the market, in which winner-take-all and the devil-the-hindmost. Minimum wages were allowed to fall in real terms; safety net social expenditures came under assault. There began a cult of the entrpreneur,
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Hi Thomas all, Thanks for the clear, informative review. I've interacted with JG, and he has shied away from my questions about the impact of the sharp rise in the size of the labor force since WWII. I'm *not* disputing any of the factors described in the review; I'm suggesting that at the same time that technology and globalization have empowered capital and entrepreneurship at the expense of labor, the sharp rise in population has added to the woes of the lower and middle classes. Demand for housing and services rise, while wages are supressed. Policy and values don't operate in a vacuum. Industries desire for a passive, compliant labor supply has resulted in a continual high level of immigrants. In the US, this has finally been grasped by many in the African American, Latino, and other minority communities. Their wages and opportunities for self-improvement are directly impacted by immigration policy. Of course much of the migration pressure stems from global overpopulation. But numbers are a factor in wellbeing in North America nonetheless. Consider also the recent explosion of sprawl articles and discussions. Cheers, Steve (excerpt from TL) All of these changes had the effect of breaking down the structures of solidarity that had held the American middle class together for the first quarter-century after the end of World War II. The new instability of macroeconomics gave a powoerful boost to investment and techology, both in absolute terms and as compared with consumption. With each recession, waves of older factories disappeared. With them went the hard-won, high-paying jobs of the traditional blue-collar workforce. But with each recovery, firms faced an imperative to replace lost capacity, and to do it in the most cost-saving, labor-saving, technologically advanced way available at that moment in time. Waves of layoffs were followed by waves of investment. But the new investments were never designed to relieve the distress of the previously unemployed. They were designed instead to substitutue entirely for them, and this they accomplished. At the same time, incomes policies were abandoned. The idea that all society should benefit equally from national productivity gains was replaced by an ideology of the market, in which winner-take-all and the devil-the-hindmost. Minimum wages were allowed to fall in real terms; safety net social expenditures came under assault. There began a cult of the entrpreneur,
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
James Galbraith via Thomas Lunde: Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way, behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to tolerate unememplyemnt. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently. It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth of trade. It was, in sense, done delibertately. That is the real evil of the time. the suggestion is to go back to keynesian economy, isn't it? But that came to an end in the 70s due to unsustainable public borrowing and cuts in profits/recession, didn't it? Now we reached the same "result" through a re-hashed monetarist and then neo-liberal avenue. What would be the new feature in this suggestion of renewed state intervention in re-distribution? How come the word "capitalism" was not mentioned? Non-virtual profits are falling - there is not enough to re-distribute. Is the mechanism - markets/profits is working? The global markets are limited - there is, I'm afraid, the classic contradiction. Do you really think it can be fixed? Eva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
To me the essence of this excellent Review is in the Summary paragraph While the problem is clearly stated; the potential remedy of Direct Democracy is unstated Colin Stark "Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way, behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to tolerate unemployment. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently. It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth of trade. It was, in sense, done deliberately. That is the real evil of the time." * At 01:11 PM 5/30/99 +, you wrote: A lengthy book review by Thomas Lunde Lower taxes scream the headlines of the business press in Canada. We are not competitive shout the neo-cons and their corporate masters. These and similar mantras have been bombarding us with relentless waves of media support. In fact whole political party platforms such as Reform have made this their guiding light. snip Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way, behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to tolerate unememplyemnt. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently. It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth of trade. It was, in sense, done delibertately. That is the real evil of the time.
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Does Galbraith discuss the role of the rapid expansion of easy consumer credit during the time frame of his analysis?
