Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't suppose there's any chance of getting people whose mail programs multiply re's to change their settings? It soon makes the subject lines useless for no gain that I can see. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: RE: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
Even so, please, I am trying to avoid the aggressive sort of note that you posted here. Please cool it. I see aggression in what Spivak once called in a moment of clarity sanctioned ignorance, i.e., what can be safely ignored. Note Max's refusal to reply to Jain Carowan's well reasoned criticism of the use of trade sanctions for the enforcement of the Core Conventions or Doug's and Liza's refusal to investigate the consequences of the Harkin bill, the protectionist clauses and unilateral quota denials for which the same UNITE that is bankrolling the student anti sweatshop movement is militating. It's not as if either could have been ignorant of such concerns--they just chose to ignore them just as Hitchens somehow forgot that Chancellor Bob Kerrey's account had been contested when first asked to comment on the allegations of a war crime (I guess for some here it was no big deal that Hitchens had at first actively ignored those who were contesting Kerrey's account, but from my perspective this was an act of aggression--maybe you see my point, maybe you don't). At least, Hitchens did eventually think through the implications of Kerrey's account being contested, though not as eloquently and profoundly as did Reed, Schell and Falk. Such haughtiness and aggression are only invisible to those who are not subjected to it. I think it's a huge mistake that Robert Pollin and James Galbraith want to make themselves the intellectual champions of the student do gooders--the newest American jingolos (I was surprised to read in Doug's account that Galbraith seems to have lent his unqualified support to the student protests). Today they are crying about the US import of cheap foreign goods, Andrew Ross, once a general in the science wars, has now joined in the war against sweatshops; tomorrow after they make sure the MFN and system of agricultural protection aren't truly relaxed in 2005 they'll have set the stage for a campaign against the direct import of foreign labor. Hasn't Dana Frank laid out the historic connections in detail? Someone suggested to me offlist that I don't have much a future with the internet left because of the way I am always carping about its racism (of course Proyect is convinced that I am an anti black racist and went to the length of fabricating a dossier against me, which was then used in an employment application; and even after this, Michael, you not only did not kick Proyect off your list, you never asked him to promise that he would never do such a thing again as condition for remaining). At any rate, I actually think this stuff about racism makes up a very small part of what I post. But it's true I don't expect much support. Even Charles who never thinks there has been enough discussion of anti black racism has ever said a word--as far as I know--about how easily American blacks join in with general anti immigrant sentiment and national chauvinism. Oh by the way, here are the putatively racist things I wrote about Malcolm X which had Proyect trying to defame me...with no price to pay. He was not kicked off this list for what he did. here is what I wrote on Malcolm X: Jan 4th and 5th, 1999 LBO Ah, so my memory is not as bad as I feared. For some bizarre reason, Louis P didn't type in the whole FBI file on Malcolm Little from 5/17/61. Here it is (some standard abbreviations are used; what is below is de facto verbatim): [Bureau Deletion] advised on Jan 30, 1961, that certain Klan officials met with leaders of the NOI on the night of Jan 28, 1961, in Atlanta, GA. One of these NOI identified himself as Malcolm X of New York, and it was the source's understanding that Malcolm X cliamed to have hundred seventy give thousand followers who were complete separationists, were interested in land and were soliciting the aid of the Klan to obtain land. During this meeting subject stated that his people wanted complete segregation from the white race, and that land obtained would be occupied by them and they would maintain their own businesses and government. Subject further stated that the Jew is behind the integration movement, using the Negro as a tool. Subject was further quoted as stating that his people would do anything to defend their beliefs and promote their cause and in his opinion there would be violence some day. Subject was further quoted as saying at this meeting that if one of his people went against their teachings, he would be destroyed. Subject also stated that if his people were faced with the situation that the white people of Georgia now face, that traitors, meaning those who assisted the integration leaders, would be eliminated. In Clayborne Carson, Malcolm X: The FBI File. Intro by Spike Lee. NY: Carrol and Graf Publishers, 1991. __ I can't access old messages on this topic from this program. So here is a general reply (and remember I have joined this list to make as many friends as I can).
Re: protectionism
I refer here not only to retaliations and beggar-thy-neighbor policies (to which Mark was perhaps averring) but the possibility that by limiting the supply of dollars abroad through tariffs and the other import restrictions meant to protect declining industries--and this seems to be what Godley is proposing--the dollar's value will probably increase and thus put added pressure on US exports. Except the paper says _In the very last resort_, the United States should not forget that nondiscriminatory measures to control imports . . . are permitted under Article 12 of the successor to GATT. (Whether you believe such measures can be non-discriminatory is another matter.) The authors argue that the best case scenario is that the U.S.' private financial balance wouldn't revert, and growth would continue at about 3%, in which case, Indonesian textile workers are about where they are now. As others have pointed out, the authors' emphasis here and elsewhere is on fiscal and tax policy needed to sustain growth. They also suggest that other countries could engage in some coordinated reflation, were there but world enough and institutions. Would like the Nelson, Ostry, and Eisner refs. Christian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for reminding us. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 03:10:22AM -0400, Michael Pollak wrote: I don't suppose there's any chance of getting people whose mail programs multiply re's to change their settings? It soon makes the subject lines useless for no gain that I can see. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
Rakesh, you are welcome to argue against those who fight against sweatshops, but the personal attacks cannot go on here. Your long attack on Lou is double irrelevant since he is no longer on the list. I learnt from your earlier attacks on sweatshops. I believe that Doug also said on LBO that he nuanced his thinking on sweatshops from your posts. I did also. Here in Chico, the owner of the town in the last century was a man named John Bidwell. He fought strongly against the anti-Chinese laws -- but because he wanted cheaper labor. The racists did terrible, murderous things here, but the race to the bottom was still an underlying issue. It would be preferable to find a way to raise up the wages in the impoverished countries. It would be preferable if those countries would find a way to try to develop like the US did, through their own form of protectionism. In any case, I would be happy to have you sharing your views with the list, but only if you can do so without attacking others personally. On a personal note, I am looking forward to see you next week. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 12:38:54AM -0700, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: Even so, please, I am trying to avoid the aggressive sort of note that you posted here. Please cool it. I see aggression in what Spivak once called in a moment of clarity sanctioned ignorance, i.e., what can be safely ignored. Note Max's refusal to reply to Jain Carowan's well reasoned criticism of the use of trade sanctions for the enforcement of the Core Conventions or Doug's and Liza's refusal to investigate the consequences of the Harkin bill, the protectionist clauses and unilateral quota denials for which the same UNITE that is bankrolling the student anti sweatshop movement is militating. It's not as if either could have been ignorant of such concerns--they just chose to ignore them just as Hitchens somehow forgot that Chancellor Bob Kerrey's account had been contested when first asked to comment on the allegations of a war crime (I guess for some here it was no big deal that Hitchens had at first actively ignored those who were contesting Kerrey's account, but from my perspective this was an act of aggression--maybe you see my point, maybe you don't). At least, Hitchens did eventually think through the implications of Kerrey's account being contested, though not as eloquently and profoundly as did Reed, Schell and Falk. Such haughtiness and aggression are only invisible to those who are not subjected to it. I think it's a huge mistake that Robert Pollin and James Galbraith want to make themselves the intellectual champions of the student do gooders--the newest American jingolos (I was surprised to read in Doug's account that Galbraith seems to have lent his unqualified support to the student protests). Today they are crying about the US import of cheap foreign goods, Andrew Ross, once a general in the science wars, has now joined in the war against sweatshops; tomorrow after they make sure the MFN and system of agricultural protection aren't truly relaxed in 2005 they'll have set the stage for a campaign against the direct import of foreign labor. Hasn't Dana Frank laid out the historic connections in detail? Someone suggested to me offlist that I don't have much a future with the internet left because of the way I am always carping about its racism (of course Proyect is convinced that I am an anti black racist and went to the length of fabricating a dossier against me, which was then used in an employment application; and even after this, Michael, you not only did not kick Proyect off your list, you never asked him to promise that he would never do such a thing again as condition for remaining). At any rate, I actually think this stuff about racism makes up a very small part of what I post. But it's true I don't expect much support. Even Charles who never thinks there has been enough discussion of anti black racism has ever said a word--as far as I know--about how easily American blacks join in with general anti immigrant sentiment and national chauvinism. Oh by the way, here are the putatively racist things I wrote about Malcolm X which had Proyect trying to defame me...with no price to pay. He was not kicked off this list for what he did. here is what I wrote on Malcolm X: Jan 4th and 5th, 1999 LBO Ah, so my memory is not as bad as I feared. For some bizarre reason, Louis P didn't type in the whole FBI file on Malcolm Little from 5/17/61. Here it is (some standard abbreviations are used; what is below is de facto verbatim): [Bureau Deletion] advised on Jan 30, 1961, that certain Klan officials met with leaders of the NOI on the night of Jan 28, 1961, in Atlanta, GA. One of these NOI identified himself as Malcolm X of New York, and it was the source's understanding that Malcolm X cliamed to have hundred seventy give thousand
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fault is in the PEN-L listserv software; it is the only list in which I participate that adds an extra re: when I reply to a post. It has to do with the fact that every message header is automatically changed by the software with a new number that eliminates the re: in front of the previous header, thereby fooling software into thinking the header subject has changed. I wish Michael would look into having the numbering of posts removed for that reason, but it is too valuable then we will just have to live with the multiplying re:s. Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nathannewman.org - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:50 AM Subject: [PEN-L:15277] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks for reminding us. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 03:10:22AM -0400, Michael Pollak wrote: I don't suppose there's any chance of getting people whose mail programs multiply re's to change their settings? It soon makes the subject lines useless for no gain that I can see. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The US Dollar
I have to disagree with the proposition that the US current account deficit might presage flight from the greenback, capital outflows and financial collapse. Though the scenario is plausible on the surface, it overlooks one thing. Increasingly, the world's wealthy count their wealth in dollars. There is ample reason for this -- dollar-denominated financial markets are broad, deep and fully international; dollar-based multinationals represent the bulk of all MNC assets in which the rich hold their wealth; most of the developing world is starved for dollars, so extra-US dollar lending opportunities abound; etc... The significance of this is not simply that the demand for dollars will remain high (indeed the fact that the dollar is rising signifies that there is considerable excess demand for dollars). It also means that a sizable share of the world's wealth is held by people who figure in dollars -- they don't care about the dollar's value relative to the yen or euro or peso, because they've already written off the yen and euro and peso. This is why, despite occasional bouts of speculation and depreciation, the world's wealthy continue to hold dollars and the dollar share of international lending and reserves is increasing. Ellen Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: People would have to be confident that the fall would be very gradual. Jim Devine wrote: a weaker greenback would be a good thing, if it falls _slowly_.
Re: Re: tariffs, trade, MNCs, etc.
I wrote: The MNCs are mostly for free trade, though they will take advantage of existing trade restrictions, if they can. Rakesh: Jim, how do you know this? The usual way I know things, from reading, from direct experience, and from logically or intuitively figuring it out. But strictly speaking, like everyone else, I don't know for sure. All I know is that I know nothing said Socrates (I believe). Unlike some, I treat all my knowledge as working hypotheses to be tested logically, empirically, methodologically, and in practice. Thus, what I know changes over time. if mncs are pro-free trade, why haven't they razed the whole intricate edifice of tariffs, quotas, ridiculously elastic import surge clauses, exclusions of competitive goods from duty free acess, stipulations and incentives to use US inputs in US bound exports, etc.? Legislation involves all sorts of compromises and so takes a long time; it's not like it's some sort of MNC conspiracy where they can get what they want at each step. In any event, the current trend is toward more free trade. You'll also note that I said that even though MNCs exploit existing trade barriers, they are generally against new ones as a group. New ones inevitably get introduced, though, as a result of the compromises mentioned above. BTW, I wasn't talking about subsidies on exports. Have you looked at the Africa Free Trade Act which is loaded with protectionist clauses? No, but I knew that. Or perhaps it is only an illusion, something that you don't really know. And if mncs are not responsible for this structure, who is? Nationally-oriented businesses and labor unions. Politicians seek support from them, too. Not convinced that we don't have an emergent region-based neo mercantilist trade syste organized by the mncs. What else are we to make of the attempt to create a regional market in the Americas? The regional market involves both protection (against European and Japanese sellers) and free-trade (within the union). It reflects political deals amongst the various groups with power, including the local bourgeois elites in Latin America. They're not in favor of _expanding_ tariffs and quotas in most cases, since cutting imports often mean higher costs -- and more importantly, can hurt the sale of their own products, which are imports from the point of view of the US (or whatever country is imposing the trade restrictions). That would seem to be the case but is it? Why did the North fight to make sure the MFN and agricultural protection would be the last thing relaxed by the WTO as late as 2005? farmers have clout. But not enough clout to RAISE tariffs -- which was my original point. If the US imposes tariffs on imports from China, then an MNC that invests in Chinese manufacturing to take advantage of the cheap labor their doesn't get as much of a profit. you assume that the US company is not after the internal Chinese market. they say they are interested in that market, but I doubt that there's much of one. The main market is due to a shift from state-provided benefits to market-purchased ones. But there are clear limits there. Also, being less short-sighted than small business-people, they know about the possibility of retaliation and the fact that tariffs often lead to currency appreciation (which hurts exports). so perhaps they prefer Zoellick negotiated bilateral and regional deals which can better secure their interests than multilateral trade agreements. I don't understand this point. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nathan is correct that it is the software, which, as far as the school is concerned, is fixed in stone. However, what I thought Michael was suggesting was that people manually remove the re's before they send the message. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:04:46AM -0400, Nathan Newman wrote: The fault is in the PEN-L listserv software; it is the only list in which I participate that adds an extra re: when I reply to a post. It has to do with the fact that every message header is automatically changed by the software with a new number that eliminates the re: in front of the previous header, thereby fooling software into thinking the header subject has changed. I wish Michael would look into having the numbering of posts removed for that reason, but it is too valuable then we will just have to live with the multiplying re:s. Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nathannewman.org - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:50 AM Subject: [PEN-L:15277] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks for reminding us. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 03:10:22AM -0400, Michael Pollak wrote: I don't suppose there's any chance of getting people whose mail programs multiply re's to change their settings? It soon makes the subject lines useless for no gain that I can see. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
Now I'm leaving PEN-L. I don't get along with Rakesh, who has just arrived, but how do we know it's really Rakesh and not some imposter whose real name is Hyman Blumenstock or Tachion Babushka? Max, why do you find so called ethnic names funny? Are you one of those self-hating ones? Look, I am sure you are a good father to your daughter. Your politics are nonsense however . . .
RE: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/18/01 12:13AM Hey Leo, Your departure is PEN-L's loss, not yours. ( CB: Yea, without struggle there is no progress, and Leo has that at the bottom of all his posts. Plus, he's a real anti- you know what, so we pro's can really struggle with such anti, causing progress. Afterall, sticks and stones will break your bones, and words... so a struggle here can be , oh so non-physical and peaceful. But , since Leo left on his own, and wasn't put off, maybe he could see that his anti- was giving us pros as chance to make progress, by contrasting ourselves with him. Like Max, says, Leo didn't lose anything, but he's posing as a loser. Weird move. ((( LBO is more fun anyway. PEN-L tries to be serious and promote civility, but the results for civility are uneven and the seriousness stifles my matchless sense of humor. Plus it only encourages Devine. Calling someone a stalinist is hardly the worst thing in the world, in the only sense it can mean anything here. Nobody called a stalinist is being accused of murdering millions of kulaks or having Trotsky ice-picked. For some, being called a stalinist is a compliment. I've seen much worse here. Louey called me a welfare capitalist, and fat besides. He said I had a 38 inch waist, which only called attention to the fact that I have a 48 inch waist. You happened to miss Louie, who is on serial-killer sabbatical from the list. As Nathan has mentioned, while I too have high regard for Bicycle Boy Perelman, and while I also appreciate the time he sacrifices to hosting the list, his moderation in political controversies has always been a model of inconsistency. I've raised this more than once myself, but since criticism is healthy I figure you can't be too healthy. I most regret the in-fighting among people with whom I seem to get along, and from whose posts I benefit. In fact, I seem to get along with everyone these days except Louie, who actually loves me to death but won't admit it. And I'm not even a socialist. Shit. I'm less internationalist than Brad DeLong. I don't get along with Rakesh, who has just arrived, but how do we know it's really Rakesh and not some imposter whose real name is Hyman Blumenstock or Tachion Babushka? My only beef with Leo was that for a while it seemed like he got me in a thread with David Horowitz and Louis Menashe. There is something to be said for the Henwood policy of not trying to stifle abuse altogether, but to keep it to a dull roar. Thereby steam is let off but nobody blows a gasket, at least not usually. Whereas on PEN-L the mean temperature is lower but the variance higher. Can't we all get along? I guess not. It's hard when you're so damn serious. mbs
When work isn't enough
The Economic Policy Institute recently released a new Briefing Paper, When Work Just Isn't Enough, which examines the hardships families experience on and off welfare. Many families that have left welfare rolls to join the workforce experience hardships even when they are successful in finding work. This means that millions of working families that once relied on welfare still often find themselves without enough food, sufficient access to health or child care, or affordable, decent housing. This Briefing Paper contains state-level data for 13 states. http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/hardships.html
Re: RE: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
Charles, please lay off Leo. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:49:52AM -0400, Charles Brown wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/18/01 12:13AM Hey Leo, Your departure is PEN-L's loss, not yours. ( CB: Yea, without struggle there is no progress, and Leo has that at the bottom of all his posts. Plus, he's a real anti- you know what, so we pro's can really struggle with such anti, causing progress. Afterall, sticks and stones will break your bones, and words... so a struggle here can be , oh so non-physical and peaceful. But , since Leo left on his own, and wasn't put off, maybe he could see that his anti- was giving us pros as chance to make progress, by contrasting ourselves with him. Like Max, says, Leo didn't lose anything, but he's posing as a loser. Weird move. ((( LBO is more fun anyway. PEN-L tries to be serious and promote civility, but the results for civility are uneven and the seriousness stifles my matchless sense of humor. Plus it only encourages Devine. Calling someone a stalinist is hardly the worst thing in the world, in the only sense it can mean anything here. Nobody called a stalinist is being accused of murdering millions of kulaks or having Trotsky ice-picked. For some, being called a stalinist is a compliment. I've seen much worse here. Louey called me a welfare capitalist, and fat besides. He said I had a 38 inch waist, which only called attention to the fact that I have a 48 inch waist. You happened to miss Louie, who is on serial-killer sabbatical from the list. As Nathan has mentioned, while I too have high regard for Bicycle Boy Perelman, and while I also appreciate the time he sacrifices to hosting the list, his moderation in political controversies has always been a model of inconsistency. I've raised this more than once myself, but since criticism is healthy I figure you can't be too healthy. I most regret the in-fighting among people with whom I seem to get along, and from whose posts I benefit. In fact, I seem to get along with everyone these days except Louie, who actually loves me to death but won't admit it. And I'm not even a socialist. Shit. I'm less internationalist than Brad DeLong. I don't get along with Rakesh, who has just arrived, but how do we know it's really Rakesh and not some imposter whose real name is Hyman Blumenstock or Tachion Babushka? My only beef with Leo was that for a while it seemed like he got me in a thread with David Horowitz and Louis Menashe. There is something to be said for the Henwood policy of not trying to stifle abuse altogether, but to keep it to a dull roar. Thereby steam is let off but nobody blows a gasket, at least not usually. Whereas on PEN-L the mean temperature is lower but the variance higher. Can't we all get along? I guess not. It's hard when you're so damn serious. mbs -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Why I Am Leaving PEN-L
OK [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/18/01 11:09AM Charles, please lay off Leo. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:49:52AM -0400, Charles Brown wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/18/01 12:13AM Hey Leo, Your departure is PEN-L's loss, not yours. ( CB: Yea, without struggle there is no progress, and Leo has that at the bottom of all his posts. Plus, he's a real anti- you know what, so we pro's can really struggle with such anti, causing progress. Afterall, sticks and stones will break your bones, and words... so a struggle here can be , oh so non-physical and peaceful. But , since Leo left on his own, and wasn't put off, maybe he could see that his anti- was giving us pros as chance to make progress, by contrasting ourselves with him. Like Max, says, Leo didn't lose anything, but he's posing as a loser. Weird move. ((( LBO is more fun anyway. PEN-L tries to be serious and promote civility, but the results for civility are uneven and the seriousness stifles my matchless sense of humor. Plus it only encourages Devine. Calling someone a stalinist is hardly the worst thing in the world, in the only sense it can mean anything here. Nobody called a stalinist is being accused of murdering millions of kulaks or having Trotsky ice-picked. For some, being called a stalinist is a compliment. I've seen much worse here. Louey called me a welfare capitalist, and fat besides. He said I had a 38 inch waist, which only called attention to the fact that I have a 48 inch waist. You happened to miss Louie, who is on serial-killer sabbatical from the list. As Nathan has mentioned, while I too have high regard for Bicycle Boy Perelman, and while I also appreciate the time he sacrifices to hosting the list, his moderation in political controversies has always been a model of inconsistency. I've raised this more than once myself, but since criticism is healthy I figure you can't be too healthy. I most regret the in-fighting among people with whom I seem to get along, and from whose posts I benefit. In fact, I seem to get along with everyone these days except Louie, who actually loves me to death but won't admit it. And I'm not even a socialist. Shit. I'm less internationalist than Brad DeLong. I don't get along with Rakesh, who has just arrived, but how do we know it's really Rakesh and not some imposter whose real name is Hyman Blumenstock or Tachion Babushka? My only beef with Leo was that for a while it seemed like he got me in a thread with David Horowitz and Louis Menashe. There is something to be said for the Henwood policy of not trying to stifle abuse altogether, but to keep it to a dull roar. Thereby steam is let off but nobody blows a gasket, at least not usually. Whereas on PEN-L the mean temperature is lower but the variance higher. Can't we all get along? I guess not. It's hard when you're so damn serious. mbs -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
Ellen is partly right but she overlooks the circular nature of her case. The wealthy count their wealth in dollars because of the historical role that the US dollar achieved over many decades. A US current account deficit doesn't change that historical role overnight. A few decades of current account deficits, though, create the conditions where that historical role could abruptly change. Things continue on as they have because there is no alternative. At some point things can stop continuing on as they have, with or without an alternative, simply because there is no foundation for the way things have been continuing on. Ellen Frank wrote, I have to disagree with the proposition that the US current account deficit might presage flight from the greenback, capital outflows and financial collapse. Though the scenario is plausible on the surface, it overlooks one thing. Increasingly, the world's wealthy count their wealth in dollars. There is ample reason for this -- dollar-denominated financial markets are broad, deep and fully international; dollar-based multinationals represent the bulk of all MNC assets in which the rich hold their wealth; most of the developing world is starved for dollars, so extra-US dollar lending opportunities abound; etc... The significance of this is not simply that the demand for dollars will remain high (indeed the fact that the dollar is rising signifies that there is considerable excess demand for dollars). It also means that a sizable share of the world's wealth is held by people who figure in dollars -- they don't care about the dollar's value relative to the yen or euro or peso, because they've already written off the yen and euro and peso. This is why, despite occasional bouts of speculation and depreciation, the world's wealthy continue to hold dollars and the dollar share of international lending and reserves is increasing. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
wynne godley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/17/01 07:11PM Anyway, I think it's a big mistake to generalize from the 1930 Hawley-Smoot tariff to current-day issues. (It's quite common for the free trade vulgaris crowd -- e.g., Krugman -- to fall for this trap.) The GATT (now called the WTO) is aimed specifically at preventing trade wars of the type that H-S spurred. In any event, the world political economy has changed, undermining the political basis for protectionism (as I argue later on in the paper that Mark quotes). When the components of a car are imported for assembly in the U.S., that makes even the direct benefits of protection more ambiguous. Further, the power of the main political forces for protection has faded, at least in the U.S.: these are nationally-oriented manufacturing, narrow-minded labor unions, and domestic agriculture. As I further argue in the paper, these days it's not protection that encourages depression as much as a world-wide process of competitive austerity and export promotion encouraged by the US and its IMF and World Bank and by the competition to attract capital investment by offering low wages, pliable work-forces, etc. 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 ? ( It's important to realize that in my full story of the origins of the Great Depression (http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/depr/Depr.html.), the H-S tariff plays only a small role. (It's sort of like Jar Jar's role in Star Wars Episode I: bad but ultimately unimportant. When I see the Jar Jar-free version of SW Ep I, I'm sure it will be just as bad as the original.) Further, it was a _product_ of an international political economy centering on aggressive nation-state-to-nation-state competition of a sort we don't see in the rich capitalist world these days. It also hit a world economy that was ready to fall. It should also remembered that the early-1920s US tariff _promoted_ US prosperity, unlike H-S. Back then, BTW, it was Republicans, not Democrats, who liked tariffs. Protection was the main Republican activist economic policy. (( CB: Would Bush be going back to the old Republican trend if he protects the U.S. steel industry ? ((( I'm not big into protectionism: it can create jobs in one country by taking jobs away from workers in another. Or -- in the VERY exceptional case of a H-S tariff -- it can destroy jobs for both. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: The US Dollar
Ellen wrote: I have to disagree with the proposition that the US current account deficit might presage flight from the greenback, capital outflows and financial collapse. Though the scenario is plausible on the surface, it overlooks one thing. Increasingly, the world's wealthy count their wealth in dollars. I agree: much more likely that a flight from the greenback is a simple but quick fall in its value. For example, the real trade-weighted major currency index for the dollar fell more than 20% from 1985 to 1986 and more than 11% from 1986 to 1987. I don't think that this would involve a financial crisis (or collapse) as much as a stagflationary shock. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: wynne godley
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. mbs 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 ? ( It's important to realize that in my full story of the origins of the Great Depression (http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/depr/Depr.html.), the H-S tariff plays only a small role. (It's sort of like Jar Jar's role in Star Wars Episode I: bad but ultimately unimportant. When I see the Jar Jar-free version of SW Ep I, I'm sure it will be just as bad as the original.) Further, it was a _product_ of an international political economy centering on aggressive nation-state-to-nation-state competition of a sort we don't see in the rich capitalist world these days. It also hit a world economy that was ready to fall. It should also remembered that the early-1920s US tariff _promoted_ US prosperity, unlike H-S. Back then, BTW, it was Republicans, not Democrats, who liked tariffs. Protection was the main Republican activist economic policy. (( CB: Would Bush be going back to the old Republican trend if he protects the U.S. steel industry ? ((( I'm not big into protectionism: it can create jobs in one country by taking jobs away from workers in another. Or -- in the VERY exceptional case of a H-S tariff -- it can destroy jobs for both. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: wynne godley
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. They also are competing to push exports. This could lead to deepening world depression. 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: 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. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
wynne godley
[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
Re: wynne godley
Like the U.S. Business Industrial Council. Marc Cooper on Radio Nation had on one of their ideologues. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/98profiles/24303.htm 1998 DATA* (1997 DATA ALSO AVAILABLE) US Business Industrial Council Total Lobbying Expenditures: $60,000 Lobbying Firms Hired by US Business Industrial Council: Lobbying Firm Hired Amount Spent Lobbyist Subsidiary (lobbied for) [In-house lobbyists for US Business Industrial Council] [N/A] Kearns, Kevin L Wood, Lloyd III - * This data was compiled using 1998 lobby disclosure reports and amendments filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. http://www.google.com/search?q=U.S.+Business+Industrial+Council Michael Pugliese P.S. These folks be more my type of businessmen... ... American Industrial Hemp Council's Board of Directors has ... mail: - describe your business in 50 words ... Industrial Hemp Brochure ... once again allowing US farmers to ... Description: The comprehensive information source for the North American hemp industry. Learn all about industrial... Category: Society Issues Business Agriculture Industrial Hemp www.naihc.org/ - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:06 AM Subject: [PEN-L:15288] wynne godley [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/17/01 07:11PM Anyway, I think it's a big mistake to generalize from the 1930 Hawley-Smoot tariff to current-day issues. (It's quite common for the free trade vulgaris crowd -- e.g., Krugman -- to fall for this trap.) The GATT (now called the WTO) is aimed specifically at preventing trade wars of the type that H-S spurred. In any event, the world political economy has changed, undermining the political basis for protectionism (as I argue later on in the paper that Mark quotes). When the components of a car are imported for assembly in the U.S., that makes even the direct benefits of protection more ambiguous. Further, the power of the main political forces for protection has faded, at least in the U.S.: these are nationally-oriented manufacturing, narrow-minded labor unions, and domestic agriculture. As I further argue in the paper, these days it's not protection that encourages depression as much as a world-wide process of competitive austerity and export promotion encouraged by the US and its IMF and World Bank and by the competition to attract capital investment by offering low wages, pliable work-forces, etc. 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 ? ( It's important to realize that in my full story of the origins of the Great Depression (http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/depr/Depr.html.), the H-S tariff plays only a small role. (It's sort of like Jar Jar's role in Star Wars Episode I: bad but ultimately unimportant. When I see the Jar Jar-free version of SW Ep I, I'm sure it will be just as bad as the original.) Further, it was a _product_ of an international political economy centering on aggressive nation-state-to-nation-state competition of a sort we don't see in the rich capitalist world these days. It also hit a world economy that was ready to fall. It should also remembered that the early-1920s US tariff _promoted_ US prosperity, unlike H-S. Back then, BTW, it was Republicans, not Democrats, who liked tariffs. Protection was the main Republican activist economic policy. (( CB: Would Bush be going back to the old Republican trend if he protects the U.S. steel industry ? ((( I'm not big into protectionism: it can create jobs in one country by taking jobs away from workers in another. Or -- in the VERY exceptional case of a H-S tariff -- it can destroy jobs for both. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
[ Imperialism and Environment
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/15/01 09:48PM Yoshie: The essence of imperialism may be best understood as what is necessary to ensure the global reproduction of social relations of capitalism, for which a variety of means -- including embargoes -- are used, depending on what changing circumstances demand. [Etc.] I find this posting very interesting. It goes without saying that I agree with a lot of what is said in it. :-) My discomfort with Yoshie's take on the essence of imperialism is that it suggests the existence of some supra-national capitalist organ aware of the needs of global capitalist reproduction and acting accordingly and even flexibly (depending on what changing circumstances demand). But what is such an organ? CB: Wouldn't the WTO, IMF, World Bank, U.S. Treasury, NAFTA, NATO, US war machine, et al, combine to be this organ ? ( All one sees is heterogeneous and even conflicting policies implemented by different states (and even the same one) and their international agencies -- even if (and when) under the hegemony of the richest state. In what sense are these policies 'necessary' for the global reproduction of capitalism? Does the global reproduction of capitalism has ever really required much coherence of this sort? How come the national states from the rich countries, following imperialistic policies, led themselves into the first world war? CB: Isn't the sharp diminution of interimperialist rivalry and war today exactly an indication of the unity and greater conscious imperialist organization of its unity ? ( How was the early-20th-century imperialism designed to ensure the global reproduction of capitalism? Isn't that the Leninist prototype of what imperialism is about?
Re: wynne godley
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 ?
yup.
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 ?
both the cut in domestic consumption and the increase in exports encourage
world recession: they are complementary parts of the story.
The problem with pushing exports is that net exports (exports - imports)
adds up to zero on the world scale, while one country's exports are
another's imports. This means that you can't see _all_ countries increasing
exports at the same time.
it's both a matter of falling real production and falling prices. It's for
the whole world, except that the US has until recently acted as the
consumer of last resort.
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 ?
I can't talk about Godley, since I haven't read what Alex Izurieta wrote
about his views yet.
But raising tariffs is a bad idea in a recession. Instead of pushing
exports, it's a matter of cutting imports. It has the same world-wide effect.
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 ) ?
I don't think that the identity of the company selling the products is
important economically. The products -- and the economic effects -- are the
same, no matter who produces them.
Politically, however, the fact that US imports are so often products of
US-based multinationals undermines the protectionist political coalition.
(On net these days, the US is _importing_ tremendous amounts of capital.)
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
this is very abstract. I was talking on a much lower level of abstraction.
Currently, the US economy is not in a period of export of capital or
monopoly (though the latter is slowly reviving). Foreign trade is
increasingly with us, as is the division of the world into oppressed and
oppressor nations (though the nature of that division has changed). State
intervention is also a constant. It's always been part of capitalism's laws
of motion.
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 ?
I see the possible shift to US protectionism as more of a _result_ of a
crisis than a cause at this point. That is, it seems quite unlikely given
the current balance of political power, so that only if when the
competitive austerity causes a world depression should we see a rise of
protectionism.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
Actually, I don't overlook this. In fact I wrote my dissertation on this and looked into the role of historical inertia quite closely and it doesn't hold up. The official dollar role has been over since 1973. The US has run current account deficitd in every single year since then, deficits that grow each year -- nearly three decades of rising deficits. Periodically economists warn that this is unsustainable, that the yen or deutschemark or pound or swiss franc or euro will replace the dollar, but not only has that not happened, the dollar's preeminence has increased, markedly in the past several years.Almost all mainstream explanations for this fail statistically - the dollar is more, not less, volatile than many other currencies. Dollar holdings bear no relation to inflation rates and little to interest rates. I found that the strongest and most consistent predictor of a currency's international use was the issuing country's share of MNC assets or sales. Military spending and arms sales also were important, though less so. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ellen is partly right but she overlooks the circular nature of her case. The wealthy count their wealth in dollars because of the historical role that the US dollar achieved over many decades. A US current account deficit doesn't change that historical role overnight. A few decades of current account deficits, though, create the conditions where that historical role could abruptly change. Things continue on as they have because there is no alternative. At some point things can stop continuing on as they have, with or without an alternative, simply because there is no foundation for the way things have been continuing on. Ellen Frank wrote, I have to disagree with the proposition that the US current account deficit might presage flight from the greenback, capital outflows and financial collapse. Though the scenario is plausible on the surface, it overlooks one thing. Increasingly, the world's wealthy count their wealth in dollars. There is ample reason for this -- dollar-denominated financial markets are broad, deep and fully international; dollar-based multinationals represent the bulk of all MNC assets in which the rich hold their wealth; most of the developing world is starved for dollars, so extra-US dollar lending opportunities abound; etc... The significance of this is not simply that the demand for dollars will remain high (indeed the fact that the dollar is rising signifies that there is considerable excess demand for dollars). It also means that a sizable share of the world's wealth is held by people who figure in dollars -- they don't care about the dollar's value relative to the yen or euro or peso, because they've already written off the yen and euro and peso. This is why, despite occasional bouts of speculation and depreciation, the world's wealthy continue to hold dollars and the dollar share of international lending and reserves is increasing. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Fw: [ASDnet] Farm worker amnesty bill sparks debate (Eng Sp)
- Original Message - From: Duane Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 10:31 AM Subject: [ASDnet] Farm worker amnesty bill sparks debate (Eng Sp) News from the Farm Worker Movement(www.ufw.org): http://www.capitolalert.com/news/capalert12_20010713.html Farm worker amnesty bill sparks debate By Andy Furillo Bee Staff Writer (Published July 13, 2001) An amended effort to provide limited amnesty for undocumented farm workers in the United States was criticized Thursday as an abrogation of what opponents said was an already done immigration deal. Sen. Paul Craig, D-Idaho, introduced his reform measure Tuesday, saying it is critically important to the continued health of American agriculture. But in a telephone press conference Thursday, Latino leaders and Rep. Howard Berman, D-Los Angeles, ripped Craig's bill for pushing back debate about undocumented farm workers by 15 years. Disagreement centers on a provision requiring newly legalized farm workers to work at least 150 days per year for their employers for four to six years before they could take part in the amnesty. Craig's spokeswoman said the bill changes nothing that the workers are doing already in their undocumented status and gives them a prospect of better lives. They have no human, basic, legal protection. They have very low wages, said Sarah Berk. Farm worker advocates have referred to reform provisions that force workers to stay with certain employers as indentured servitude. They say there is nothing in the proposal that would prevent employers from getting rid of workers before they fulfill their time commitment, depriving them of amnesty. Worker advocates have sought to reduce the number of days to 100 -- a key component of the compromise deal the United Farm Workers, the National Council of La Raza and Democratic legislators reached with growers and Republican congressional leaders last year. By introducing the bill, Senator Craig, at the behest of growers, and the growers have demonstrated a breach of the spirit and the letter of the agreement, Berman said. He said the 150-day period will make it hard for farm workers to qualify. U.S. studies have indicated about half of the 1.6 million farm workers in the country are here illegally. There are an estimated 700,000 to 900,000 farm workers in California. In spite of huge jobless rates in some rural areas, growers have said they have a labor shortage. They have lobbied Congress to reform the federal H-2A guest worker program to increase the number of foreign laborers who work legally in the United States. Organized labor interests, however, have called for a general amnesty for the undocumented workers who are already in the country. Craig introduced his bill with the backing of the new Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform. The group's co-chairman, Bryan Little, a lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau, said the bill helps get the debate off the dime. Maybe 150 (days) is the wrong number, Little said of the amnesty provision. I don't know. Let's have a debate and see what the right number is. http://www.ocregister.com/ New guest-worker plan triggers controversy Immigration advocates say it is a needless complication. July 13, 2001 By DENA BUNIS and MINERVA CANTO The Orange County Register WASHINGTON -- Immigration advocates Thursday blasted the agriculture industry for breaking apart a fragile coalition of business and farm workers with a new guest-worker proposal, a development that complicates the chances of any sweeping amnesty moving through Congress this year. At issue is a bill introduced Wednesday in the Senate that advocates say breaks a guest- worker-program deal that came within a hair's breadth of becoming law at the end of last year. The new bill - sponsored by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, at the urging of agricultural interests - puts up roadblocks to legalization for undocumented farm workers, advocates say, and includes salaries that union officials say would depress wages for an already low-paid work force. Not only are they violating this agreement and breaching a trust here, but they are engaging in an act of political stupidity and folly, said Rep. Howard Berman, D-West Hollywood, the main architect of last year's deal. But Anthony Bedell, head of an agribusiness coalition, insists there still is room for compromise and that there will be a few bloody lips, but I think we'll all be friends when it's done. Craig's measure is in play against a backdrop of negotiations between the Mexican and U.S. governments over the future of immigration between the two countries. President Vicente Fox will visit the Midwest early next week and is expected to reiterate his position on the need for a broad amnesty. The Mexican government is negotiating with the Bush administration on a package of immigration reforms that encompasses border safety, lifting quotas on Mexican visas, a guest-worker program and
wynne godley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/18/01 01:41PM
-clip-
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 ) ?
I don't think that the identity of the company selling the products is
important economically. The products -- and the economic effects -- are the
same, no matter who produces them.
Politically, however, the fact that US imports are so often products of
US-based multinationals undermines the protectionist political coalition.
(
CB: Yes, the second paragraph above is what I was referring to here. You were
mentioning that U.S. powers that be corporate sector, Dem or Rep , is still pro-free
trade/ anti-protectionist, and I was mentioning this as an underlying cause of that.
(((
(On net these days, the US is _importing_ tremendous amounts of capital.)
(((
CB: What is the comparison between US export of capital and export of goods ? The
classic Leninist distinction of imperialism is the transition from predominance of
export of goods to predominance of export of capital. It does not foreclose import of
capital at the same time, from other imperialist nations. Even more import of
_capital_ than export of capital, as you say is the fact today. The ongoing current
account deficit ( import of goods greater than export of goods) is consistent with
less export of goods as characterizing U.S. and thus U.S.retaining a classical
imperialist profile. Especially since, as just mentioned , much of the import of
goods to the U.S. is from U.S. company controlled capital that has been exported
producing those imported' goods.
(
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
this is very abstract. I was talking on a much lower level of abstraction.
(((
CB: Yes, I realize I am supposed to proceed from the abstract to the concrete and here
I go in reverse, but we aren't dogmatic here. There is a place for discussion of the
abstract in this analysis at some point ?
Currently, the US economy is not in a period of export of capital or
monopoly (though the latter is slowly reviving).
CB: The fact that there is net import of capital doesn't mean that there isn't
enormous absolute ( though not relative) export of capital , does it ? Isn't there
still enormous amount of export of U.S. based capital today, even if Japanese and
European export of capital to the U.S. is more than U.S. export ?
Not a period of monopoly ? How so ?
(
Foreign trade is
increasingly with us, as is the division of the world into oppressed and
oppressor nations (though the nature of that division has changed). State
intervention is also a constant. It's always been part of capitalism's laws
of motion.
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 ?
I see the possible shift to US protectionism as more of a _result_ of a
crisis than a cause at this point. That is, it seems quite unlikely given
the current balance of political power, so that only if when the
competitive austerity causes a world depression should we see a rise of
protectionism.
(
CB: Educational for me, doc.
my talk
See http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/talks/LMU-econ071701.htm to see the notes on the talk I gave yesterday on the state of the US economy. Comments are welcome. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
Actually, I don't overlook this. In fact I wrote my dissertation on this and looked into the role of historical inertia quite closely and it doesn't hold up. Sounds like a great diss. Did you ever publish an article summarizing it? If not, what school did you do it at? The official dollar role has been over since 1973. The US has run current account deficit in every single year since then, deficits that grow each year I thought that we'd run a trade deficit every year since then, but that the current account didn't go into deficit until Reagan. Am I misremembering? Is there good URL to see a summary of these annual numbers for the last 30 years? Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: protectionism
I refer here not only to retaliations and beggar-thy-neighbor policies (to which Mark was perhaps averring) but the possibility that by limiting the supply of dollars abroad through tariffs and the other import restrictions meant to protect declining industries--and this seems to be what Godley is proposing--the dollar's value will probably increase and thus put added pressure on US exports. Except the paper says _In the very last resort_, the United States should not forget that nondiscriminatory measures to control imports . . . are permitted under Article 12 of the successor to GATT. (Whether you believe such measures can be non-discriminatory is another matter.) The authors argue that the best case scenario is that the U.S.' private financial balance wouldn't revert, and growth would continue at about 3%, in which case, Indonesian textile workers are about where they are now. As others have pointed out, the authors' emphasis here and elsewhere is on fiscal and tax policy needed to sustain growth. They also suggest that other countries could engage in some coordinated reflation, were there but world enough and institutions. Would like the Nelson, Ostry, and Eisner refs. The first two wrote a book titled something like techno nationalism; Eisner wrote The Great Deficit Scares. Both books for the non economist--that's me. RB
Re: Re: Re: tariffs, trade, MNCs, etc.
Jim Devine wrote: I wrote: The MNCs are mostly for free trade, though they will take advantage of existing trade restrictions, if they can. Rakesh: Jim, how do you know this? The usual way I know things, from reading, from direct experience, and from logically or intuitively figuring it out. But strictly speaking, like everyone else, I don't know for sure. All I know is that I know nothing said Socrates (I believe). I've been really wanting to read Gregory Vlastos' collections of essays on Socrates. I read a few essays as un undergrad, and I found them so beautiful and brilliant. Unlike some, I treat all my knowledge as working hypotheses to be tested logically, empirically, methodologically, and in practice. Thus, what I know changes over time. yet we hardly recognize that our positions have changed over time, which so complicates the idea of a person as a substrate, no? It would seem to me that if the net does succeed in allowing for some indepth discussion, the rate at which our views change may accelerate, thereby undermining any sense of personhood which persists through time. Or with the bombardment of information, we may find ourselves unable to develop any views, which undermines the integrity of personhood in another way. But the self is in eclipse, one way or another. if mncs are pro-free trade, why haven't they razed the whole intricate edifice of tariffs, quotas, ridiculously elastic import surge clauses, exclusions of competitive goods from duty free acess, stipulations and incentives to use US inputs in US bound exports, etc.? Legislation involves all sorts of compromises and so takes a long time; it's not like it's some sort of MNC conspiracy where they can get what they want at each step. In any event, the current trend is toward more free trade. does NAFTA count as free trade? I wouldn't count it as such. You'll also note that I said that even though MNCs exploit existing trade barriers, they are generally against new ones as a group. New ones inevitably get introduced, though, as a result of the compromises mentioned above. like import surge clauses, hidden subsidies, and regional trade agreements which I view as a trade barrier. BTW, I wasn't talking about subsidies on exports. Good to bring it in. Have you looked at the Africa Free Trade Act which is loaded with protectionist clauses? No, but I knew that. Or perhaps it is only an illusion, something that you don't really know. humor? And if mncs are not responsible for this structure, who is? Nationally-oriented businesses and labor unions. Politicians seek support from them, too. Not convinced that mncs don't have their interest in trade protection. If Milikan has set up a plant in Mexico, why would he want a multilateral trade act which would give the same advantages to a non US based competitor in South East Asia? Not convinced that we don't have an emergent region-based neo mercantilist trade syste organized by the mncs. What else are we to make of the attempt to create a regional market in the Americas? The regional market involves both protection (against European and Japanese sellers) and free-trade (within the union). You are misusing the word free trade. Regional trade is not free trade. farmers have clout. But not enough clout to RAISE tariffs -- which was my original point. how about to raise subsidies? If the US imposes tariffs on imports from China, then an MNC that invests in Chinese manufacturing to take advantage of the cheap labor their doesn't get as much of a profit. you assume that the US company is not after the internal Chinese market. they say they are interested in that market, but I doubt that there's much of one. The main market is due to a shift from state-provided benefits to market-purchased ones. But there are clear limits there. The internal telecom and energy markets are huge Also, being less short-sighted than small business-people, they know about the possibility of retaliation and the fact that tariffs often lead to currency appreciation (which hurts exports). so perhaps they prefer Zoellick negotiated bilateral and regional deals which can better secure their interests than multilateral trade agreements. I don't understand this point. What I was getting at is that mncs often get better terms in regional and bilateral acts than they would have in a multilateral trading regime. In his Westview book on trade, Srinivasan cites some evidence (which is not to say that I agree with Srinivasan on much).
Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
Actually, I don't overlook this. In fact I wrote my dissertation on this and looked into the role of historical inertia quite closely and it doesn't hold up. Sounds like a great diss. Did you ever publish an article summarizing it? If not, what school did you do it at? The official dollar role has been over since 1973. The US has run current account deficit in every single year since then, deficits that grow each year I thought that we'd run a trade deficit every year since then, but that the current account didn't go into deficit until Reagan. And the size of the CAD (and trade deficit) is not correlated with the value of the dollar; if it were there would be some reason to expect Tom W's scenario of an imminent mass dumping of dollars. Why does there seem to be no correlation? Ellen's analysis seems to provide an answer. Another point: For many the rising trade deficit indicated the loss of American competitiveness, but the picture has always been more complicated if one considers sales from foreign subsidiaries and the US surplus in high tech goods (see Scherer). Another point: Brenner makes the dollar devaluation the key to regained US competitiveness, but the US has been sitting pretty with a relatively high dollar for years now. Is that because the high dollar encourages capital inflow, thus reducing interest rates and encouraging a high level of investment in capital goods in which technological progress has been embodied? Rakesh
Re: The US Dollar
I was impressed by Ellen's statement this morning, but I wonder how much of the money invested in U.S. stocks and bonds is at risk from flight back to its original source in say, Europe or Japan? How much flight would be required to spook the financial markets? Couldn't a relatively small amount spark a panic? Any ideas? On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 09:05:03AM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: Ellen wrote: I have to disagree with the proposition that the US current account deficit might presage flight from the greenback, capital outflows and financial collapse. Though the scenario is plausible on the surface, it overlooks one thing. Increasingly, the world's wealthy count their wealth in dollars. I agree: much more likely that a flight from the greenback is a simple but quick fall in its value. For example, the real trade-weighted major currency index for the dollar fell more than 20% from 1985 to 1986 and more than 11% from 1986 to 1987. I don't think that this would involve a financial crisis (or collapse) as much as a stagflationary shock. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wynne godley
I don't think it's quite right as an analogy. There's a city/suburb problem that you can appreciate wherein better-off people reside in suburbs and use the cities for job locations, services, and certain amenities not available in suburbs (museums, sports teams, etc.). This way they avoid, with the connivance of state legislatures, sharing their local taxes with the less fortunate. The urban rich can afford to opt out of city services, so they don't care if the urban tax base goes to shit. Within cities, the use of enterprise zones, business improvement districts, and tax increment financing further balkanizes and shrinks the tax base. Tax competition is usually understood, and I would say properly understood, as units of more or less similar nature (states, localities, nations) competing against each other for taxpayers by reducing their taxes. mbs The Wall Street Journal today has a front page story on how this tax competition as gutted the tax base of Toledo, gutting its educational system. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reply to Tom Walker re PEN-L 15095
Eugene Coyle wrote, Having said that, I wonder if losing the family wage -- i. e. needing two wage earners to support a household that one wage earner once could isn't a claw-back on the part of capital. Any thoughts/statistics about that? Another name for the family wage would be the male breadwinner model, which also indicates its darker side. In the MBM, you still have two people working but one is either off the books and tied to a no-wage personal service contract or marginalized in the waged labour force. As for statistics, a lot depends on what source you use and how you slice it. As usual, I'd like to plug our book, Working Time: International trends, theory and policy perspectives as containing a valuable survey of the statistics and various angles on them. For example, here is part of a table presented by Bluestone and Rose comparing education, and the percentage change in hours and earnings for US families between 1973 and 1988: Headed by HS dropouts HS grads BA+ Annual Hours 11.616.116.6 Real Earnings -8.2 3.732.5 family hourly wage -10.7 -11.513.6 In the Overworked American, Juliet Schor argued that total annual work hours (including both paid and unpaid time) are increasing, while Robinson and Godbey found that total workload fell between 1965 and 1985. Or is the need for two incomes driven by the mad consumerism upon which we embarked in the same early post-WWII period during which the family wage was eroded? There may be a method to the madness. In terms of a triumph of mass consumption, I would be inclined, along with Benjamin Hunnicutt, to locate it in the 1920s and 1930s. A lot of that has to do with consumption of public goods -- expanding public education, public health, highways etc. as well as public not-so-goods expenditures on military and policing (and more highways). Private mass consumerism could be seen as much as an outgrowth of trade union ideology as it was of commercial promotion. I'm thinking especially of the ideas of Ira Steward with regard to shorter hours, higher wages and consumer demand driven economic growth. These anticipated Keynes in some respects. In 1926, Henry Ford virtually declared himself a disciple of Ira Steward in the way that he explained why he had introduced the five-day workweek in his factories. I guess my point is that our chains today have been forged in partially victorious struggle, which sometimes makes it difficult to tell whether we are coming or going. What makes it even more difficult is a quite understandable human tendency to attribute all bad things to the evil machinations of the other side and to defend all past, provisional gains as if they were sacrosanct when in fact many of those gains have been compromises and many of those compromises have become successively more compromising. I would add another thought: Although it is by no means a sure thing, cutting working hours (eventually down to a few hours a week) could change the culture of consumption, so that our esteem could be gained otherwise than acquiring things. It being by no means a sure thing is probably why it's so hard to get on the policy agenda. Policy-makers and the opinionated public keep looking for sure things, even if those sure things have an appalling track record. GWB's big ticket policy initiatives are all sure things. Better to fail unambiguously than to succeed ambiguously. That ties your post and work back to the issue that Mark Jones addresses -- that the world can't go on with those in the North living as we do. And such a cultural shift would be an answer to Henwood who sees no hope that people won't go on buying till the oceans rise. This adds a new dimension to the expression, surf's up! It was plain in 1968, 1973, 1979, 1989, 1994 and 1998 that the world couldn't go on with those in the North living as we do. Yet the nettle remains virginally ungrasped. Unless, that is, one chooses to read the surrender to sheer fantasy as the sign of an underlying but perhaps incapacitating realism. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Climate Education Conference: Call For Participants
--Please Forward-- CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS: THE GRASSROOTS CLIMATE EDUCATION PROJECT *** OCTOBER 5--7, 2001*** The Green House Network (www.greenhousenet.org), a non-profit group dedicated to public education about the need for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is seeking individuals from across the United States who wish to participate in our Grassroots Climate Education Project. Over the weekend of October 5-7th, 2001, we will be holding a training session in Portland, Oregon, for 25 people interested in joining our national speakers bureau; over the last 18 months, our volunteers have given over 300 public presentations about the need for urgent action to address global warming. In exchange for the training, each individual will commit to: 1) Give at least 5 speeches on campuses or other community venues in their region 2) Arrange a meeting with regional political leader to discuss climate policy At each of the 5 presentations, speakers will invite audience members to join them when they visit their political representative. Presentations by our speaker's network are set up, coordinated and publicized by Green House Network staff. Thus, the commitment on the part of the speakers is limited to the actual delivery of 5 presentations over the course of Fall-Spring 2001-2002, and the meeting with a regional politician. ** Travel, food and housing expenses for the workshop will be paid. ** KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Honorable Claudine Schneider Former member of the US House of Representatives (R-RI), and author, in 1988, of the first global warming legislation to be considered by the U.S. government. There is a $50 registration fee. Participants should have an initial broad familiarity with the global warming issue. The workshop will provide more detailed scientific, political and economic information, assistance in the preparation of an effective 30-minute presentation, and information on how to set up meetings with politicians. Past participants have included college professors, scientists, artists, engineers, clergy members, nurses, architects, and graduate students. TO APPLY: Send an application by US mail to: The Green House Network PMB 154 16869 SW 65th Ave Lake Oswego, OR 97035 The application should include: 1) A brief letter stating the reason for your interest, as well as any experience you have had in public speaking or organizing. 2) A curriculum vitae. 3) Five campuses (or other venues) in your region where a global warming presentation would have the biggest impact. 4) An e-mail address for follow-up correspondence. The closing date for applications is August 5th, 2001. For more information about the Grassroots Climate Education Project, and the Green House Network, please visit our web site at http://www.greenhousenet.org, or call 503-639-0600. -- End Forwarded Message -- + + + + + + + Eban Goodstein Associate Professor, Economics Lewis and Clark College Portland, OR 97219 v 503.768.7626 / f 503.768.7611 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- End Forwarded Message -- + + + + + + + Eban Goodstein Associate Professor, Economics Lewis and Clark College Portland, OR 97219 v 503.768.7626 / f 503.768.7611 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- End Forwarded Message -- + + + + + + + Eban Goodstein Associate Professor, Economics Lewis and Clark College Portland, OR 97219 v 503.768.7626 / f 503.768.7611 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form of protectionism devised so far. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: wynne godley
Max, I don't understand your point. Toledo gave away tax breaks to lure companies, such as Chrysler, which gutted its tax base. On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 04:49:04PM -0400, Max Sawicky wrote: I don't think it's quite right as an analogy. There's a city/suburb problem that you can appreciate wherein better-off people reside in suburbs and use the cities for job locations, services, and certain amenities not available in suburbs (museums, sports teams, etc.). This way they avoid, with the connivance of state legislatures, sharing their local taxes with the less fortunate. The urban rich can afford to opt out of city services, so they don't care if the urban tax base goes to shit. Within cities, the use of enterprise zones, business improvement districts, and tax increment financing further balkanizes and shrinks the tax base. Tax competition is usually understood, and I would say properly understood, as units of more or less similar nature (states, localities, nations) competing against each other for taxpayers by reducing their taxes. mbs The Wall Street Journal today has a front page story on how this tax competition as gutted the tax base of Toledo, gutting its educational system. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
Michael Lind (The Next American Nation) makes the point that patents, IP, and professional licensure (i.e., tenure!) are the upper-class (white overclass) variant of protectionism. Consistent free-traders should be willing to do away with those barriers to trade as well. How do laissez faire econ profs justify tenure? mbs It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form of protectionism devised so far. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: wynne godley
To that extent tax competition is on point. In the main, urban fiscal problems are due to the city-suburb (city-state legislature) relationship, IMO. mbs Max, I don't understand your point. Toledo gave away tax breaks to lure companies, such as Chrysler, which gutted its tax base.
Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote, And the size of the CAD (and trade deficit) is not correlated with the value of the dollar; if it were there would be some reason to expect Tom W's scenario of an imminent mass dumping of dollars. Why does there seem to be no correlation? Ellen's analysis seems to provide an answer. The tag line spend it fast as you can was meant to allude to the line in the song, I don't give a damn about a greenback dollar, spend it fast as I can not to any conviction of mine that the demise of the dollar is imminent. If... IF... there is a mass dumping of dollars, the precipitating event will most likely NOT be the fundamentals of the dollar itself. My guess is it will probably not even be a financial event. The lack of correlation between current account deficit and value of the dollar has nothing to say about future events. In fact, the term correlation has no more scientific standing with regard to the issue than do the words to the song I cited. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
Are you saying, then, that the absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence? I guess I missed what the this refers to that you wrote your dissertation on. Ellen Frank wrote, Actually, I don't overlook this. In fact I wrote my dissertation on this and looked into the role of historical inertia quite closely and it doesn't hold up. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: RE: Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as youcan)
Michael Lind (The Next American Nation) makes the point that patents, IP, and professional licensure (i.e., tenure!) are the upper-class (white overclass) variant of protectionism. Consistent free-traders should be willing to do away with those barriers to trade as well. How do laissez faire econ profs justify tenure? mbs You do know that unlike say Krugman and deLong the economists Bhagwati and Srinivasan have been very vocal critics of IPR regimes and regional trade acts (Srinivasan was critical of Big Boy Wonder Summer's greater indulgence for the latter in the early 90s, I believe, and they had some exchange in a learned journal, no?). I believe that Doug was a reader for Lord Meghnad Desai's forthcoming Verso book on globalization I very much look forward to reading his analysis of contemporary capitalism. (I certainly don't want to read anymore of his--i believe--wrong-headed technical analysis of the transformation problem.) Michael told me not to insult anyone, so I will hold back my comments on the neo-nativist and self-proclaimed Listian Lind, who was hidden in a trojan horse offered to the left by Buckley and co. But once it was brought within the gates, I for one was not surprised that out came another faux intellectual windbag like Jim Sleeper whose good friend he is. Yours, Rakesh
Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote, And the size of the CAD (and trade deficit) is not correlated with the value of the dollar; if it were there would be some reason to expect Tom W's scenario of an imminent mass dumping of dollars. Why does there seem to be no correlation? Ellen's analysis seems to provide an answer. The tag line spend it fast as you can was meant to allude to the line in the song, I don't give a damn about a greenback dollar, spend it fast as I can not to any conviction of mine that the demise of the dollar is imminent. If... IF... there is a mass dumping of dollars, the precipitating event will most likely NOT be the fundamentals of the dollar itself. My guess is it will probably not even be a financial event. in mad money susan strange raises the possibility of Japanese flight from the dollar because of need to refurbish capital base of Japanese banks in accordance with Basel requirements. Strange's is the most plausible guess as to what will be the trigger for global depression, I think. rb
Re: Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
Michael wrote: It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form of protectionism devised so far. except that it's not the kind of thing that's called protectionism. It protects individual corporations or other property-holders, not the domestic markets of countries. It's an extension of normal property rights like patents, copyrights, trade marks, etc. The owners of intellectual property can easily take their property and move to another country. max writes:Michael Lind (The Next American Nation) makes the point that patents, IP, and professional licensure (i.e., tenure!) are the upper-class (white overclass) variant of protectionism.Consistent free-traders should be willing to do away with those barriers to trade as well. How do laissez faire econ profs justify tenure? professional licensure is definitely a form of protectionism as the word is usually used. BTW, I used to have a colleague who wanted to reject tenure on the basis on laissez-faire principles. The college said: either take tenure or leave. He stayed, eventually ending up in the administration. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Godley and Savings (was current events)
Hello, there is one thing that I think is important enough to emphasise, in relation with our analysis and what is believed elsewhere. It is about the saving rate, and whether the private sector balance is sustainable or not. Quoting Jim Devine: It's not US _savings_ (i.e., assets) that are non-existent. Rather, it's US _saving_ (net addition to savings) that is negative. Overall US consumer net worth is _positive_, not negative (even though this net worth did fall during the last year). There seems to be a problem in the way the above was expressed (or perhaps I do not understand the definitions used: saving and savingS). Anyway, saving is a flow, assets are stocks. And, not only in the US, but generally, the NET WORTH of the household sector (which includes physical and financial net assets) is positive, and it can be 2, 3, 4, 5 times the level of income. The latest figure for the net worth of the Personal Sector in the US (39.999 Bn.) is almost four times the GDP (circa 10.000Bn.) and more than five times the disposable income of the private sector (circa 7.000 Bn). No one would dispute that net worth of consumers is positive. So, I guess that what is implied by Jim is that household (or consumer)'s saving, INCLUDING CAPITAL GAINS , is POSITIVE, and therefore there is not 'really a problem' with the private sector. Perhaps this is not what Jim implied, but we know that this is a major argument that is going around for some time now. We disagree. We elaborated on this in the paper, which I would very much like you to download or read from the web site (www.levy.org). You could get it directly by using http://www.levy.org/docs/sreport/implos.html Let me try to make the points as concise as I can (but please, try to get hold of the original document anyway): 1) in the framework of our analysis our major concern is with the *financial imbalance* (expenditure, including investment, minus income gross of capital consumption) of the *private-sector* (the aggregate of the private sector, including households, unincorporated firms and corporations) . The gap, which is large as it was never before (above 6% of GDP) cannot be sustained at the present rate, *because* it can only be financed by credit or by foreign purchase of equities. It is not possible to 'spend' the wealth (or capital gains, for that matter). There must be either additional credit (net borrowing) or net realization of assets by the sector as a whole. 2) By disaggregating the private sector between household (or the personal sector) and corporations we find the additional problem that households' realization of equities (to allow spending beyond income but without relying solely on debt) has largely depended on the fact that corporations have been net purchasers of equities. As corporations have been in financial deficit, they could not have purchased equities at the same rate without recurring to more credit; therefore setting another limit to the ability of households to realize its wealth. 3) The limit to borrow, in our opinion the binding constraint in the last resort, is set by the ratio of debts to *income*, because debts must be serviced by cash. The household sector *as a whole* cannot realize more than a fraction of its assets without causing the market to crash. The limit to borrow is not set by the ratio of debt to income plus capital gains; such a limit would be extremely vulnerable to a fall in prices. Moreover, we actually estimated the ratio of saving, inclusive of capital gains (i.e. change in net worth), relative to income inclusive of capital gains. Such a ratio plunged from 44.4% in 1999 to *MINUS* 17.4% in 2000, and it remained strongly negative in the first quarter of 2001. re re re re re regards, alex
protectionism
It seems very interesting what is going on in this discussion, and I am afraid that I can hardly follow. Anyway, let me clarifiy small points. A colleague wrote: Except the paper says _In the very last resort_, the United States should not forget that nondiscriminatory measures to control imports . . . are permitted under Article 12 of the successor to GATT. (Whether you believe such measures can be non-discriminatory is another matter.) the meaning of nondiscriminatory here is simply that the aim is to protect the general level of employment 'in house', not to protect one or a couple of industries and unprotect the others. In this sense, tariffs seem to be the appropriate instrument, rather than quotas. Implicitly, it cannot be done without 'coordination' between trading partners, otherwise it lead to retaliation... Now, again, Wynne's proposal is a much more elaborated one than what we suggested in the paper. It requires a set of coordinated measures in which import restrictions go hand in hand with fiscal relaxation From there onwards, yes, I could agree that 'coordination between countries' is not an even game: anybody can imagine what the 'coordination between Haiti and the US' could be, for example. The authors argue that the best case scenario is that the U.S.' private financial balance wouldn't revert, and growth would continue at about 3%, in which case, Indonesian textile workers are about where they are now. As others have pointed out, the authors' emphasis here and elsewhere is on fiscal and tax policy needed to sustain growth. They also suggest that other countries could engage in some coordinated reflation. Yes, this is actually our main point in terms of possible strategic solutions. You are perfectly right. The problem seems to be that these are not very 'popular' solutions nowadays. A side remark, the 3% growth rate is, in our view, totally unrealistic. Out of the question. In the paper is presented as a baseline because that is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast. regards, Alex
Other People's Money
JUL 18, 2001 Other People's Money By PAUL KRUGMAN I t wasn't true when Richard Nixon said it, but it is true today: We are all Keynesians now at least when we look at our own economy. We give anti-Keynesian advice only to other countries. When it comes to the U.S. economy, everyone including people who imagine that they have rejected Keynesianism in favor of some doctrine more congenial to the free-market faithful in practice views the current slowdown in terms of the intellectual framework John Maynard Keynes created 65 years ago. In particular, everyone thinks that during a slump what we need is more spending. Before Keynes, the general view was quite the opposite: economic slumps were supposed to be the invisible hand's way of punishing excesses, and the best cure was supposed to be a good dose of austerity, public and private. Only as a result of the Keynesian revolution did it become obvious to everyone so obvious that people take it for granted that the problem during a slump is too little spending, not too much, and that recovery depends on persuading the public to start spending again. So every time you read an article worrying that declining consumer confidence may tip us into recession, or that interest rate cuts will soon spark a recovery, or even that this time interest rate reductions may not do the trick, you are reading Keynesian economics. Like the man who was unaware that he had been writing prose all his life, these writers may not know that they are Keynesians but they are. And you would have to search far and wide to find anyone who thinks that the U.S. government should slash spending and raise taxes to offset the budget impact of this year's downturn, or who thinks that the Fed is wrong to cut interest rates in the face of a slump. (There are some people who think that the Fed has overdone it but they aren't opposed to the policy in principle.) But we by which I mean both policy makers in Washington and bankers in New York often seem to prescribe for other countries the kind of root-canal economics that we would never tolerate here in the U.S.A. Yesterday former Senator Howard Baker, our new ambassador to Japan, told reporters he did not expect to see that country drive down the value of the yen. Aside from being inappropriate exchange rate policy is a highly sensitive subject, about which even the secretary of the Treasury needs to be highly circumspect this comment was part of a pattern of hints from U.S. officials that we would not like to see Japan weaken its currency. Since it is very difficult to imagine a recovery strategy for Japan that does not involve at least the possibility of a much weaker yen, this amounts to telling the Japanese that they cannot do what we do routinely, that is, print however much money it takes to get the economy moving again. And then, of course, there's Argentina. What's shocking about the political and economic crisis there is not so much its severity though it is amazing to see the punishment now being inflicted on a country that just three years ago was the toast of Wall Street as how gratuitous it is. We're talking about a government whose debt really isn't very large compared with the size of its national economy, and whose fairly modest budget deficit is entirely the product of an economic slump, forced into drastic spending cuts that will further worsen that slump. It wouldn't be tolerated here but the bankers in New York tell the Argentines that they have no alternative. And Washington not the Bush administration, which has been eerily silent as Argentina melts down, but the conservative think tanks that helped the country bind itself in a monetary straitjacket agrees. Does it have to be this way? Is Keynesianism good only for the U.S. and selected other Western countries, but out of bounds for everyone else? Maybe. But I suspect that the core of the problem is that small countries, and even big countries like Japan that have lost their self-confidence, are too easily bullied by men in suits who give them advice dictated by a hard-line ideology they would never try to impose back home. My advice would be to stop listening to those men in suits, and do as we do, not as we say. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information [pixel.gif]
Re: Re: Re: Re: tariffs, trade, MNCs, etc.
But the self is in eclipse, one way or another.
Re: Other People's Money
JUL 18, 2001 Other People's Money By PAUL KRUGMAN I t wasn't true when Richard Nixon said it, but it is true today: We are all Keynesians now at least when we look at our own economy. We give anti-Keynesian advice only to other countries. When it comes to the U.S. economy, everyone including people who imagine that they have rejected Keynesianism in favor of some doctrine more congenial to the free-market faithful in practice views the current slowdown in terms of the intellectual framework John Maynard Keynes created 65 years ago. In particular, everyone thinks that during a slump what we need is more spending. If Greenspan were a Keynesian, why did he raise rates last year with hardly any inflation and stable unit labor costs? He acted as if he wanted to bring on an economic slump. And so he did. So maybe the view of recessions as douches is not discredited even in the US. Before Keynes, the general view was quite the opposite: economic slumps were supposed to be the invisible hand's way of punishing excesses, and the best cure was supposed to be a good dose of austerity, public and private. Only as a result of the Keynesian revolution did it become obvious to everyone so obvious that people take it for granted that the problem during a slump is too little spending, not too much, and that recovery depends on persuading the public to start spending again. It is not obvious to me that Japan's massive fiscal stimulus has worked as Keynesian theory would predict. If Krugman wants everyone to be a Keynesian, he has to explain (away) its failures--the failure of Keynesian fiscal policy to have much impact in Japan, the devolution of Keynesian policy into runaway inflation in the 70s. So every time you read an article worrying that declining consumer confidence may tip us into recession, or that interest rate cuts will soon spark a recovery, or even that this time interest rate reductions may not do the trick, you are reading Keynesian economics. Yes but with the world economy teetering on the precipice, why are not Krugman and deLong militating for big new debt-financed government expenditures? It seems to me that Keynesianism may not be dead, but it's been cut down to size in the US as is so evident in Krugman's and deLong's technocratic over-reliance on monetary policy. Like the man who was unaware that he had been writing prose all his life, these writers may not know that they are Keynesians but they are. Or maybe Krugman does not know what a real Keynesian is (Eisner, Davidson). And you would have to search far and wide to find anyone who thinks that the U.S. government should slash spending and raise taxes to offset the budget impact of this year's downturn, or who thinks that the Fed is wrong to cut interest rates in the face of a slump. (There are some people who think that the Fed has overdone it but they aren't opposed to the policy in principle.) And you would have to search even farther and wider to find someone who believes that the govt should not give money back in tax rebates but spend it (bigger Samuelsonian multiplier if govt spends than from a tax rebate) and then spend more through debt financed expenditures. It seems to me that Keynesianism as a solution to global deflation is in fact dead, and that is evident in the limited Keynesian policies which technocrats like Krugman and deLong advocate. Krugman and deLong arguably represent the death of Keynesianism. But we by which I mean both policy makers in Washington and bankers in New York often seem to prescribe for other countries the kind of root-canal economics that we would never tolerate here in the U.S.A. We tolerated our independent central bank thrusting us into recession this year. Yesterday former Senator Howard Baker, our new ambassador to Japan, told reporters he did not expect to see that country drive down the value of the yen. Aside from being inappropriate exchange rate policy is a highly sensitive subject, about which even the secretary of the Treasury needs to be highly circumspect this comment was part of a pattern of hints from U.S. officials that we would not like to see Japan weaken its currency. Krugman gives no attention to the competitive devaluations which a depreciating yen could engender. Since it is very difficult to imagine a recovery strategy for Japan that does not involve at least the possibility of a much weaker yen, this amounts to telling the Japanese that they cannot do what we do routinely, that is, print however much money it takes to get the economy moving again. However much? even if the savings of the pensioners and other little people are inflated away? even if the real wages of the industrial working class are eroded? And then, of course, there's
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
Lind is not a nativist. He is a liberal nationalist. He may be a Listian, but to me that is not necessarily a Bad Thing. The idea that he is a right-wing plant is hallucinatory. mbs . . . Michael told me not to insult anyone, so I will hold back my comments on the neo-nativist and self-proclaimed Listian Lind, who was hidden in a trojan horse offered to the left by Buckley and co. But once it was brought within the gates, I for one was not surprised that out came another faux intellectual windbag like Jim Sleeper whose good friend he is. Yours, Rakesh
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend itfast as you can)
Lind is not a nativist. He is a liberal nationalist. He may be a Listian, but to me that is not necessarily a Bad Thing. The idea that he is a right-wing plant is hallucinatory. mbs Check what he says about the need to control immigration in one of his books. Maybe I am hallucinating his nativist sentiment; I didn't buy the book, just glanced through it at a bookstore. If I am wrong, I will apologize profusely. Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Re: tariffs, trade, MNCs, etc.
Hello Economucks, Rakesh writes, yet we hardly recognize that our positions have changed over time, which so complicates the idea of a person as a substrate, no? It would seem to me that if the net does succeed in allowing for some indepth discussion, the rate at which our views change may accelerate, thereby undermining any sense of personhood which persists through time. Or with the bombardment of information, we may find ourselves unable to develop any views, which undermines the integrity of personhood in another way. But the self is in eclipse, one way or another. Doyle Since you brought it up in an off hand way I doubt you have serious thoughts to say about self. But if you do then I have some serious thoughts also. And in that sense you could do me a favor by providing a suitable partner for discussion. thanks, Doyle
Re: protectionism
Michael Perelman wrote, If the US tried to use protectionism as a form for maintaining aggregate demand, wouldn't that throw fuel on the Argentinian/Turkish crisis? Doesn't the rest of the world economy depend on the US as the consumer of last resort? Would it be a bull in China shop? Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Re: URPE circular letter about Andrew Kliman
Either tell us exactly what the so-called unethical professional conduct exactly was, or don't bring this up in a public forum. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast asyou can)
I found Lind's kiss off to the Right, Why The Right Is Wrong, a good expose, esp. the chapter on Pat Robertson's sourcing anti-semite, conspiracy theorist, Nesta Webster, author od Red-Web spinning books like, World Revolution. Have yet to read, The First American Nation. Publishes wide and far, from National Review to New Left Review, responding to Daniel Lazere. http://www.newamerica.net/ Michael Lind - Senior Fellow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Lind has previously been an editor or staff writer for The New Yorker, Harper's Magazine, and The National Interest. He has written for The New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and other leading publications, and has appeared on CNN's Crossfire, C-SPAN, National Public Radio, and the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Mr. Lind's three books of political journalism and history, The Next American Nation (1995), Up From Conservatism (1996), and Vietnam (1999) were all selected as New York Times Notable Books. He has also published several volumes of fiction and poetry, including The Alamo, which the Los Angeles Times named as one of the Best Books of 1997. As a Senior Fellow in 2001, Mr. Lind will continue to write a series of articles on political and economic reform, and the search for a viable political philosophy in an increasingly post-ideological nation. In addition, he will publish a book co-authored with Ted Halstead to explore the social, economic and political implications of America's transition to a post-industrial era, drawing lessons from the upheavals and social dislocations that occurred during the previous transition from an agrarian to an industrial era. This book, to be published by Doubleday in 2001, will propose new approaches to economics, governance and civil society for the 21st century. Articles by Michael Lind (39 articles, the NLR one that was previously there, not anymore.) Liberal Nationalist, is right. Oh, but, dreadful book, Cold War Liberal/Realist screed, The Necessary War, on the Vietnam War. Read that. If I wanted to read a defense of the Vietnam War, I'd read, America in Vietnam, by Guenter Lewy! Masochism is not one of my kinks...(Though, then why do I always look at Commentary at the library!) Michael Pugliese Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:19:00 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Commentary: Say no to guest-workers Michael Lind United Press International July 6, 2001 With the election of Mexico's president Vicente Fox, a dynamic and charismatic reformer, a new era in U.S.-Mexican relations has begun. To reinforce his effort to bring Mexico into the 21st century, Fox is seeking closer ties with the United States. Many of his ideas for promoting closer collaboration across the border are excellent. One of his ideas, though, is terrible. Fox has proposed to alleviate the poverty problem in Mexico by dramatically increasing the number of Mexican nationals who labor in the United States as temporary guest workers. The Bush administration has said that it is open to the possibility of admitting many new guest workers from Mexico on temporary visas. On the American side, the guest-worker idea is being pushed hardest by politicians on the right of the Republican Party, like Sen. Phil Gramm and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, both from Texas. Behind Gramm and DeLay are powerful agribusiness interests, which claim that the United States is suffering from a shortage of agricultural workers. This is a myth. The truth is that there is only a shortage of American workers willing to accept miserable conditions and wages that are low and steadily declining. According to the Labor Department, the real wages of agricultural workers have dropped from $6.89 an hour to $6.18 an hour between 1989 and 1998. If the farm labor market is so tight, then why are wages going down? If there really were a labor shortage in agriculture, then the proper solution would be to let market forces solve the problem. Agribusiness firms should be forced to choose between attracting more workers by paying higher wages, investing in labor-saving machinery, or both. Consumers worried about higher prices for their produce should favor importing agricultural products -- not poor, exploited agricultural workers -- from low-wage countries like Mexico. A combination of higher wages for citizen workers, mechanization and freer trade in agriculture can eliminate the need to import desperate foreigners to work in American fields in conditions of virtual slavery for starvation wages. (Ironically, many of the agribusiness firms that claim that they cannot afford to hire American workers at American wages are already subsidized by the taxpayers through federal government programs.) Even without a guest-worker program, mass immigration of unskilled workers from Mexico and other countries is hurting low-income Americans. According to numerous studies, including one by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, the
Re: Godley and Savings (was current events)
Quoting me: It's not US _savings_ (i.e., assets) that are non-existent. Rather, it's US _saving_ (net addition to savings) that is negative. Overall US consumer net worth is _positive_, not negative (even though this net worth did fall during the last year). Alex comments: There seems to be a problem in the way the above was expressed (or perhaps I do not understand the definitions used: saving and savingS). Anyway, saving is a flow, assets are stocks. I don't think that we disagree. (The saving vs. savings (flow vs. stock, savings = accumulated saving) convention is common, but hardly conventional these days.) I should correct what I said, though: it's only _household_ saving that's negative these days. And, not only in the US, but generally, the NET WORTH of the household sector (which includes physical and financial net assets) is positive, and it can be 2, 3, 4, 5 times the level of income. The latest figure for the net worth of the Personal Sector in the US (39.999 Bn.) is almost four times the GDP (circa 10.000Bn.) and more than five times the disposable income of the private sector (circa 7.000 Bn). No one would dispute that net worth of consumers is positive. except that the article that I was responding to said that savings were negative, while suggesting that consumers didn't have anything to fall back on. So there are some people who would (wrongly) dispute your assertion. So, I guess that what is implied by Jim is that household (or consumer)'s saving, INCLUDING CAPITAL GAINS , is POSITIVE, and therefore there is not 'really a problem' with the private sector. Perhaps this is not what Jim implied, but we know that this is a major argument that is going around for some time now. This is not what I implied. Au contraire. If I had, I would have noted that the capital LOSSES of the last year imply that saving + capital gains is likely negative. ... We elaborated on this in the paper, which I would very much like you to download or read from the web site (www.levy.org). You could get it directly by using http://www.levy.org/docs/sreport/implos.html Let me try to make the points as concise as I can (but please, try to get hold of the original document anyway): 1) in the framework of our analysis our major concern is with the *financial imbalance* (expenditure, including investment, minus income gross of capital consumption) of the *private-sector* (the aggregate of the private sector, including households, unincorporated firms and corporations) . The gap, which is large as it was never before (above 6% of GDP) cannot be sustained at the present rate, *because* it can only be financed by credit or by foreign purchase of equities. It is not possible to 'spend' the wealth (or capital gains, for that matter). There must be either additional credit (net borrowing) or net realization of assets by the sector as a whole. that's what I remember from Godley's previous work. 2) By disaggregating the private sector between household (or the personal sector) and corporations we find the additional problem that households' realization of equities (to allow spending beyond income but without relying solely on debt) has largely depended on the fact that corporations have been net purchasers of equities. As corporations have been in financial deficit, they could not have purchased equities at the same rate without recurring to more credit; therefore setting another limit to the ability of households to realize its wealth. that makes sense. 3) The limit to borrow, in our opinion the binding constraint in the last resort, is set by the ratio of debts to *income*, because debts must be serviced by cash. The household sector *as a whole* cannot realize more than a fraction of its assets without causing the market to crash. The limit to borrow is not set by the ratio of debt to income plus capital gains; such a limit would be extremely vulnerable to a fall in prices. Moreover, we actually estimated the ratio of saving, inclusive of capital gains (i.e. change in net worth), relative to income inclusive of capital gains. Such a ratio plunged from 44.4% in 1999 to *MINUS* 17.4% in 2000, and it remained strongly negative in the first quarter of 2001. can't assets be used as collateral, so that the debt/asset ratio is relevant? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
DID CHUBAIS LAUNDER MONEY THROUGH THE BANK OF NEW YORK?
From Johnson's Russia List. I'm under the impression that the Jamestown Foundation, is of a right-wing flavor, from a cursory glance in the past. http://www.jamestown.org/ Chubais, was Gore's pal, no? I have yet to read Stephen Cohen, Failed Crusade, waiting for the pb. I betcha, on the looks of the adapted excerpt in The Nation a few months back, more details there. And, Red Mafiya, by Robert Friedman, looks like another good read in related areas. Chapter Excerpt: Red Mafiya by Robert I. Friedman ... himself as a prominent Russian Jewish dissident. He wrote two books, as well as articles for Dissent, Jewish Digest, and ... Copyright 2000 by Robert I. Friedman. ... www.twbookmark.com/books/63/0316294748/chapter_excerpt10134.html http://www.ukar.org/friedm01.shtml (Hmm, Ukranian Nationalist website defending WWII fascists, have fun!) Zealots of Zion: Inside Israel's West Bank Settlement Movement, by Robert Friedman. Michael Pugliese #1 Jamestown Foundation Monitor July 18, 2001 DID CHUBAIS LAUNDER MONEY THROUGH THE BANK OF NEW YORK? Oleg Lurye, the well-known investigative reporter for the biweekly newspaper Novaya Gazeta, has written an article in the paper's latest issue alleging that Anatoly Chubais, currently head of United Energy Systems (UES) and a leader of the Union of Right-Wing Forces (SPS), and Alfred Kokh, currently head of Gazprom-Media, were involved in large-scale money laundering via the Bank of New York (BONY). The article refers to a document first cited earlier this year by Novaya Gazeta concerning a trip Kokh made on January 3, 1996 to the Barbados, which, as Lurye notes, is known--among other things--as an offshore haven for laundered money. Kokh allegedly traveled to the island with one of the leading figures in the BONY scandal of 1999, Natasha Gurfinkel-Kagalovsky, and her husband. She was a BONY senior vice president in charge of the bank's Eastern European division; her husband, Konstantin Kagalovsky, was at one time Russia's representative to the International Monetary Fund and then a top executive first at Menatep Bank and afterwards at the Yukos oil company. It should be noted that no charges in connection with the BONY case have been brought against Gurfinkel-Kagalovsky, who was suspended from the banks at the height of the scandal and who later resigned. Last year she filed suit against the bank, denying any connection to the money laundering scandal and demanding US$270 million in compensation for damages to her reputation. At the time of the alleged Barbados visit, Kokh was first deputy chief of the State Property Committee, which was then formally headed by Sergei Belaev but actually under the control of Chubais, who was then a first deputy prime minister. Chubais would within weeks be dismissed by Boris Yeltsin for the notorious loans-for-shares privatization scheme at the end of 1995, but almost immediately rise from the ashes to run Yeltsin's re-election campaign. Lurye quotes an unnamed top U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation official as telling him recently that the FBI had also been aware of Kokh's and the Kagalovskys' visit to Barbados. According to the FBI official, Kokh, in making the visit, was acting on behalf of Chubais, who at the start of 1996 needed a mechanism by which to send billions of dollars received as a result of privatization offshore and to launder a portion of these funds for Yeltsin's re-election campaign. The Bank of New York was the ideal variant, the official told Lurye. Lurye also quotes the FBI official as saying that Chubais, being a vice premier and a well-known figure, did not want to meet directly with BONY officials, and thus sent Kokh as his emissary. At the same time, Lurye says, Chubais knew the major players in the BONY scandal very well and had met with them secretly in the United States. Lurye also cites an audit carried out by the Audit Chamber, an independent Russian state agency, into the State Property Committee's activities from 1992 to 1995. The state auditors expressed alarm, first, that U.S. and British firms had managed to acquire controlling shares in Russian aircraft manufacturers--including MAPO-MiG, Sukhoi, Yakovlev, Ilyushin and Antonov--and, second, that Germany's Siemens had acquired a 20-percent stake in the Kaluga Turbine Factory--which, among other things, holds a state monopoly in welding technology needed for the construction of nuclear subs (see the eXile, #31, March 5, 1998). Lurye also quotes from a joint letter written by the Federal Security Service (FSB) and Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) charging that the privatization of military-industrial enterprises like those was followed by a transfer of Russian military technology to the West so large that NATO inaugurated a special program devoted to processing the acquired information. Lurye concludes that between 1993 and 1995 Chubais organized the sale of unique Russian [military] technology to the West, for which the Russian budget
Re: Re: Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as youcan)
It is not protectionism, like the violence instigated by the US is not terrorism. Protectionism (terrorism) is what the other guy does. Jim Devine wrote: Michael wrote: It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form of protectionism devised so far. except that it's not the kind of thing that's called protectionism. It protects individual corporations or other property-holders, not the domestic markets of countries. It's an extension of normal property rights like patents, copyrights, trade marks, etc. The owners of intellectual property can easily take their property and move to another country. max writes:Michael Lind (The Next American Nation) makes the point that patents, IP, and professional licensure (i.e., tenure!) are the upper-class (white overclass) variant of protectionism.Consistent free-traders should be willing to do away with those barriers to trade as well. How do laissez faire econ profs justify tenure? professional licensure is definitely a form of protectionism as the word is usually used. BTW, I used to have a colleague who wanted to reject tenure on the basis on laissez-faire principles. The college said: either take tenure or leave. He stayed, eventually ending up in the administration. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
