RE: project for Pen-l

[enilsson]

How can one rebut the claim that “free trade” is the best policy?

A purely internal critique of this claim:

Mainstream theory itself argues that free trade is the best policy only if very 
specific conditions exist. If these conditions do not exist, then mainstream 
theory indicates that we can’t say that free trade is the best policy.

For instance, mainstream trade theory indicates that any move to free trade 
will lead to some people losing out. Mainstream theory also makes clear that 
unless those who lose from trade are fully and completely compensated for their 
losses, then free trade does not benefit a nation. 

That is, mainstream theory does not say that free trade is the best policy. 
Rather, it says that free trade plus the full compensation of those who have 
lost out is the best policy.

Eric

Re: What is to be done about Everything?

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Gar:

>>>Carrol - I think you are overlooking the demand here. We are 
>>>dealing with a government doing the wrong thing against terrorist 
>>>who have killed a lot of people in the U.S. and successfully 
>>>terrorized them. We are opposed to the evil things this government 
>>>is doing in response. We need to be able to answer the question: 
>>>"what would you do if you were in charge?".  People simply will 
>>>not consider anyone a serious critic who refuses to answer this 
>>>question.
>>
>>The subjunctive gives you away.  The question is not serious as it 
>>is contrary to facts.
>
>This assumes that a hypotheical question can never be serious. But 
>when you are seeking political change, and implicitly political 
>power, then the question: "what happens if you win?" is a serious 
>question.

The question in the indicative mood is a serious one, but the 
question in the subjunctive mood is not serious.  A mood is a 
property of verbs that indicates the attitude of the speaker about 
the factuality or likelihood of what is expressed.  The subjunctive 
mood is used to indicate doubt or unlikelihood -- in the case of the 
above question in the subjunctive mood, the unlikelihood of your 
becoming in charge.

Has anyone ever actually asked you or Doug or anyone else here "what 
will happen if you win"?  :->

The questions we should seriously consider are what we want to win, 
when we want to win it, & most importantly _how_ to organize 
ourselves so we will be able to ask what we want to do if we win in 
the indicative, rather than subjunctive, mood.
-- 
Yoshie

* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: 

* Anti-War Activist Resources: 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Subscription Info about the Anti-War (Columbus) & Peace (Statewide) 
Listservs: 
* Subscription Info about the OSU Committee for Justice in Palestine 
Listserv: 

Re: Project for Pen-l

[Peter Dorman]

But then what's the point, Jim?  That neoclassicals have a better handle on
stuff than Ricardo did?  I'm sure you don't mean this, but I don't know what you
do mean.

Peter

"Devine, James" wrote:

> > Peter Dorman writes:
> > >... Forget about Ricardo.  This stuff is interesting from a history of
> > thought point of view, but modern trade theory differs from Ricardian
> theory
> > in important ways.  Some of the criticisms lefties have hurled at Ricardo
> > bounce off the modern folks...<
>
> I wrote:
> > however, Ricardo may be relevant to pedagogy. For example, it is really
> easy
> > to explain the standard 2x2 Ricardian matrix and then say: what happens if
> > Portugal decides to _change_ its comparative advantage? (Why should the
> > secretary put up with specializing in filing, typing, etc.? why not learn
> > how to be a boss?) in addition to this issue of dynamic comparative
> > advantage, how about: suppose that some of the workers from Portugal _move
> > to_ England, so that the labor productivity numbers apply to them. Then
> it's
> > easy to show that the rise in the production in England exceeds the loss
> of
> > production in Portugal (unless there extreme diminishing returns to labor,
> > so that England's labor productivity falls and Portugal's rise,
> > significantly).
>
> Peter ripostes:
> But this was my point.  Mobility of capital (and therefore endogenous
> changes in
> cost structures) and labor are built into the modern theory.  There are
> models
> with one, the other and both.  And Krugman et al. have introduced economies
> of
> scale and agglomeration, first mover advantage, etc.  Unless your critique
> stands up to those models, you are not really debating neoclassical trade
> theory.
>
> I re-riposte: I don't see anything wrong with using neoclassical theory
> against other Ricardo, as long as it's on the pedagogical level.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Interventions and NPR

[DOUG ORR]

Since I have logged back on temporarily, I have a question I have been wanting
to ask since 9-11.  About a year or so ago, someone posted to PEN-L a list
of US interventions around the world, with just a little bit of detail about
each one.  I thought I had saved it, but I can't find it anywhere.  Does 
someone still have a copy they could forward to me.  Thanks.

On that note, on NPR Morning Edition yesterday, they were doing a story about
once powerful corporations that are now in trouble and they discussed
Chiquita.  As part of the story, they mentioned that in the early 1950s,
the United Fruit Co was so powerful that they were able to get the US 
government to overthrow the elected government of Guatamala.  What was amazing
about the story was that they reported this as if there was nothing out
of the ordinary about it.  We have gone a long way back to the old world
view that the US government can overthrow any government it wants and even
the so called liberal media doesn't bat an eye.

Thanks for any help on the interventions list.

Doug Orr

Rakesh on Rogin

[Michael Perelman]

Rakesh asked me to forward this to the list:

My undergrad thesis advisor UC Berkeley political scientist Michael
Rogin who was for me, as many others, the one person who set me on
the trail of radical thought recently passed away from what appears
to be hepatitis contracted in St Petersburg.

In his lectures on American political theory, he brought alive the
Federalist papers while he also mocked, though in the most analytical
way, Ronald Reagan whose reign demonstrated how reality was now
mediated through film. In studies of literature and cinema, he
uncovered for us the American tradition  which Louis Hartz had only
dimly recognized and that dare not speak its
name--counter-subversion.

In the mid 1980s he had already recognized
how counter-terrorism had become the means through which the American
tradition of counter-subversion would be updated and reinforced. He
signed off on my  undergraduate thesis that defended the work of
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky who had been his partner Prof Ann
Banfield's dissertation advisor. Yet he himself refused above all
else any strictly economic or reductionist analysis of authoritarian
and counter-subversive political culture; he may have invented
American cultural studies but was ambivalent about the apolitical
directions in which the field was headed.

In his brilliant lectures,  American history was illuminated from the
perspective at the  margins--indians, debtors, radical proletarians,
unruly women,  swarthy immigrants, oppressed minorities, blacks above
all else. I
clutched  to his writings as his letter allowed me to go off to
Harvard to study political theory. But he had already made of  me too
great of a radical to listen in silence to the likes of Samuel
Huntington, so I dropped out soon thereafter. But due his influence,
as well as that of Hanna Pitkin's, Paul Thomas' and Norman
Jacobsen's, I loved political theory so I did not leave before
writing for my master's thesis on
the meaning of Plato's allowance of women into guardianship in the
Republic. Meeting with him over the summer,  Prof Rogin helped me
develop my ideas on Vlastos, Pomeroy, Okin and many others.

When I told him that I had over the years gone deeper into Marx and
*Capital* in particular, he proudly reminded me of his father's work
as labor organizer; his uncle Leo Rogin had been a radical historian
of economic thought in the 30s.  We will find in the coming months
how far and wide his brilliant candle shone. For me he opened up the
world of radical Freudianism and uninhibited Marxism.   He gave me
the confidence to beat down the barriers of race and caste  while
still allowing me to understand how very formative of our American
culture racial anxieties and bad faith have been. More than anyone,
he showed me the path to become a man of this world by seeing in the
struggles of the oppressed the source of our humanity and happiness.
I owe so very much to him.

In sorrow, Rakesh Bhandari

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: Project for Pen-l

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Peter Dorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> As far as I know, Gar, trade theory is still in a comparative static
world, so
> speed of adjustment issues don't arise.  Does anyone know if
recursive analysis or
> other dynamic techniques have been applied to trade?
>
> Peter

==

More.

Stephen Redding
 "Dynamic Comparative Advantage and the Welfare Effects of Trade",
Oxford Economic Papers, 51, January, 15-39.

from same author:

< http://econ.lse.ac.uk/~sredding/papers/specrev4dist.pdf >

Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Project for Pen-l

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Peter Dorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 3:55 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20205] Re: Re: RE: Re: Project for Pen-l


> As far as I know, Gar, trade theory is still in a comparative static
world, so
> speed of adjustment issues don't arise.  Does anyone know if
recursive analysis or
> other dynamic techniques have been applied to trade?
>
> Peter
>
==

< http://cidei.eco.uniroma1.it/~degit5/ >

Ian

Re: RE: Trade & Environment

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



> could you give us some idea of what this essays says? (one or two
> sentences?)
>

===

That the EKC hypothesis is too weak to be of use in determining
whether international trade will improve environmental conditions and,
to the extent proponent of 'globalization' and 'weak sustainable
development' WTO included rely on said hypothesis, their arguments are
flawed. That the WTO neglects ecological systems and human impacts is
regarded as a pretty big strike against the manner in which it
analyzes trade flows. Additionally, "the globalization result that
most would want is one in which the global environment and all local
environments improve as well as the welfare of all nations. However
free trade is unlikely to achieve all thes objectives simultaneously."
It's got a good bibliography too.


Ian

RE: Re: What is to be done about Everything?

[Brownson, Jamil]

"what would i do if i were in charge," is an unfair question because of many
reasons. Nevertheless, we can speculate as to what is the "right" thing to
do. All I can say is that it would be morally right to convene a world court
to examine all the evidence against all parties, including the USA. But once
again, fairness loses its place in the American character when unenlightened
self-interest (false consciousness) takes over, and being a bully on one
hand while selectively giving out candy with the other is the normative
response.  

-Original Message-
From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 7:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20178] Re: What is to be done about Everything?


Gar:

>Carrol - I think you are overlooking the demand here. We are dealing 
>with a government doing the wrong thing against terrorist who have 
>killed a lot of people in the U.S. and successfully terrorized them. 
>We are opposed to the evil things this government is doing in 
>response. We need to be able to answer the question: "what would 
>you do if you were in charge?".  People simply will not consider 
>anyone a serious critic who refuses to answer this question.

The subjunctive gives you away.  The question is not serious as it is 
contrary to facts.
-- 
Yoshie

* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: 

* Anti-War Activist Resources:

* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 

RE: project for Pen-l

[enilsson]

Peter wrote

> Absolute advantage matters enormously, 
> because that's the basis for the "race
> to the bottom" argument.  In a comparative 
> advantage world, such a race is impossible.

(I'll return to Jim's longer post later as I have to read it).

I partly agree with you. If the race to the bottom strategy can work, then
what of those in on left who favor absolute advantage? Do they admit that such 
an approach might work (that is, be profitable) within a capitalist framework? 
At least mainstream economists reject the race to the bottom approach.

But in any case the race to the bottom might work in a CA framework also -- it 
depends on how the exchange rate is set and how it responds to changes in 
trade. Also, it might work for particular industries (to the potential harm of 
other domestic industries).

Eric

RE: Re: RE: Re: Project for Pen-l

[Devine, James]

> Peter Dorman writes:
> >... Forget about Ricardo.  This stuff is interesting from a history of
> thought point of view, but modern trade theory differs from Ricardian
theory
> in important ways.  Some of the criticisms lefties have hurled at Ricardo
> bounce off the modern folks...<

I wrote:
> however, Ricardo may be relevant to pedagogy. For example, it is really
easy
> to explain the standard 2x2 Ricardian matrix and then say: what happens if
> Portugal decides to _change_ its comparative advantage? (Why should the
> secretary put up with specializing in filing, typing, etc.? why not learn
> how to be a boss?) in addition to this issue of dynamic comparative
> advantage, how about: suppose that some of the workers from Portugal _move
> to_ England, so that the labor productivity numbers apply to them. Then
it's
> easy to show that the rise in the production in England exceeds the loss
of
> production in Portugal (unless there extreme diminishing returns to labor,
> so that England's labor productivity falls and Portugal's rise,
> significantly).

Peter ripostes:
But this was my point.  Mobility of capital (and therefore endogenous
changes in
cost structures) and labor are built into the modern theory.  There are
models
with one, the other and both.  And Krugman et al. have introduced economies
of
scale and agglomeration, first mover advantage, etc.  Unless your critique
stands up to those models, you are not really debating neoclassical trade
theory.

I re-riposte: I don't see anything wrong with using neoclassical theory
against other Ricardo, as long as it's on the pedagogical level.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

RE: Project for Pen-l

[Brownson, Jamil]

Excellent post on the WSSD vs WTO, and analysis of who wins who loses. This
zero-sum game is the exact opposite of all the intents underlying
Sustainable Development as proposed by the UNCED, Brundtland Report & Agenda
21. 

At this point the USA operates on a might-makes-right neo-liberal agenda,
following a worst case scenario of interpreting Smith, Malthus & Ricardo. If
I were a true conspiratorialist, I might think that the US engineered 911
through infiltrating al qu'eda in order to derail WSSD 2002. But although
not being afflicted by such theorizing, I have also having given up hope of
the US being anything other that a rogue state when it comes to sustainable
development that might harmonize humanity and the environment. While that is
also depressing, I do see WSSD as a forum at which to challenge US
neoliberal policies and practices. Unfortunately the thick skinned
whitecollar rednecks who run USA Inc., do not shame easily, so that strategy
has little chance of embarassing them into compliance with even the most
modest proposals for sustainable development. 

 At this moment my first strategic thought woud be to combine legal
challenges in the World Court against WTO and pro Agenda 21 with class
action law suits, boycotts, and demonstrations. But history tells me that
the enemy -- the neoliberal US ruling elite--has deep enough pockets filled
with tax dollars to buy all the lawyers they need, but probably won't even
bother to respond, and just tell everyone else to sod off. 

Alternatively, we could organize a People's WTO, and parallel to WSSD hold
an international meeting of NGO & public interest groups from all over the
world to critique WTO & suport Agenda 21. If not that, what?

jb



-Original Message-
From: Rob Schaap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 5:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20177] Project for Pen-l

Re: RE: project for Pen-l

[Peter Dorman]

Eric,

Absolute advantage matters enormously, because that's the basis for the "race to the
bottom" argument.  In a comparative advantage world, such a race is impossible.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I'm uncertain of the importance of arguing for absolute advantage. Such
> arguments might fall into a false dilemma--you're either for comparative
> advantage or for absolute advantage. And, I guess the underlying argument is,
> that since the neoclassicals have claimed comparative advantage "we" must take
> the other side, absolute advantage.

Re: Re: RE: Re: Project for Pen-l

[Peter Dorman]

As far as I know, Gar, trade theory is still in a comparative static world, so
speed of adjustment issues don't arise.  Does anyone know if recursive analysis or
other dynamic techniques have been applied to trade?

Peter

Gar Lipow wrote:

> It strikes me that there is an information  theory critique possible of
> too free a market in capital flows that may be supplementary to the
> other  criticims. (This applies to both international and national
> capital markets.) If markets are looked at as feedback mechanisms, then
> you have a problem anytime the capability for feedback exceeds the
> ability to respond. For example capital can be pulled out of firms, or
> entire nations or entire regions in a matter of minutes. But the actual
> means of production -- even in service industries -- cannot shift nearly
> so fast.  So it is like driving a car with an oversensitive steering
> mechanism, so that you cannot drive inside the lines, because the
> slightest pressure on the wheel takes you across four lane. Is this at a
> all a useful supplementary critique? Is this one of arguments used for
> the Tobin tax? Is there some standard economic term for excessive feedback?
>
> Devine, James wrote:
>
> > Peter Dorman writes:
> >
> >
> >>... Forget about Ricardo.  This stuff is interesting from a history of
> >>
> > thought point of view, but modern trade theory differs from Ricardian theory
> > in important ways.  Some of the criticisms lefties have hurled at Ricardo
> > bounce off the modern folks...<
> >
> > however, Ricardo may be relevant to pedagogy. For example, it is really easy
> > to explain the standard 2x2 Ricardian matrix and then say: what happens if
> > Portugal decides to _change_ its comparative advantage? (Why should the
> > secretary put up with specializing in filing, typing, etc.? why not learn
> > how to be a boss?) in addition to this issue of dynamic comparative
> > advantage, how about: suppose that some of the workers from Portugal _move
> > to_ England, so that the labor productivity numbers apply to them. Then it's
> > easy to show that the rise in the production in England exceeds the loss of
> > production in Portugal (unless there extreme diminishing returns to labor,
> > so that England's labor productivity falls and Portugal's rise,
> > significantly).
> >
> >
> >>In the end, economic persuasion comes down to simple stories-fables,
> >>
> > metaphors, or even bumper stickers-that encapsulate more complicated visions
> > of how the world does or ought to work.  The doctrine of free, unregulated
> > trade has succeeded magnificently on this terrain.  Why, we are asked,
> > should anyone want to interfere with trade?  No trade would ever take place
> > unless it were in the interest of both parties, so how can the sum of all
> > such trades be any less than the sum of all those advantages?  If someone in
> > a foreign country can make a good cheaper than you can make it at home, why
> > would you be so foolish as to not buy it?  After all, among local stores you
> > would shop at the one that charges a lower price.  And the theory of
> > comparative advantage appears as nothing more than the obvious truth that
> > two people, combining their efforts and specializing in what they do best,
> > can produce more than they could singly.<
> >
> > one comment -- which is quite in line with Joan Robinson's ideas as Peter
> > explained them -- is that the discussion above refers not to gains from
> > trade _per se_ but to gains from specialization and cooperation. A simple
> > analysis of solutions to the "economic problem" suggests that trade need not
> > be the only solution: we could also rely on "command" (state control) or
> > "tradition." Further, I add "decentralized command" (mafias, corporations,
> > etc.) and "decentralized or grass-roots democracy" to the list, while
> > combinations are possible, such as grass-roots democratic control of the
> > state.
> >
> > Jim Devine
> >
> >
> >

Re: Re: Project for Pen-l

[Peter Dorman]

It would be interesting to have a discussion about the merits of the "new" trade
theory.  My opinion as of now is that there is not much there for progressives.  At
best, this theory shows how one part of the world can profit at the expense of
another.  Wonderful.  And, as the theorists say as they backpedal, optimal
protection has little room for error, and it is unlikely that real-world
governments would design their policies so objectively and precisely.  This may be
an exaggeration, but, in the end, I think the new trade theory will go down in
history as an opportunity for some folks at publish or perish institutions to get a
few more articles in print.

Peter

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Peter wrote
>>Contrary to the ravings of its accolytes, [international
>>trade theory] is *not* a mathematic truth beyond debate...
>
> I haven't followed mainstream trade theory for about 15 years and, so I'm very
> out-of-date. All mainstream theories are moving targets and change constantly.
> But I think it is possible that the "top" mainstream trade theorists don't
> believe in the "proof" of the benefits of free trade.
>
> It seems to me that since the mid-1960s are large mainstream literature has
> developed which shows that, in principle, many types of trade interventions
> might benefit a country. Support for "free trade" from mainstream trade
> theorists comes mostly from their political theory -- that interest groups will
> hijack any trade intervention to help themselves at the expense of the nation.
>
> The problem is, however, that when any big name economist is trotted out in
> front of the public they CLAIM they support free trade for economic reasons
> when, in fact, I believe they are lying. They know the economic support for
> trade trade just ain't there. But to keep their membership in the AEA they know
> they have to claim economic support for free trade.
>
> Some have said, I think--or maybe I imagined this--, that if we tell people in
> public that some trade interventions might benefit the nation then we won't be
> able to stop the flood gates from opening and mostly bad trade interventions
> will happen due to interest group power. As a result the responsible thing to
> do is to lie to the public about the wonders of free trade.
>
> Eric

Re: RE: Re: Project for Pen-l

[Peter Dorman]

"Devine, James" wrote:

> Peter Dorman writes:
>
> >... Forget about Ricardo.  This stuff is interesting from a history of
> thought point of view, but modern trade theory differs from Ricardian theory
> in important ways.  Some of the criticisms lefties have hurled at Ricardo
> bounce off the modern folks...<
>
> however, Ricardo may be relevant to pedagogy. For example, it is really easy
> to explain the standard 2x2 Ricardian matrix and then say: what happens if
> Portugal decides to _change_ its comparative advantage? (Why should the
> secretary put up with specializing in filing, typing, etc.? why not learn
> how to be a boss?) in addition to this issue of dynamic comparative
> advantage, how about: suppose that some of the workers from Portugal _move
> to_ England, so that the labor productivity numbers apply to them. Then it's
> easy to show that the rise in the production in England exceeds the loss of
> production in Portugal (unless there extreme diminishing returns to labor,
> so that England's labor productivity falls and Portugal's rise,
> significantly).

But this was my point.  Mobility of capital (and therefore endogenous changes in
cost structures) and labor are built into the modern theory.  There are models
with one, the other and both.  And Krugman et al. have introduced economies of
scale and agglomeration, first mover advantage, etc.  Unless your critique
stands up to those models, you are not really debating neoclassical trade
theory.

Peter

job openning

[DOUG ORR]

Greetings,
I have been off the list for quite a while.  I have been too busy to 
keep up with the traffic.  I have signed back on to make sure that
everybody knows about two potential job opennings at EWU.

The announcement is in the Nov. JOE and I will include it below.  With all
of the budget problems, I assume that job authorizations are
up in the air nation wide.  We THINK we will get final authorization next
week.

Our department has shrunk during the past few years due to retirements,
deaths and two people going into government positions.  We are trying to 
replace two of them.  In the past, the department has had a heterodox
majority, but the neoclassical wing is hoping to use the new hires to
swing the department in a new direction.  I and other hope to rebuild 
the old majority.

Some very exciting things might be in our future.  The President of the
univ. wants to fund the creation of a Institute of Regional Forecasting and
Policy Analysis.  Several current members of the dept have regional and
forecasting backgrounds, but is a candidate was very strong in this area
it would give them an advantage.

The JOE ad indicates fields are quite open.  The dept is still debating
which fields we most desire.  Everyone in the dept. is required to 
teach both micro and macro principles and an upper division service course
for the B-school, either intermediate micro, macro or money and banking.
The ad below mentions teaching applied econometrics, but we haven't taught
that course in at least five years and probably won't be soon.
We also get to teach two sections in our personal fields each year.
We are on the quarter system and classes are 5CR.  The normal course
load is 2-2-3.

If you are interested and have questions, please contact me by email.
If you have already applied or are planning on applying, also please 
contact me.  I will be in Atlanta and will be participating in the 
interview process.  Since our authorization is coming so late, we will
be accepting applications up to the end of Dec., but I will be off campus
from Dec 17 on.  If your application will get here after that, please
contact me so I can get a copy off campus.

Hope to hear from you.

Doug Orr
Associate Prof.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

JOE advertizement --

A1 General Economics 
D0 Microeconomics 
E0 Macroeconomics & Monetary Economics 
H0 Public Economics 
L0 Industrial Organization 
O0 Economic Development, Technological Change, & Growth 
R0 Urban, Rural, Regional Economics 

The Economics Department invites applications for one, possibly 
two, tenure track assistant professor positions beginning in
September 2002, contingent on budget availability and 
administrative approval. Teaching duties will cover the usual 
courses
and some combination of micro theory, macro theory, money and 
banking, public finance, applied micro, or applied
econometrics. Special consideration will be given to candidates 
with prior experience in regional forecasting or with bureau of
business and economic research type experience. Applicants must 
have a Ph.D. in economics or firm expected completion date
and evidence of successful teaching experience. 

RE: RE: project for Pen-l

[Devine, James]

Eric writes: >I'm uncertain of the importance of arguing for absolute
advantage. Such arguments might fall into a false dilemma--you're either for
comparative advantage or for absolute advantage. And, I guess the underlying
argument is, that since the neoclassicals have claimed comparative advantage
"we" must take the other side, absolute advantage. I'm not in favor of
comparative advantage as imagined in mainstream theory but there are
alternatives to simply accepting "the alternative" absolute advantage.<

I don't get this at all. Just because theory X is opposed by bringing up Y
doesn't mean that we have to get into either/or type thinking. Why can't one
say that Y+Z is the better theory and that by building up Y, one can move
toward this Y+Z. Alternatively, we might find that Y+Z+some elements of X is
the superior theory. In which case, looking at Y helps. Or maybe there's
another theory that hasn't been thought up yet which is better than the
currently dominant X, so that taking the job of considering alternatives
seriously is productive. 

There's a difference between proposing an alternative theory and getting
into the standard academic and/or sectarian approach of "my Theory is better
than yours." 

>Jim tries to save Shaikh by proposing the use of fiat money rather than
gold. But are their different currencies in Shaikh's theory? I can't
recollect. A theory of international trade without different currencies is a
bit odd, I think. (If indeed that is what Shaikh has proposed).<

his theory involves the gold standard, which can involve alternative
"convertible" currencies. I proposed the dollar standard (which has
prevailed, more or less, since World War II), which can involve alternative
convertible currencies.

One of things I like about his theory of absolute advantage is that Shaikh
rejects the pre-Keynesian dichotomy between the monetary and "real" spheres,
so that money plays and important role. 

>Although Shaikh has written much on trade related issues since the 1970s,
he still seems to see his role are arguing for absolute advantage. But what
is the theoretical point of this except to rebut the mainstream? Why must an
alternative theory of the economy rest on absolute advantage? <

what's wrong with rebutting the mainstream? (I thought that was what this
whole thread was about.) what's wrong with absolute advantage? (The latter
is the question I started this sub-thread with.) 

>I'm only aware of some of Shaikh's empirical work. But isn't much of this
generating magnitudes of things based in terms of labor values rather than
empirical work that "tests" claims about absolute advantage? <

a lot of his work concerns international trade and finance, though I'm not
an expert on his work. 

>Perhaps his main motivation is the 1960s and 70s interest in "paradigms":
you have your paradigm and we have ours. We seek to develop an internally
consistent paradigm that differs from yours. We need not "prove" that our
paradigm is "better" because, after all, we know Kuhn said that the choice
between paradigms is partially nonrational and social. And, so, forget any
empirical studies showing we explain things better. Our paradigm is not
better; it is just different.<

In his international finance stuff (explaining exchange rate changes), his
effort is on empirical explanation, arguing that his and his co-authors'
theory is better than the orthodoxy. He doesn't get into the
non-comparability of paradigms at all in that work, though it's possible he
does elsewhere. The sorta postmodern incompraability of paradigms doesn't
seem Shaikh's style as far as I know it. 

RE: project for Pen-l

[enilsson]

I'm uncertain of the importance of arguing for absolute advantage. Such 
arguments might fall into a false dilemma--you're either for comparative 
advantage or for absolute advantage. And, I guess the underlying argument is, 
that since the neoclassicals have claimed comparative advantage "we" must take 
the other side, absolute advantage.

I'm not in favor of comparative advantage as imagined in mainstream theory but 
there are alternatives to simply accepting "the alternative" absolute advantage.

Jim tries to save Shaikh by proposing the use of fiat money rather than gold. 
But are their different currencies in Shaikh's theory? I can't recollect. A 
theory of international trade without different currencies is a bit odd, I 
think. (If indeed that is what Shaikh has proposed).

Although Shaikh has written much on trade related issues since the 1970s, he 
still seems to see his role are arguing for absolute advantage. But what is the 
theoretical point of this except to rebut the mainstream? Why must an 
alternative theory of the economy rest on absolute advantage? 

I'm only aware of some of Shaikh's empirical work. But isn't much of this 
generating magnitudes of things based in terms of labor values rather than 
empirical work that "tests" claims about absolute advantage? 

Perhaps his main motivation is the 1960s and 70s interest in "paradigms": you 
have your paradigm and we have ours. We seek to develop an internally 
consistent paradigm that differs from yours. We need not "prove" that our 
paradigm is "better" because, after all, we know Kuhn said that the choice 
between paradigms is partially nonrational and social. And, so, forget any 
empirical studies showing we explain things better. Our paradigm is not better; 
it is just different.

Eric

RE: Re: A project for Pen-l -- Krugman point

[Max Sawicky]

. . . Krugman's work is similar to that for an "optimal tariff" in that it
is
possible to, theoretically, identify a government intervention into trade
that makes the nation (doing the intervention) "better off." But the
response of Krugman . . .



This parallels a layer of public choice thinking that similarly
doubts the efficacy of anti-trust, regulation, public provision, etc.
Obviously if we are going to make comparisons, we would
compare real-world "deregulation" and its nominal
opposite.

I raised it, though, because free trade is itself put forward
in a bowdlerized academic form in the political arena.
You hear about wine and wool in newspaper columns.
When Gary Becker was asked why he supported the
Bush Campaign's tax cuts, he advised reporters to
consult a Principles of Economics textbook.  So
counter-models in this vein are not without practical
usefulness.

mbs

BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

> BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2001:
> 
> RELEASED TODAY:  In October 2001, there were 1,816 mass layoff actions by
> employers as measured by new filings for unemployment insurance benefits
> during the month, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
> Each action involved at least 50 persons from a single establishment, and
> the number of workers involved totaled 212,695.  The number of layoff
> events and initial claimants for unemployment insurance were the highest
> for the month of October since the series began in April 1995.  Over the
> January-October 2001 period, the total number of events, at 16,221, and
> initial claims at 1,935,871, were substantially higher than in
> January-October 2000, at 11,364 and 1,292,335, respectively.
> 
> Economic statistics are subject to revision, and a lot are being revised
> these days, points out Floyd Norris in The New York Times (page C1).  The
> government previously decided that neither corporate profits nor
> productivity improvements were nearly as good as they appeared to be in
> 1999 and 2000.  And now the industrial production numbers have been
> sharply revised downward.  "The new numbers show industrial production was
> dramatically overestimated, particularly in the high-technology area,"
> said John Vail, the chief strategist of Fuji Futures, a financial futures
> firm in Chicago.  The Federal Reserve, in announcing the changes, said
> that "the new estimates show less rapid gains in the output of
> semiconductors, computers and peripherals."  To be sure, there was a boom
> in those industries, but it was not as great as had been thought.  And
> what investors and consumers knew as the longest economic expansion in
> American history was a period that was not as good as we thought it was,
> but it was still pretty good.  Today jobs continue to vanish at a rapid
> pace, with more people collecting unemployment insurance than at any time
> since the 1982-83 recession.  That number has risen more than 70 percent
> over the last year, a rate of growth not seem since the brutal 1973-75
> downturn.  Help-wanted advertising has fallen to a 37-year low.  But the
> unemployment rate, at 5.4 percent, is half of what it was in 1982.  The
> latest Conference Board consumer confidence survey showed that more people
> still think jobs are plentiful than think that jobs are hard to get.  The
> optimism born of the late 1990's boom was exaggerated, but it will take
> time for investors and consumers to conclude that was the case. 
> 
> "Have you been invited?  If not, you might want to ask why.  Suddenly,
> this holiday shopping season, special invitation-only promotions are
> everywhere" writes Leslie Kaufman in The New York Times (page C1).   Such
> sales, which usually include only friends and relatives of store employees
> and sometimes its best customers, are far more exclusive than the private
> sales to which department stores have long invited everyone who holds
> their credit card.  Their spread is a sign of just how soft sales are this
> season for fashion retailers and how jaded consumers have become to
> regular markdowns. "It is really new at the specialty-store level this
> year," says John D. Morris, a retail analyst with Gerard Klauer Mattison,
> "and it is revealing.  It's a signal that the stores have to find even new
> and different ways to entice the consumer inside."
> 
> Orders for durable goods rose more in October than in any other month in
> the last 9 years and new home sales unexpectedly increased, according to
> government reports.  The 12.8 percent rise in durable goods orders rise
> was led by increased bookings for weapons, ships, jet fighters and cars.
> Sales of new homes rose 0.2 percent, to an annual rate of 880,000 houses,
> the fastest pace in 4 months.  The Labor Department reported new claims
> for unemployment benefits rose for the first time in 5 weeks, and that the
> number of people continuing to draw benefits in the week ended November 17
> jumped to 4 million, the highest in 19 years, from 3.7 million (Bloomberg
> News, The New York Times, page C5).
> 
> Hard hit business investment showed signs of life last month as new orders
> for nonmilitary capital equipment, led by technology, rose for the first
> time since March, though the underlying trend remains weak.  At the same
> time, a jump in jobless claims and drop in help-wanted advertising
> suggested that unemployment is headed higher, though a rise in new home
> sales offered an encouraging sign that consumers are still willing to make
> big-ticket purchases (The Wall Street Journal, page A2).
> 
> New jobless claims for the week ending Nov. 24 reached 488,000, an
> increase of 54,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 434,000,
> according to figures released Nov. 29 by the Labor Department's Employment
> and Training Administration. "We believe payroll employment will fall by
> 150,000 in November and the u

RE: Shaikh's theory of trade

[Forstater, Mathew]

I agree that Ricardo's trade theory and neoclassical trade theory are
very different.  But that doesn't make Ricardo's irrelevant.  It is true
that a critique of one does not necessarily imply a critique of the
other.  For Ricardo, comparative advantage was rooted in different
technical conditions of production.  This is because since he had a
labor theory of value, the different costs/prices reflected differences
in productivity.  In HOS theory, one of the assumptions is identical
technologies.  So they assume away one of the most important real world
facts that need to be explained--differences in productivity and
technical conditions in different countries and different groups of
countries.  Of course, Ricardo's weakness was that he didn't explain the
causes of the different technical conditions.  But what was a weakness
in Ricardo becomes a major ommission in HOS.

I disagree that Shaikh's theory has no relevance to the real
contemporary world.  Some of his Levy (and New School) papers (including
additional ones not mentioned in his note, some co-authored) are
empirical papers. And they are not tests of Britain and Portugal 200
years ago. So I don't see how this work can be mistaken for 'mere'
history of thought.  Shaikh and many in the New School tradition are not
historians of thought for its own sake (primarily). They are interested
in the history of ideas as the basis for alternative paradigms for
understanding the contemporary political economy.  I agree that assuming
a commodity money has its problems. But I am not convinced that the
usefulness of Shaikh's framework hinges on a metalist standard.


-Original Message-
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:   Fri 11/30/2001 5:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 
Subject:[PEN-L:20192] Shaikh's theory of trade

Re Jim's question
  
  >what is your evaluation of Anwar Shaikh's theory of
  >absolute advantage dominating the process of 
  >international trade? 

I have never found it compelling. First, along with Peter Dorman, I
doubt the 
wisdom of beating up on Ricardo's trade theory as very little of
Ricardo's 
approach remains in mainstream theory. Perhaps the only thing that
remains is 
the term "comparative advantage," which means very different things to
Ricardo 
and to the mainstream. To Ricardo comparative advantage is some primal 
characteristic of nations which explains the pattern of trade; to the 
mainstream comparative advantage is simply a statement about relative
prices 
and these relative prices are determined by things that preceed
comparative 
advantage.

Second, Shaikh's story rests on a very strange monetary mechanism (if I 
recollect correctly). His critique of Ricardo serves merely as a
debating point 
in a debate that the mainstream has little interest in and a debate
which 
doesn't really say much about real world trade patterns.  

I would go so far as to claim that the debate over "comparative
advantage 
versus absolute advantage" does not help enlighten much our
understanding of 
the pattern of trade or its effect.

I find more fruitful the notion that when different currencies exist,
relative 
prices do explain the pattern of trade between nations (absent all other
non-
market mechanisms explaing trade). Yet relative prices are themselves 
determined by lots of economics, political, social, and subjective
factors.

Eric

Re: RE: Re: Project for Pen-l

[Gar Lipow]

It strikes me that there is an information  theory critique possible of 
too free a market in capital flows that may be supplementary to the 
other  criticims. (This applies to both international and national 
capital markets.) If markets are looked at as feedback mechanisms, then 
you have a problem anytime the capability for feedback exceeds the 
ability to respond. For example capital can be pulled out of firms, or 
entire nations or entire regions in a matter of minutes. But the actual 
means of production -- even in service industries -- cannot shift nearly 
so fast.  So it is like driving a car with an oversensitive steering 
mechanism, so that you cannot drive inside the lines, because the 
slightest pressure on the wheel takes you across four lane. Is this at a 
all a useful supplementary critique? Is this one of arguments used for 
the Tobin tax? Is there some standard economic term for excessive feedback?

Devine, James wrote:

> Peter Dorman writes:
> 
> 
>>... Forget about Ricardo.  This stuff is interesting from a history of
>>
> thought point of view, but modern trade theory differs from Ricardian theory
> in important ways.  Some of the criticisms lefties have hurled at Ricardo
> bounce off the modern folks...<
> 
> however, Ricardo may be relevant to pedagogy. For example, it is really easy
> to explain the standard 2x2 Ricardian matrix and then say: what happens if
> Portugal decides to _change_ its comparative advantage? (Why should the
> secretary put up with specializing in filing, typing, etc.? why not learn
> how to be a boss?) in addition to this issue of dynamic comparative
> advantage, how about: suppose that some of the workers from Portugal _move
> to_ England, so that the labor productivity numbers apply to them. Then it's
> easy to show that the rise in the production in England exceeds the loss of
> production in Portugal (unless there extreme diminishing returns to labor,
> so that England's labor productivity falls and Portugal's rise,
> significantly). 
> 
> 
>>In the end, economic persuasion comes down to simple stories-fables,
>>
> metaphors, or even bumper stickers-that encapsulate more complicated visions
> of how the world does or ought to work.  The doctrine of free, unregulated
> trade has succeeded magnificently on this terrain.  Why, we are asked,
> should anyone want to interfere with trade?  No trade would ever take place
> unless it were in the interest of both parties, so how can the sum of all
> such trades be any less than the sum of all those advantages?  If someone in
> a foreign country can make a good cheaper than you can make it at home, why
> would you be so foolish as to not buy it?  After all, among local stores you
> would shop at the one that charges a lower price.  And the theory of
> comparative advantage appears as nothing more than the obvious truth that
> two people, combining their efforts and specializing in what they do best,
> can produce more than they could singly.<
> 
> one comment -- which is quite in line with Joan Robinson's ideas as Peter
> explained them -- is that the discussion above refers not to gains from
> trade _per se_ but to gains from specialization and cooperation. A simple
> analysis of solutions to the "economic problem" suggests that trade need not
> be the only solution: we could also rely on "command" (state control) or
> "tradition." Further, I add "decentralized command" (mafias, corporations,
> etc.) and "decentralized or grass-roots democracy" to the list, while
> combinations are possible, such as grass-roots democratic control of the
> state. 
> 
> Jim Devine
> 
> 
> 

Re: Project for Pen-l

[enilsson]

Peter wrote
   >Contrary to the ravings of its accolytes, [international
   >trade theory] is *not* a mathematic truth beyond debate...

I haven't followed mainstream trade theory for about 15 years and, so I'm very 
out-of-date. All mainstream theories are moving targets and change constantly. 
But I think it is possible that the "top" mainstream trade theorists don't 
believe in the "proof" of the benefits of free trade. 

It seems to me that since the mid-1960s are large mainstream literature has 
developed which shows that, in principle, many types of trade interventions 
might benefit a country. Support for "free trade" from mainstream trade 
theorists comes mostly from their political theory -- that interest groups will 
hijack any trade intervention to help themselves at the expense of the nation.

The problem is, however, that when any big name economist is trotted out in 
front of the public they CLAIM they support free trade for economic reasons 
when, in fact, I believe they are lying. They know the economic support for 
trade trade just ain't there. But to keep their membership in the AEA they know 
they have to claim economic support for free trade. 

Some have said, I think--or maybe I imagined this--, that if we tell people in 
public that some trade interventions might benefit the nation then we won't be 
able to stop the flood gates from opening and mostly bad trade interventions 
will happen due to interest group power. As a result the responsible thing to 
do is to lie to the public about the wonders of free trade.

Eric

RE: Shaikh's theory of trade

[Devine, James]

Eric writes: >... Shaikh's story rests on a very strange monetary mechanism
(if I recollect correctly). His critique of Ricardo serves merely as a
debating point in a debate that the mainstream has little interest in and a
debate which  doesn't really say much about real world trade patterns. <

I thought I answered this: Shaikh assumed that the international monetary
system used gold and that the country with absolute advantage had the gold
mines. But it is reasonable to replace this with a model in which fiat money
is used and that the country with absolute advantage issues the fiat money.
This fits with the role of the US after World War II, for example.

Of course, as Shaikh himself points out, his ideas have evolved since his
initial work. Among other things, he's produced a lot of empirical work on
this subject. See the bibiliography that I forwarded from him. 

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

RE: Big Capitalists & Slumps, a Query, was Re: Markets Antiwar?

[Devine, James]

>s a "pure capitalist" ( the abstract capitalist who operates in _Das
Kapital_) the capitalist must of course strive to increase profits,
avoid bankruptcy, etc etc etc. But as an individual, not a capitalist,
how much difference does it make to him/her usually?<

an individual capitalist could decide to "opt out," to drop all material
wealth and to live as in poverty or (more moderately) to give a lot of money
away. An individual worker, with responsibility and bills, has many fewer
choices. He or she can't decide to become rich the way a rich person can
(hypothetically) decide to be poor. 

Owning capital gives an individual power. In fact, this is one reason why
individual capitalists don't opt out. They want more power. 

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Shaikh's theory of trade

[enilsson]

Re Jim's question
  
  >what is your evaluation of Anwar Shaikh's theory of
  >absolute advantage dominating the process of 
  >international trade? 

I have never found it compelling. First, along with Peter Dorman, I doubt the 
wisdom of beating up on Ricardo's trade theory as very little of Ricardo's 
approach remains in mainstream theory. Perhaps the only thing that remains is 
the term "comparative advantage," which means very different things to Ricardo 
and to the mainstream. To Ricardo comparative advantage is some primal 
characteristic of nations which explains the pattern of trade; to the 
mainstream comparative advantage is simply a statement about relative prices 
and these relative prices are determined by things that preceed comparative 
advantage.

Second, Shaikh's story rests on a very strange monetary mechanism (if I 
recollect correctly). His critique of Ricardo serves merely as a debating point 
in a debate that the mainstream has little interest in and a debate which 
doesn't really say much about real world trade patterns.  

I would go so far as to claim that the debate over "comparative advantage 
versus absolute advantage" does not help enlighten much our understanding of 
the pattern of trade or its effect.

I find more fruitful the notion that when different currencies exist, relative 
prices do explain the pattern of trade between nations (absent all other non-
market mechanisms explaing trade). Yet relative prices are themselves 
determined by lots of economics, political, social, and subjective factors.

Eric

RE: Re: Project for Pen-l

[Devine, James]

Peter Dorman writes:

>... Forget about Ricardo.  This stuff is interesting from a history of
thought point of view, but modern trade theory differs from Ricardian theory
in important ways.  Some of the criticisms lefties have hurled at Ricardo
bounce off the modern folks...<

however, Ricardo may be relevant to pedagogy. For example, it is really easy
to explain the standard 2x2 Ricardian matrix and then say: what happens if
Portugal decides to _change_ its comparative advantage? (Why should the
secretary put up with specializing in filing, typing, etc.? why not learn
how to be a boss?) in addition to this issue of dynamic comparative
advantage, how about: suppose that some of the workers from Portugal _move
to_ England, so that the labor productivity numbers apply to them. Then it's
easy to show that the rise in the production in England exceeds the loss of
production in Portugal (unless there extreme diminishing returns to labor,
so that England's labor productivity falls and Portugal's rise,
significantly). 

>In the end, economic persuasion comes down to simple stories-fables,
metaphors, or even bumper stickers-that encapsulate more complicated visions
of how the world does or ought to work.  The doctrine of free, unregulated
trade has succeeded magnificently on this terrain.  Why, we are asked,
should anyone want to interfere with trade?  No trade would ever take place
unless it were in the interest of both parties, so how can the sum of all
such trades be any less than the sum of all those advantages?  If someone in
a foreign country can make a good cheaper than you can make it at home, why
would you be so foolish as to not buy it?  After all, among local stores you
would shop at the one that charges a lower price.  And the theory of
comparative advantage appears as nothing more than the obvious truth that
two people, combining their efforts and specializing in what they do best,
can produce more than they could singly.<

one comment -- which is quite in line with Joan Robinson's ideas as Peter
explained them -- is that the discussion above refers not to gains from
trade _per se_ but to gains from specialization and cooperation. A simple
analysis of solutions to the "economic problem" suggests that trade need not
be the only solution: we could also rely on "command" (state control) or
"tradition." Further, I add "decentralized command" (mafias, corporations,
etc.) and "decentralized or grass-roots democracy" to the list, while
combinations are possible, such as grass-roots democratic control of the
state. 

Jim Devine

Big Capitalists & Slumps, a Query, was Re: Markets Antiwar?

[Carrol Cox]

Dennis Breslin wrote:
> 
> 
> Citizen Raimondo seems to have mislaid his copy of Schumpeter.
> Isn't the point of being an ordinary capitalist to have the right
> connections and besides aren't they all the generals, general
> dynamics, general electric, general motors, general mills, general foods,
> connecticut general who don't do so badly in wartime?
> 

I've never read anything on how well or badly the ruling 2% or so of the
population, as a collection of individuals, live during even severe
depressions. I do know that when Mrs. Dodge inherited $50 million on the
death of her husband in 1936 she put the entire amount into municipal
bonds and lived very well off the (tax free) interest. It hardly
concerned   her how Chrysler made or lost money.

As a "pure capitalist" ( the abstract capitalist who operates in _Das
Kapital_) the capitalist must of course strive to increase profits,
avoid bankruptcy, etc etc etc. But as an individual, not a capitalist,
how much difference does it make to him/her usually?

Carrol

FW: Shaikh's theory of trade

[Devine, James]

Anwar Shaikh asked me to forward the following to the list. 

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

-Original Message-
From: Anwar Shaikh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Shaikh's theory of trade

Jim

Thanks for the email. My argument on absolute vs comparative advantage
has advanced considerably since the 1978-1979 papers you appear to cite.
All of this is on my personal homepage at 
http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/ 

The relevant articles are listed below. I would be most grateful if you
would pass on this information to  any others interested in this, or
other topics such as inflation, growth, effective demand, etc. on which
I have material. Thanks. 

1. On the basic theory:

 i. Free Trade, Unemployment and Economic Policy. (1995) 
   in Unemployment, John Eatwell (ed.),
   M.E. Sharpe 


 ii.   Real Exchange Rates and The International Mobility of Capital.
(1999)  
   Working Paper No. 265, The Jerome
   Levy Economics Institute of Bard
   College.

2. On the empirical application to exchange rates

 Explaining Long-Term Exchange Rate
   Behavior in the United States and
   Japan. (1998) 
   Working Paper No. 250, The Jerome
   Levy Economics Institute of Bard
   College.

3. On the US Trade Deficit

Understanding the U.S. Trade Deficit (1999)  
   Testimony before the Trade Deficit
   Review Commission. Washington, D.C.
   December, 1999. 

Anwar Shaikh
Professor
Department of Economics
Graduate Faculty
New School University
65 Fifth Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10003
Tel: 212 229-5729
Fax: 212 229-5724
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh

Re: Re: Re: RE: What is to be done about Everything?

[Gar Lipow]

Sorry - did no realize this was a closed topic. I have replied to 
several comments on my comments - but now that I see your post will 
reply to no more on this list.

Michael Perelman wrote:

> I thought that we had put this to bed.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 08:43:51PM -0800, Gar Lipow wrote:
> 
>>In response to a post by Carroll, I said:
>>
>>
>>>We>need to be able to answer the question: "what would  you do if you were
>>>in charge?". 
>>>
>>Devine, James wrote in reply:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I sometimes say "this is what I would do if I were in charge" (such as not
>>>terror-bombing Afghanistan) but I immediately qualify this by stating that
>>>it's impossible that such policies would be implemented given the current
>>>balance of political power. The implication is that we need to change the
>>>balance of power (organize!). This is simplistic, but it's good enough for
>>>bumper-stickers. 
>>>
>>>
>>Right, you are making explicit something that is implicit in any radical 
>>political criticism -- that we should seek change in the political 
>>balance of power.
>>
>>
>>When you do this people always wonder if it is going to be a "meet the 
>>old boss, same as the new boss" situation. Or even more frightening, 
>>will radical change or revolution make things worse rather than better? 
>>That is why  there is an obligation to not merely to oppose what is 
>>wrong, but to suggest how things will change if we win our demands. 
>>There are cases , like Vietnam, when a purely negative program is 
>>enough. The demand to "get out of Vietnam" was an improvement for both 
>>the U.S. and Vietnam. But in a case like 911, I don't think a purely 
>>negative program is possible. Thousands of  people in the U.S. were 
>>killed in the course of a few hours.
>>
>>Carroll has the response that if he were in charge he would be a 
>>different person. But he is making demands that also require a drastic 
>>power shift. Why can he handle the negative hypothetical, but not the 
>>positive one?  The ability to win negative demands in a case like this 
>>would both imply and require the ability to win positive demands as 
>>well. To refuse to imagine some positive alternative is not a 
>>revolutionary defeatist, nor a pacifist position. It is not pessimism of 
>>the intellect, optimism of the will. It is despair, an endless black 
>>hole, a failure of the imagination.
>>
>>
> 

Enron, Morgan, and Globalization

[Michael Perelman]

Mark Jones pointed his article out, justifiably gloating about the
confluence of Morgan and Enron.

Crash of the cult

Enron tolls the bell for deregulation

Leader
Friday November 30, 2001
The Guardian

Until a few weeks ago, a huge banner was strung across the headquarters
of
Enron in Houston, emblazoned "The world's leading company". There were
plenty who endorsed the claim and the corporate culture of ambition,
arrogance and rapid money-making which lay behind it. Enron's revenue
growth had been spectacular, from $7.6bn in 1986 to $101bn in 2000. The
accolades from analysts, management consultants and internet gurus
poured
in: as recently as last June, the Economist praised Enron for creating
what
might be the "most successful internet venture of any company in any
industry anywhere". But, the banner was recently taken down and in one
of
the biggest corporate collapses in US history, Enron's shares fell 85%
on
Wednesday (and more yesterday). The corporation is now expected to file
for
bankruptcy in the next few days. But this is more than a spectacular
corporate saga, it also represents comeuppance for a form of aggressive
capitalism and political manipulation which earned Enron many enemies.
A combination of borrowing heavily and concealing it in "off-balance
sheet"
deals, meant that the crisis only became apparent a month ago. The
repercussions are now beginning to emerge as the company's "aggressive
accounting" - as the Wall Street Journal put it - is unravelled, and
major
lenders such as JP Morgan Chase are likely to be vulnerable. Not to
mention
the damage to thousands of Enron employees' pensions, and the holdings
of
many investors in the US, who saw it as one of the surest bets of the
dot.com mania. But the energy markets have not been as shaken as was
first
feared possible a month ago.
Losers apart, there will be many dancing on Enron's grave. In the US, it

had attracted a degree of notoriety for its part in the bungled
privatisation of California's electricity, which led to black-outs
earlier
this year. But it was in the developing world that Enron had a near
unparalleled reputation for corporate irresponsibility. It has been the
only company to warrant an entire Amnesty International report, a
chilling
catalogue of human rights abuses from India to Latin America. The
anti-corporate movement accused Enron of subverting the political
process
of virtually every country in which it operated to advance its
interests.
Enron was in the thick of one of India's biggest corruption scandals in
which huge sums were paid to politicians in the privatisation of
electricity firms.
Such deals abroad relied on close co-operation from friends back home in

Washington, and once again Enron lavishly paid into election campaign
funds, most notably of George W Bush. Key political figures were signed
up
as lobbyists and advisers. All the political manoeuvring served the
company's ideological vision of the primacy of free markets,
deregulation
and privatisation. Enron was described as an "evangelical cult" for the
fervent advocacy of this vision by Enron founder and chairman, Kenneth
Lay
- a vision from which he personally profited by millions. The fact that
the
finance director is also now being investigated for possible
irregularities
suggests a culture of hubris and greed at the company's core. For the
anti-corporate movement, Enron is a major scalp (though exposure of its
wrongdoings was not the cause of the collapse). More importantly, it is
a
reproof to stock traders who continued to boost Enron's shares long
after
they had lost their understanding of its balance sheet. And it trounces
for
ever the idea that public utilities can be subject to light regulation
amid
such speculative profiteering.




--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: Project for Pen-l

[Peter Dorman]

I've been following this discussion with interest.  It's a good topic
for Pen-l -- constructive & useful.  A few thoughts:

1. Forget about Ricardo.  This stuff is interesting from a history of
thought point of view, but modern trade theory differs from Ricardian
theory in important ways.  Some of the criticisms lefties have hurled at
Ricardo bounce off the modern folks.  If you want a point of reference,
pick an influential contemporary textbook -- Salvatore for example.

2. I agree that the critique of global capitalism goes far beyond trade
in goods and services.  So-called trade agreements are now largely about
commoditization, disembedding capital and final output from
social/political constraints.  Some of these constraints are venal or
irrational, but others are necessary, and, in any event, commoditization
usurps the space available for democracy.  Nevertheless, trade theory
itself is vulnerable.  It embodies a laissez-faire ideology that has to
be criticized if we want to take a progressive stand.  Contrary to the
ravings of its accolytes, it is *not* a mathematic truth beyond debate;
it relies on falsifiable assumptions.  We desperately need a
well-written, methodologically sound rebuttal to mainstream trade theory
-- both a high-end critique for our footnotes and a demathematized
critique for our students.

3. In the meantime, here are the concluding paragraphs of a paper I
wrote on Joan Robinson's critique of trade theory:

Excerpt begins here:

In the end, economic persuasion comes down to simple stories—fables,
metaphors, or even bumper stickers—that encapsulate more complicated
visions of how the world does or ought to work.  The doctrine of free,
unregulated trade has succeeded magnificently on this terrain.  Why, we
are asked, should anyone want to interfere with trade?  No trade would
ever take place unless it were in the interest of both parties, so how
can the sum of all such trades be any less than the sum of all those
advantages?  If someone in a foreign country can make a good cheaper
than you can make it at home, why would you be so foolish as to not buy
it?  After all, among local stores you would shop at the one that
charges a lower price.  And the theory of comparative advantage appears
as nothing more than the obvious truth that two people, combining their
efforts and specializing in what they do best, can produce more than
they could singly.

JR would have no trouble recognizing the ideological core of this set of
fables; it is based on the assumption that there are only individuals in
this world of “international” trade—nations have no role.  On the
contrary, however, the division of the world’s people into nations has
always had and still has powerful effects on their well-being, and this
implies a different sort of fable.  The payments position of the
nation’s currency, its rates of economic growth and employment, and the
effectiveness of its democracy are public goods: most individuals
benefit or suffer from them even though they generally have no
individual incentive to promote them.  On the contrary, every time an
individual chooses to import a good, no matter how praiseworthy that act
might otherwise be, he or she is competing with the balance of payments
“space” available to the nation for publicly beneficial actions that can
also have negative payments effects.  There is only so much space
available, and a sensible nation that cared both for its citizens as
private individuals and for their well-being as participants in a shared
life would manage the two demands to enable both to be met tolerably.
To give play only to private interests is to sacrifice public interests
by default.  This is, in other words, simply the Keynesian fable that JR
did so well to promulgate transported to the international level.

On a more analytical note, we have seen that, in the absence of
intervention, it is typically not the case at the margin that an extra
dollop of imports is automatically financed by an extra dollop of
exports, yet this is what would be required in order for trade to adhere
to the principle of comparative advantage.  From a normative standpoint,
however, comparative advantage remains a very good thing, a circumstance
we should attempt to create among all the possible patterns of
international trade and finance.  This suggests that countries would be
wise to manage aggregate trade and capital flows, restoring comparative
advantage at the margin, and restricting or channeling external finance
so that its use in genuinely capacity-enhancing activities is
assured—or, in JR’s own 1946 words, “In short, the notion of a unique
natural position of equilibrium is a mirage, and for better or worse,
international trade must be directed by conscious policy.” (p. 112)

From, "Why International Trade Theory Is Not a Theory of International
Trade: A Confirmation of Robinsonian Skepticism", 2000

Re: Re: What is to be done about Everything?

[Gar Lipow]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

> Gar:
> 
>> Carrol - I think you are overlooking the demand here. We are dealing 
>> with a government doing the wrong thing against terrorist who have 
>> killed a lot of people in the U.S. and successfully terrorized them. 
>> We are opposed to the evil things this government is doing in 
>> response. We need to be able to answer the question: "what would you 
>> do if you were in charge?".  People simply will not consider anyone a 
>> serious critic who refuses to answer this question.
> 
> 
> The subjunctive gives you away.  The question is not serious as it is 
> contrary to facts.



This assumes that a hypotheical question can never be serious. But when 
you are seeking political change, and implicitly political power, then 
the question: "what happens if you win?" is a serious question. It is 
only not serious if your political activism is nothing but moral 
posturing. If there is no chance of your ever winning, then the the 
question is truly purely hypotheical, and not worthing talking about.

Re: Shaikh's theory of trade; and Trade Theory for Paul

[Michael Perelman]

Also, in discussing Ricardo remember that he was basing his theory on the
Treaty of Metheun in which Britain got Portugal to allow in its textiles
(which ruined Portugal's flourishing textile industry) and to sell slaves
to Brazil (another triumph of free trade).  Bill Lear wrote about this to
pen-l some years ago.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 08:49:56AM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
> [was: RE: [PEN-L:20162] Mainstream trade theory in general]
> 
> Eric Nilsson writes: >... I never really saw the point of the critique of
> Ricardo and of efforts to beat up on notions of comparative advantage. That
> mainstream trade theory books start with Ricardo (and Smith) is really
> strange. I don't know of any other mainstream field that starts off with the
> oldest theories and then ignores how by the 1920s mainstream trade theory
> more-or-less dumped any link to Ricardo's theory once subjective utility and
> opportunity costs entered the discourse.
> 
> >I feel comfortable saying that if two regions have different currencies and
> different domestic price ratios, then the exchange rate might settle so that
> trade occurs between the two nations. Of course trade need not be balanced.
> Such an argument need not be based on relative productivity differences. It
> is simple mathematics. ...<
> 
> Eric -- or others -- what is your evaluation of Anwar Shaikh's theory of
> absolute advantage dominating the process of international trade? (Shaikh
> assumes that the country with absolute advantage produces gold, which is the
> international currency. I would assume -- more reasonably -- that it is the
> one with the convertible currency.) 
> 
> My ultra-quick summary of this theory: one country -- call it the "US" --
> has an absolute advantage over another -- call it the "USSR" -- in almost
> all goods. Ending autarchy (in line with the standard trade-theory
> technique), the US initially has a balance of trade surplus. It uses this to
> buy up the assets of the USSR (or at least those that are worth something).
> The latter ends up selling only those products in which it has an absolute
> advantage (e.g., oil). 
> 
> Obviously, these two hypothetical countries bear as much resemblance to the
> actual US and USSR as Ricardo's "England" and "Portugal" did to the actual
> countries. Nor does a two-country story capture the real world of
> international trade. 
> 
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
> "Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler.
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Shaikh's theory of trade

[Devine, James]

[was: RE: [PEN-L:20162] Mainstream trade theory in general]

Eric Nilsson writes: >... I never really saw the point of the critique of
Ricardo and of efforts to beat up on notions of comparative advantage. That
mainstream trade theory books start with Ricardo (and Smith) is really
strange. I don't know of any other mainstream field that starts off with the
oldest theories and then ignores how by the 1920s mainstream trade theory
more-or-less dumped any link to Ricardo's theory once subjective utility and
opportunity costs entered the discourse.

>I feel comfortable saying that if two regions have different currencies and
different domestic price ratios, then the exchange rate might settle so that
trade occurs between the two nations. Of course trade need not be balanced.
Such an argument need not be based on relative productivity differences. It
is simple mathematics. ...<

Eric -- or others -- what is your evaluation of Anwar Shaikh's theory of
absolute advantage dominating the process of international trade? (Shaikh
assumes that the country with absolute advantage produces gold, which is the
international currency. I would assume -- more reasonably -- that it is the
one with the convertible currency.) 

My ultra-quick summary of this theory: one country -- call it the "US" --
has an absolute advantage over another -- call it the "USSR" -- in almost
all goods. Ending autarchy (in line with the standard trade-theory
technique), the US initially has a balance of trade surplus. It uses this to
buy up the assets of the USSR (or at least those that are worth something).
The latter ends up selling only those products in which it has an absolute
advantage (e.g., oil). 

Obviously, these two hypothetical countries bear as much resemblance to the
actual US and USSR as Ricardo's "England" and "Portugal" did to the actual
countries. Nor does a two-country story capture the real world of
international trade. 

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
"Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler.

BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

> BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2001:
> 
> Retail sales may have improved substantially since September 11, but such
> growth is not enough to offset the additional deterioration in the labor
> markets due to slower activity in the manufacturing and service sectors,
> the Federal Reserve says in its "Beige Book" report on business conditions
> in its 12 districts. The Fed reports that labor markets, commercial real
> estate markets, and business lending conditions all weakened further
> through mid-November.  Most regions say the manufacturing sector continued
> to suffer as new orders and shipments fell and production and employment
> levels were cut.  The weakness in the manufacturing sector has been
> especially hard on the labor market throughout most of 2001, but the
> impact of September 11 on tourism and financial services has resulted in
> large job losses in the service sector. Retail sales were a bright spot
> for most Fed regions because of discounting at stores and zero percent
> financing deals for automobiles (Daily Labor Report, page D-1).
> 
> There were signs of a nascent economic recovery in some parts of the
> country in October and the first half of this month, but they were
> outweighed by evidence of additional slowing elsewhere, according to the
> Federal Reserve's latest survey of nationwide economic conditions (John M.
> Berry, The Washington Post, page E1).
> 
> Economic conditions were still sluggish in recent weeks as the economy
> felt the after effects of the September 11 attacks, according to a Federal
> Reserve report released today (Reuters, The New York Times, page C8).
> 
> Contradicting growing confidence elsewhere that the recession is bottoming
> out, a Federal Reserve survey found more signs of further slowing than of
> recovery (The Wall Street Journal, page A2).
> 
> The U.S. economy, battered by the September 11 terrorist attacks, weakened
> further in October and November, the Federal Reserve said yesterday.
> Production declined at American factories and airlines and hotels
> struggled with a sharp drop-off in travel (Martin Crutsinger, Associated
> Press, http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/182216p-1760288c.html).
> 
> Data compiled by BNA in the first 48 weeks of 2001 show that the weighted
> average first-year wage increase in newly negotiated contracts in the
> nonmanufacturing sector (excluding construction) was 4.3 percent, compared
> with 4 percent in 2000.  The median increase in these contracts was 4
> percent, compared with 3.6 percent last year.  Manufacturing agreements
> provided a weighted average increase of 3.2 percent and a median of 3
> percent, unchanged from the same period in 2000 (Daily Labor Report, page
> D-3).
> 
> The number of Americans lining up for first-time jobless benefits rose by
> 54,000 last week, the government said Thursday in a report that showed
> further softness in the U.S. labor market.  The number of workers filing
> initial jobless claims for the week ended November 24 hit 488,000, the
> Labor Department reported.  That was well above the 448,000 claims
> economists in a Reuters poll were expecting for the week -- one that would
> typically see light filings because of the Thanksgiving holiday (Reuters,
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2001-11-29-jobless.htm).
> 
> Orders to U.S. factories for costly manufactured goods soared a record
> 12.8 percent in October as consumer demand grew for a wide variety of
> big-ticket items, such as cars and computers.  The rebound in durable
> goods -- items expected to last at least 3 years -- came after new orders
> dropped by 9.2 percent in September, the Commerce Department reports.  The
> 12.8 percent increase was the largest since the government began keeping
> records based on the current classification system in March 1992.  It also
> marked the first increase in orders for durable goods since May.  The
> report offers a rare bright spot for the nation's battered manufacturing
> sector, which has been hardest hit by the sinking economy.  To cope with
> sagging demand, factories have sharply cut production and laid off workers
> (Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press,
> http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/182734p-1766188c.html).
> 
> DUE OUT TOMORROW:  Mass Layoffs, October 2001
> 

<>

military tribunals

[Devine, James]

In the continuing saga of the US elite's effort to defend liberty by
undermining it,

>Bush had a friendly audience on Thursday--a room full of D.A.'s
he'd recently appointed. "You are on the front line of war," he
told them, according to the transcript in the NY [TIMES]. "And make no
mistake about it, we've got a war here just like we've got a war
abroad. And we have a huge responsibility, and that's to defend
America while protecting our great liberties. And I'm confident
you can do the job; otherwise you wouldn't be sitting here."  To
help with that liberties part, Bush wheeled out John Ashcroft,
who touted the Responsible Cooperators Program, under which
foreigners might be able to extend their time here--and maybe
even become citizens--if they provide good information about
terrorist doings. Ashcroft has been criticized for detaining and
interrogating hundreds of Arab-Americans and foreigners in the
wake of Sept 11. In a nice detail included in the NYT, he is seen
leading the D.A.'s around town, "from one monument on the Mall to
another, so that they would soak in the words of Jefferson and
Lincoln." 
 
>While most Americans--90% according to yesterday's Today's
Papers--favor the detention program, a string of lawsuits are
coming down the pike, according to a separate NYT fronter. The
director of the Constitutional Law Center in NY accuses Bush of
trampling habeas corpus, the procedure that protects citizens
from being held illegally by the government. "My job is to defend
the Constitution from its enemies," the director, Bill Goodman,
says. "Its main enemies right now are the Justice Department and
the White House." Other lawyers said they would focus directly on
the military tribunals, which give defendants fewer rights than
they would have in civilian trials. The legal wranglings could
take years to unfold.<

(From Microsoft's SLATE "Today's Papers" news summary.) 

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

RE: Trade & Environment

[Devine, James]

could you give us some idea of what this essays says? (one or two
sentences?)

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine



-Original Message-
From: Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 5:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20164] Trade & Environment


the latest issue of Ecological Economics; 39 (2) November 2001 has an
essay 'Globalization and Sustainability: Environmental Kuznets Curve &
the WTO by Clem Tisdell [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Ian

Re: Other Views: A glimmer of hope for Palestinians

[ALI KADRI]

"I hope Zinni and Burns will help deliver a stable
peace."
Is that for real Sir,
I have read something else on the Palestinian question
and that is:
-It is no solution to the Jewish question.
-It is not an issue of land. land can be divided and
shared.
-It is not an issue of a Palestinian state, that is
the worst that could befall the Palestinians and the
Arabs, i.e., to have another small repressive state.
-It is however, a question of aggression and
occupation, a displacement of an indigenous
population, which is all tied with the tempo of
American interests. When the American state formation
takes a fall the gentile class will be its first
victims.
This author has a point  or not, what do you think?
 
--- Seth Sandronsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
> 
> Hello.  A friend of mine got this in The Sacramento
> Bee.
> 
> Seth
> 
> Other Views: A glimmer of hope for Palestinians
> By Mary Bisharat -- Special to The Bee
> Published 7:53 a.m. PST Thursday, Nov. 29, 2001
> It was fall 1947 when I met my new parents-in-law,
> Sheikh and Mrs. Hanna 
> Bisharat, who arrived in New York from Jerusalem and
> Cairo. They had come to 
> meet me, the first bride in their family, and an
> American at that.
> 
> The United Nations was in session in Flushing
> Meadows, debating the 
> partition of Palestine, because the British
> government had announced that 
> the League of Nations mandate it had supervised for
> 25 years was a failure. 
> It had brought the future of Palestine to the
> 2-year-old United Nations.
> 
> Arab delegates rejected partition, which was the
> plan to divide historic 
> Palestine into two independent states, Arab and
> Jewish, because they 
> maintained the United Nations had no jurisdiction to
> act against the will of 
> the majority -- Palestinians were 66 percent of the
> population and owned 96 
> percent of the land. The delegates requested the
> matter referred to the 
> International Court of Justice for legal guidance.
> 
> 
> 
> My father-in-law, a prominent Palestinian, invited
> me to accompany him to 
> the debates, where many of his friends were giving
> testimony. I followed him 
> down the corridors into the chambers, sensing it all
> was momentous, but 
> unable to pinpoint why. A two-thirds vote was
> required to pass U.N. 
> Resolution 181 (II), the partition document that
> contains many declarations 
> pertaining to holy places, religious buildings and
> sites, religious and 
> minority rights and citizens; on two occasions the
> General Assembly was to 
> vote, and twice it was postponed because the
> necessary votes were not 
> available.
> 
> Early the next week, on Nov. 29, 1947, a vote was
> called. The decisive votes 
> for partition were cast by three small nations that
> had previously been 
> strongly opposed: Haiti, Liberia and the
> Philippines. It was widely reported 
> that U.S. officials and private citizens exerted
> "intense pressure" on those 
> countries' delegates. U.S. diplomats had warned
> President Truman that 
> American interests and prestige would be damaged by
> our support of 
> partition.
> 
> Thus began what the Palestinians call their al
> nakba, (the catastrophe): In 
> 1947-48, 770,000 Palestinians were expelled from
> their homes, or fled out of 
> fear, from the lands that became Israel. My
> parents-in-law were declared 
> absentee owners and their Jerusalem villa and other
> properties were seized 
> by Israel. According to Israeli law, the property of
> absentee owners became 
> the property of Israel for Jews only. It remains so
> today. That is the 
> genesis of the current Palestinian-Israeli struggle
> despite Resolution 194, 
> which guarantees Palestinians' right of return, and
> which Israel accepted in 
> 1949.
> 
> It took Truman only a few years to realize what the
> outcome of his 1947 
> effort was when he warned Congress prophetically
> that the presence of a 
> large body of uprooted, homeless people (Palestinian
> refugees) would affect 
> stability in the region.
> 
> Today, those refugees and their descendants number
> more than 4 million, 
> still classified as "forced refugees." More than any
> other factor, their 
> dispossession and suffering have fueled the
> Palestinian-Israeli struggle. 
> And more than any other factor, their fate is the
> key to its resolution.
> 
> Israel's rejection of the right of return has no
> basis in international law, 
> which prescribes that people displaced by war be
> permitted to return to 
> their homes. But the ideological basis is that
> Israel wants to preserve a 
> Jewish majority, and allowing Palestinians to return
> might disturb Israel's 
> "demographic balance" or "change the character" of
> the state. These 
> euphemisms cover what is a form of ethnic cleansing
> as a means of national 
> self-preservation.
> 
> If a genuine peace is to be achieved, three issues
> besides Jerusalem -- 
> which should be an international city, open to all
> faiths, to preserve its 
>

Re: What is to be done about Everything?

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Gar:

>Carrol - I think you are overlooking the demand here. We are dealing 
>with a government doing the wrong thing against terrorist who have 
>killed a lot of people in the U.S. and successfully terrorized them. 
>We are opposed to the evil things this government is doing in 
>response. We need to be able to answer the question: "what would 
>you do if you were in charge?".  People simply will not consider 
>anyone a serious critic who refuses to answer this question.

The subjunctive gives you away.  The question is not serious as it is 
contrary to facts.
-- 
Yoshie

* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: 

* Anti-War Activist Resources: 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 

Project for Pen-l

[Rob Schaap]

Subject: [globalization] Network 2002 - December 2001 Issue To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Globalization ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Posted: 11/30/2001 By [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Network 2002 - December 2001 Issue

Trade rules:
It's déjà vu all over again
Ten years ago, the Earth Summit finished with a long laundry list of
promises from governments. High on the list were reforms to make rules on
the global economy fairer and more sustainable. But the promises were
forgotten a year later when the same governments signed the Uruguay Round
trade agreements. The aspirations of the Rio Principles, Agenda 21 and the
Convention on Biological Diversity were trumped by enforceable rules on
agriculture, services and intellectual property rights.
Ten years later, governments have set a new agenda for WTO negotiations.
The outcome will provide a straightjacket for the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. Again, the principles of
equity, social justice, and environmental sustainability are set to be
relegated to the realms of rhetoric and exhortation. If WSSD is to make a
difference, it must influence the outcomes of WTO negotiations.
After the Seattle debacle, developing countries and civil society groups
went to the Doha Ministerial meeting last month with expectations of
reform. The speeches of politicians have been positively dripping with the
importance of making trade rules fairer and more sustainable. The reality
was depressingly familiar.
The outcome resulted from four major failings in the trade system.
Firstly, trade rules are deeply unfair to the poor. The World Bank
calculates that rich countries' tariffs on imports from the developing
world are four times higher than tariffs on imports from other rich
countries. One key reason is that the rich countries broke their promises
made in the Uruguay Round. For example, agricultural subsidies in the rich
countries have actually increased since 1994 and few textile quotas have
been phased out. These broken promises are set to continue. In Doha, the
aim of phasing out export subsidies for agriculture, responsible for
wrecking farming systems and the lives of millions of rural communities in
developing countries, was strongly resisted by the EU. Even though the
Common Agriculture Policy is clearly unsustainable in the EU as well as to
developing countries, the EU's negotiator inserted a get-out clause at the
last minute, to say that this aim is "without prejudging the outcome of
negotiations." The scene is set for more broken promises.
The second failing is that governments do not give priority to aims such
as sustainable development in trade talks. The clear priority is to gain
advantages for their companies. This strong influence of corporate lobbying
was expressed eloquently by the former Director of the WTO's Services
Division, David Hartridge: "without the tremendous pressure generated by
the American financial services sector, particularly companies like
American Express and Citicorp, there would have been no services
agreement". The General Agreement on Services (GATS) is one of the most
important examples of the elevation of corporate rights above sustainable
development. It aims to remove "barriers to trade". However, these
barriers may be environmental laws or regulations to ensure that essential
services such as water are affordable to the poor. GATS is developing a
"necessity test" on whether domestic regulations are "necessary". To date,
ten out of eleven WTO cases have ruled in favour of unrestricted trade over
public health or environmental restrictions.
Much is made of the voluntary commitments that countries make under GATS.
But even though most countries have made commitments to open up tourism to
foreign companies, few countries have reserved the rights to limit new
development that threaten ecosystems, to impose conditions related to
environmental impact or to require sharing of benefits with local
communities. These core environmental principles could be prohibited as
"unnecessary barriers to trade". Moreover, when countries make commitments,
it is for keeps. The WTO has described GATS as "effectively irreversible".
There has been no proper assessment of the impact of GATS on the poor and
the environment, as called for in the agreement.
The third failing is that efforts to deal with conflicts between trade
and the environment are likely to result in even further undermining of
environmental agreements. The apparent success in Doha to starting talks on
the relationship between WTO rules and Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs) includes a dangerous get-out clause: "the negotiations
shall not prejudice the WTO rights of any member that is not a party to the
MEA in question." This provides an escape route for the US on the Kyoto
Protocol and the Bio-safety Protocol. It also fails to give environmental
and trade agreements equal status - the wording makes it clear that trade

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chomsky in the news

[ALI KADRI]

I should have added that a moral hazard framework
works here. ie 
us maximises its welfare which is a function of its
output minus disruptions caused by the third world
 subjest to third world minimizing its discomfort from
seepage and leakages abroad etc. we get a price vector
which establishes an equilibrium level of democracy>
the Borsch condition 
--- ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "the appropriate level of democracy": that answers
> it.
> --- Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Michael Perelman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:25 PM
> > Subject: [PEN-L:20114] Re: Re: Chomsky in the news
> > 
> > 
> > > Ali's question is fascinating.  When the country
> > gets too corrupt
> > and too
> > > chaotic, that is inconvenient.  When the country
> > gets too
> > democratic, that
> > > too is dangerous.
> > >
> > > Maybe we could construct a mirror of Robert 
> > Barro's estimation of
> > the
> > > appropriate level of democracy.
> > 
> > ==
> > Brian Barry's "Democracy, Power & Justice" has a
> > chapter titled "Does
> > Democracy Cause Inflation" that might be a good
> > place to start and
> > link it with Minsky's claims about the fiscal
> > sector/gdp ratio a la
> > the socialization of investment
> > 
> > Ian
> > 
> 
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting,
> just $8.95/month.
> http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

Re: Re: Liu critique of DeLong

[ALI KADRI]

to use the metaphisic: history does it or god is
hisotry. then it is a question of who makes history.
well an easy way out is to say that man makes history,
with a little twist not always as he pleases. now if
you are asking what is the nationality or cultural
values of this man that is making this terrible
history. could it be that some very corrupt tribal
leader is making the us administration work for him so
that he can store his wealth in its coffers?

Deus Sieve historia
 
--- Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 29/11/01 13:00 -0500,
> 
> 
> >the model neglects the fact that under globalized
> >finance capitalism, the savings of the rich are
> siphoned off to US
> >capital markets, draining the local economy of
> needed captial.  This
> >increases the cost of capital for the poor
> economies which have to offer
> >returns drastically higher to induce their own
> capital to return,
> >putting these economies in a perpetual competitive
> disadvantage.
> 
> 
> An important point about how less developed
> countries lose the possibility 
> of reinvesting their own surplus.
> 
> Bur I would like clarification of the mechanisms
> here. What is cause and 
> what is effect?
> 
> Chris Burford
> 
> 
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

Afghanistan and Bonn

[Karl Carlile]

None of the delegates attending the Bonn circus democratically represent
the people of Afghanistan. The Taliban did not represent the people of
Afghanistan but neither does the NA, the king nor these so called tribal
chiefs.

Karl Carlile
Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at
http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/