RE: Re: Historical Materialism
>Oskar Lange used say that Marxian economics is the economics of capitalism >and neoclassical economics is the economics of socialism. If you want to do >monetary and fiscal policy, design an antitrust regime, figure out the >impact of opening new oilfields on existing transportation options, make a >plan for your own enterprise, you use subjectivist theory. They teach it in >B school cause it works in short and medium term. I don't have to prove it: >the proof is in the practice. I don't agree with this, and I've been to business school. The subjectivist value theory of neoclassical economics is the von Neumann/Morgenstern axioms, and they are completely orthogonal to the economics you learn at business school (you learn them quite thoroughly in an economics degree, but that's not the same thing). At business school, you learn in detail the parts of economics which are not dependent on a value theory and are more properly part of what one used to call "operations research", plus you learn a bit of kiddies' (often surprisingly heterodox) macroeconomics under the title of "International Financial System" or some such. Think about it this way; almost the only module which is compulsory in every MBA at every business school is Marketing, and there is still, after about 150 years of trying, no decent classical or neoclassical theory of the advertising industry. Subjectivist value theory is honoured much more in the ignoring than the observance. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
RE: Palast on Energy markets
Palast has taken to appearing on BBC2's "Newsnight" clad in a Clark Kent-styled 30s tweed suit and a Matt Drudge trilby/derby. I'm not sayin' that he's beginning to disappear up his own arse, I'm just sayin'. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note
> >I agree with you, except the algebraic theory presumes ex ante -- values >today that depend on conditions in the future. > >On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:44:45AM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > > > > I've argued in the past (e.g., my 1990 article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL > > ECONOMY) that values make sense as an _ex post_ (and true-by-definition) > > accounting framework. Obviously, _ex ante_ matters matter, in helping to > > determine values. But, for example, in realization crises (in which >profits > > which seem to have been produced _ex ante_ turn out not to be so _ex >post_). > > My impression is that what Marx emphasizes is what actually occurs in > > practice, i.e., _ex post_ values. > > JDevine > > I still don't see the problem. Ex ante, my widgets, made by process X (labor intensive) have value N. I expect to amortize the cost of the investment in X over ten years by selling widgets at $5 each. Five years into my period, you invent process Y (capital intensive), and now your widgets and mine both have the value N-1,a nd I can obly get $4 each for my widgets. I'm in trouble, but where;s the theoretical problem? jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: Re: Value talk
thinking in terms of value allows us to discover the objective >basis. > >Karl: Yes. This is precisely the problem with the radical left on the >Argentinian crisis. They confine politics to the limits of price and >wages. Instead transcending those bourgeois limits to the real limits >that entail critique they steadfastly confine themselves to the level of >reformism which reflects itself in their vulgar political economy: more >wages and more money. Value relations is the only basis for critique of >capitalism. > Rubbish. We can say, as I do, that capitalsim is exploitative, unfair, and unnecessary, and needs to be replaced, without adiopting a value framework. Not adopting that framework does not stuck us with demanding only higher wages. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Value Talk
>" ... if you want to point out that there's exploitation going on. you >don't need the > LTV to do this" > > >I'm not entirely sure why one would merely want to point out that >exploitation >is going on in capitalist society. Because it's true? > In theory, it seems to me that this is >a static >approach to reality. In practice, most people who work would say--Fine. >Exploit me. >But I'll settle for a steady job with good pay. It's an old joke that the only think that is worse in capitalist society than being exploited is not being exploited. But I think there is a lot of political dynamite in the charge that exploitation is going on, that the capitalists take what workers produce and give nothing in return. Marx thought so too, or he wouldn't have made the point at such length. > >What Marx attempts . . . >Thus, workers are never offered that steady job >with good pay. > This is important too, although workers also knwo that they lack job security. Anyway, as Brenner shows, you can also restate Marxian crisis theory without value talk. jks _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: Religing Marxism, was AM Historical Materialism
> >Greetings Economists, >Justin Schwartz (a.k.a. JKS) casually writes about Analytical Marxism (AM) >in a typically rationalist way, I'm not sur what Doyle means by "rationalism." I count myself a proud defender of the Enlightenment, andwhen it comes to scientific theory, I do want to have justifications for my beliefs. But I don't "reject" subjectivity, whatever that would be; I mean, people's consciousness is an important object of our explanation and the main target of our practical work. Moreover, I think we have to start from where we are, from our own partial and limited positions, and in the immortal words of Douglas Adams, whereever you go, that's where you are. But that is not an excuse to give up giving reasons, even if at some point you get to a place where you don't know what more you can say. > >Doyle >Rationalism is about separating subjectivity from rationality as the above >example amply demonstrates. Huh? >And in general that subjectivity means religion I don't know what this means either. Religion can be as "objective" as you like. Monothesistic religions generally claim to be objectively true. What _I_ mean by taking Marxism as a religion is rather the treatment of a set of favored propositions as true come what may, these propositions being drawn, typically, from cetain sacred texts like the works of Marx, which are thus treated as articles of faith rather than objects of inquiry. Moreover, there is the vocabulary of "orthodoxy," "apostasy," and the like, drawn directly from Christianity. That's the stuff that has to go. It has nothing to do with subjectivity. It's just flat-earthism. >JKS clearly says certain kinds of Marxist have a >religion called Marxism, rather than a materialist attitude toward >economics >issuing from Marx. I wouldn't put it taht way. I think Maex was a scientificeconomist or I wouldn't be interested in him, but it's not his say so that validates a scientofic approach. Rather it is the other way around. >JKS draws attention to Christian cognitive >strategies i.e moralism, and asserts that AM as a movement following from >Marx himself ; No no. AMs are very concerned, as Marx was not, with moral theory. Marx hasa moral theory, despite himself, a rather deep and subtle one, but never expressly articulates it, and officially rejects the project. Roemer and Cohen, among other AMs, spend a lot of time on positive moral theory. Btw, I am not an AM or any kind of an M; I'm just influenced by Marx and AM, among other tendencies in philosophy and social theory. >Doyle >However, JKS in the casual remarks above does not adequately describe to us >what makes the Christian cognitive emotional management regime known as >"morality" work. I wasn't trying to. We are in fact in the dark about religing issues, because >Rationalism splits apart (and maintains silence about) religious >consciousness and brainwork from kinds of brainwork such as science. A >rationalist then maintains that Science removes subjectivity. Not necessarily. Marx has a scientific theory of religion, called the theory of ideology, expressed in a famous aphorism: It is the cry of the oppressed soul, the heart of a heartless world, the opium of the masses. He opposes science to ideology, subjectivity, hwoever, is neither here nor there. Science for >the rationalist states the activity is demonstrably compromised by >subjective cognition and "fundamentalist" attitudes toward Marxism. If we >say Science is not in the business of using the emotional component of how >theory is created in human beings we in effect split off feelings from >brainwork however we might label religing as not acceptable. Not at all. In the days when MArxism was a social movement, it was a rallying cry and a sort of practical religion of a sort quite necessary to genberating a coherent oppositional culture to capiatlism. That put it in tension with its scirntific aspirations. For better or worse, it si no longer a movement; and although, as the discussion here dlearly indicates, there is a tiny minority of people who are so deeply bound up with the faith that they are stuck in the old days, nonetheless the movement, and the cultural-ideological function of marxism, are irretrievably vanished. All that is left is the science. >Doyle >In regard to religion there are three interlocking Scientific theories that >address what JKS means by religion but are not rationalist in the sense of >splitting off consciousness from rationality Who does that? Not me. To >relige Marxism means not fundamentalism as JKS implies, but to produce a >kind of labor that suggests where needed a networked ToM explaining what >needs explaining. Where for example an image of Mao, or Stalin appears >this >is a visual agent of a ToM which is a necessary outcome of the performing >processes of neural networks. The sense of "worship" is about the driving >mechanism in emotions to connect socially to JA
Devine/Moseley discussion
[warning: this is long, but lacks acrimony. It is both empirical and theoretical.] Fred, I am sorry for the delay. Too much stuff to do... And this kind of message doesn't flow out of my head the way musings on the law of value do. I've found this discussion very stimulating and would like to thank you from the start. >We seem to agree on the following points (please correct me if I am wrong): >1. The rate of profit declined significantly from the mid-1960s to the 1970s, and this declining profitability was the main cause of the "stagflation" of recent decades. < right, though of course we haven't seen stagflation recently. The 1990s were the "Goldilocks" era, when the economy "wasn't too hot" (inflationary) or "too cold" (with high unemployment) but "just right" (especially for the rich). I recently drew a "Phillips curve" diagram for my students based on unemployment rates and core inflation rates for the 1990s. It's got the wrong slope, going in the anti-stagflationary direction. >2. If the rate of profit is examined from 1980 to 2002 (estimated), then there is little or no upward trend in the rate of profit over this period (and even a slight decline in the share of profit). The years 1980 and 2002 are appropriate end points for the estimation of the trend, because they are at the same point in the business cycle - the bottom of a recession.< I prefer comparing peak years or averages, rather than trough years, especially since the 2002 number is hypothetical, made up. (2002 hasn't even really started yet.) Also, 2002 may not represent a trough, contrary to the eternally optimistic professional forecasters. So we should compare 1980 or 1982 or 1983 with 2003 or 2004 or 2005... In fact, why are you using 1980 as the initial year for comparison? why not 1982? BTW, there's an interesting contrast here. You advocate a "classical" Marxian crisis theory - but your use of 2002 as the trough years implies that the current recession is relatively mild, bottoming out this year. (This is inconsistent, however, with what you say at the end of your missive, reproduced below.) On the other hand, I'm not claiming that my view is "classical" or orthodox in any way, but I see the recession as just beginning, as the continued rise in unemployment rates (that most predict, despite the temporary January fall in rates) and the high private-sector debt load as combining to make for a much more serious recession in the future. Similar to Godley and Izureta, I expect a serious period of stagnation, lasting a decade or even more. Let's return to the main story: it should be remembered that in the talk I gave, I was _not_ comparing profit rates or shares in 1980 to those in 2000. Rather, I was comparing _estimated trend_ values of these variables in those years. So I was not comparing a "trough year" to a "peak year" except to the extent that my calculation of trend variables was dominated by the current events. It should be noted that the my estimated trend rate of profit in 1980 (i.e., 7.1%) is significantly higher than the actual rate of profit in that year (6.3%), where the latter clearly reflects the depressed rate of capacity utilization (the profit-realization problems) of the Volcker-Carter recession. Coincidentally, my value of the trend rate of profit in 1980 exactly equals your guesstimates for 2001 and 2002 (i.e., 7.1%). This would indicate that there's no profit rate trend at all between those years, except that capacity utilization plunged deeply in 2001, so that the _equivalent_ of my trend rate for 2001 would be significantly higher. So the upward trend in the rate of profit for 1980 or so to the start of the new Millennium that I posit reappears. [Is my estimated trend profit rate dominated by current events? I don't think so. Even though all of the five polynomial terms (time, time squared, time cubed, etc.) are statistically significant following the conventional rules (t-stat > 2), the coefficients shrink rapidly as you move to higher order terms, getting down to -0.00038 and 3.11E-06 for the last two of the five, which allow recent events to play a role. That suggests that my 1980 trend profit rate does not reflect the low capacity utilization rates of 1980 much at all.] Further, as I said before, a lot or even all of the recent fall in the profit rate that you emphasize (especially in 2001 and 2002) is _due to_ the recession (falling capacity utilization) rather than a cause of the recession, so we can't use such comparisons to explain the recession very well. This is an inherent problem with trough-to-trough comparisons. You write that there may have been a "a slight decline in the share of profit," so let's look at that data. The value of my estimated trend _share_ of profit in 1980 is 16.7, as opposed to 15.3 in reality (as measured by the BEA). You assume that the share of profit was 14 percent in 2001 and 2002, which suggests a downward trend. However, like the profit rate, the pro
Re: LOV or LTV
> >Quite rightly, these fundamental questions come round and go round. > >I have not been able to keep up with all the recent posts. But I notice >that some of the debate is using the abbreviation LTV. > >Marx and Engels never used the term Labour Theory of Value, nor did they >invent it. Of course not, and I have repeatedly said that Marx was using and developing the best political economy of his time.. > >Marx and Engels to be fair also did not formulate a neat definition of the >Law of Value, but LOV is the term they did use. Well, he does say, for example, "that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount oof labor socially necessary, or the labor timer socially necessaey for production." This at the very start pf CI, Part I. Marx footnotes an author of an a "remarkable anonymous work" written circa 1740. That is the formulationI use. > >I suggest that approaching these debates with the mind set of LTV, sustains >an assumption which is essentially about a simple equation: > >the value of something is its labour content (with various subtleties added >about terminology and more or lessness) > >LOV however is essentially a whole systems dynamical approach to the >circulation of the collective social product that is produced in the form >of commodities. That's not a "law," in any normal scientific sense. A "law" is a precisely formulable generalization (n.b., not a definitional assumption) stating relations between variables. I think the law of value is that the price of commodities tends towards their value in long runm, with certain determinate disturbances that imply that prices tend to converge on pricesof prodyction. > >Crudely, the difference between LTV and LOV is the difference between a >simple equation, which may indeed be weak nourishment, and a dynamic >system. > It's possible, and a standard move of defenders of Marxian value theory, to make immune from testing and criticism by making it so fuzzy that it lacks determinate meaning. Who could object to asytstems-dynamical approach to the economy? jks _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Corruption, pollution and the US
The times has an article describing a study in which Finland is First, and U.S. 51st, in Environmental Health. Cuba is also ahead of the US. Corruption is a major factor in determining pollution. Nonetheless, the descrition does not make the study seem to solid. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/02/science/02ENVI.html?ex=1013670932&ei=1&en=420884fcf3650311 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Entron from Ian
Enron: the meetings Labour didn't reveal You scratch our backs... Antony Barnett, Oliver Morgan and Ed Vulliamy, New York Sunday February 3, 2002 The Observer The row over Downing Street's links with energy giant Enron took a new twist last night when a former vice-president of the company revealed details of secret meetings it had with key Government figures. David Lewis, head of the firm in the UK throughout the Nineties, provided The Observer with dates of a number of meetings not disclosed last week by Number 10. Opposition MPs accused the Government of a 'cover-up' to mislead the public. The disclosure came a week after Tony Blair came under pressure when MPs alleged that Enron had been able to swing his Government's energy policy its way after giving donations. Enron, which wanted Labour to lift its ban on gas-fired power stations, admitted giving the party a series of gifts totalling £36,000, starting in 1997, to get access to Ministers. Blair intervened personally to water down the ban in 1998, and it was ended completely in November 2000. Lewis told The Observer the company was 'surprised' when Labour lifted the ban because it had believed Ministers would only act after last year's general election. Enron executives met the then Treasury Minister, Geoffrey Robinson, on 8 May 1998 to lobby against its being imposed, he said. The Enron executives also gave The Observer details of a crucial meeting held in Downing Street on 28 April 1998 with Geoff Norris, Blair's senior energy adviser from the Downing Street Policy Unit. Norris was described as being 'understanding' about Enron's position. Disclosure of this meeting has fuelled speculation that this was a pivotal moment which led to Blair's decision to intervene and 'water down' the moratorium on the gas-fired power stations. Lewis also gave details of a 1999 meeting with then Welsh Office minister Peter Hain. The company was lobbying to build a gas-fired power station in Ebbw Vale. So far this has not been built. A further suggestion that Enron officials met Keith Vaz, the former Minister for Europe, to discuss energy deregulation in Europe, was denied by Vaz. He said he could not recall meeting anybody from Enron. The Foreign Office was unable to verify this independently, as it 'could not get access to official diaries'. Downing Street has denied it deliberately withheld details of meetings between Ministers and Enron. A spokeswoman said: 'We were only asked to give details of meeting with DTI Ministers. Enron is a big company with major investments in the UK. There is nothing improper with such a company meeting Ministers or officials.' The Treasury is coming under increasing pressure to explain why it let off Andersen Consulting, a sister company of Enron auditor Arthur Andersen, millions of pounds in fines after its disastrous scheme to introduce a new Inland Revenue computer system for National Insurance contributions. The fiasco deprived 250,000 pensioners of hundreds of pounds each, and cost the taxpayer up to £150m. While the Government was entitled to fine Andersen £40m, Treasury Ministers intervened to ensure it paid only £3.9m. The Government said then that a steep fine would ruin its relationship with Andersen and harm other Private Finance Initiative projects. The Treasury last night said the decision on fining Andersen was taken on independent legal advice. Matthew Taylor, Liberal Democrat economics spokesman, said: 'The links between Enron, Andersen and the Government are a spider's web which gets more tangled the deeper you delve. 'Why did Labour conceal these meetings if they had nothing to hide. It's time they published a full list of their meetings with the company.' · Lord Wakeham, former Tory Energy Secretary, is to be sued over his role as an Enron director by New York firefighters and police whose pension funds were invested in the collapsed company. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The PentEnron
No other news source seems to have picked up on this according to Lexis-Nexis. On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 01:56:46PM -0600, Ken Hanly wrote: > The War On Waste > > Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds - $2.3 Trillion > > LOS ANGELES, Jan. 29, 2002 > > AP > The Pentagon. > > > > > > > (CBS) On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on > foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon > bureaucracy," he said. > > He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat. > > "In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said. > > Rumsfeld promised change but the next day - Sept. 11-- the world changed and > in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have > been forgotten. > > Just last week President Bush announced, "my 2003 budget calls for more than > $48 billion in new defense spending." > > More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, > while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of > what it spends. > > "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," > Rumsfeld admitted. > > $2.3 trillion - that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To > understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case > of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere > $300 million. > > "We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim > Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service. > > Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by > speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing > from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money > trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records. > > "The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It > took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a > good job," said Minnery. > > He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just > writing it off. > > "They have to cover it up," he said. "That's where the corruption comes in. > They have to cover up the fact that they can't do the job." > > The Pentagon's Inspector General "partially substantiated" several of > Minnery's allegations but could not prove officials tried "to manipulate the > financial statements." > > Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made > headlines exposing what he calls the "accounting games." He's still there, > and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has > gotten worse. > > "Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after > year," he said. > > Another critic of Pentagon waste, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, > commanded the Navy's 2nd Fleet the first time Donald Rumsfeld served as > Defense Secretary, in 1976. > > In his opinion, "With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in > loose change in that building, without having to hit the taxpayers." > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Argentina
Top Financial News 02/03 18:03 Argentina to Let Peso Float Against Dollar, Print 3.5 Bln Pesos By Helen Murphy Buenos Aires, Feb. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Argentina let its currency float against the dollar and will convert all bank deposits and loans into pesos in a bid to prevent a collapse of the financial system and get new international loans. President Eduardo Duhalde will issue a decree to turn all dollar loans into pesos at a rate of one-to-one and all dollar deposits at 1.4, Economy Minister Jorge Remes Lenicov said in televised news conference. The peso will float against the dollar, eliminating a dual exchange system that fixed the official rate of exchange at 1.4 pesos per dollar for trade while allowing the currency to trade freely at exchange houses. ``Argentina is bankrupt,'' Remes Lenicov said. ``These measures are designed to defend Argentines' savings, the production system and the financial system.'' The International Monetary Fund has called on Argentina to let its peso float before it will consider new economic assistance. Argentina is seeking as much as $20 billion in loans from the IMF and other international lenders to prop up the banking system and stabilize the economy. The government will also print $3.5 billion of pesos to finance Argentina's deficit. The president will allow account holders to withdraw their full salaries instead of a limit of 1,500 pesos, raising concern Argentines will rush to withdraw all their salaries immediately. The central Bank called a bank holiday on Monday and Tuesday.
Saudi Willing to Help U.S. Oust Saddam
Saudi Willing to Help U.S. Oust Saddam - Prince Sun Feb 3, 7:24 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia would work closely with the United States if it tried to foment revolution against President Saddam Hussein inside Iraq, a leading Saudi prince said on Sunday. "We believe the way to go is from inside Iraq," Prince Turki al-Faisal, who served as the kingdom's intelligence chief for 24 years until leaving the post in August, said on NBC Television's "Meet the Press." "And the U.S. can help in that, and we will work closely with you on that," he said. But the prince warned Washington against another Gulf War-style attack on Baghdad. "If you send an invasion force to Iraq ... you're going to create not just resentment and fear and anger at the United States, but you may succeed in rallying the Iraqi people behind Saddam Hussein, because they see you as a foreign invader," he said. "But if it is an Iraqi who is doing the toppling of Saddam Hussein and then, after he does that, you help him, in the way that we have proposed to your country, then that would be the way to do it," the Saudi prince said. He expressed confidence that a U.S. covert operation could depose Saddam, who invaded neighboring Kuwait in 1990. His forces were driven out of Kuwait by an international alliance early in 1991. President Bush last week branded Iraq as being part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and North Korea, warning the three countries against building arsenals of nuclear, chemical or germ weapons. Anti-Iraq rhetoric from Bush and other administration officials in recent weeks has sparked speculation that the United States might follow-up its war on terrorism in Afghanistan with action against Baghdad. Bush has said Iraq will have to face unspecified consequences if it continues to bar the entry of U.N. inspectors seeking to check if it is developing weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors left in December 1998 and have not been allowed back in since. Some U.S. officials have suggested that the strategy used in Afghanistan -- a high-tech bombing campaign combined with American special forces working with local opposition -- could also work in Iraq against Saddam. Prince Turki is among several Saudi officials who have given U.S. media interviews recently in an apparent attempt to counter a spate of negative stories about what some Americans see as the kingdom's inadequate cooperation after the Sept. 11 attacks in which about 3,100 people were killed. Asked about the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in the attacks were from Saudi Arabia, the prince, citing the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan, said the United States also had a dark side. As for charges that Saudi charities funneled money to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network -- blamed for the September attacks -- the prince said the charities were never intended to be used to breed terrorists. He said Americans contributed money to charities in Ireland that funded the Irish Republican Army, an armed group resisting British rule in Northern Ireland. The prince said Saudi Arabia was indebted to the United States for protecting the kingdom against Iraq at the time of the invasion of Kuwait, but "we think that the U.S. owes Saudi Arabia some gratitude for our positions on the various issues that we agree upon." This included cooperation against communism during the Cold War and Saudi support for U.S. peace efforts in the Middle East, he said.
For Fred M. on the Enron SPV's
Fred, The private placements are debt instruments (or variations on what is near equity-like deeply subordinated debt), backed by the collateral of the asset sold to the SPV by the parent. Often, the parent may continue to hold on to some risk associated with the SPV. And the SPV's equity (i.e. voting control) is held by the SPV. Without access to the private placement memorandum for a particular deal (in possession of the purchasers, like the MacArthur Foundation and various pension funds), one cannot tell the answer in this particular case. In most cases, the accounting reality attempts to track the underlying economic reality - i.e. is the SPV really no longer a risk to the parent. But that clearly did not happen in the core transactions at ENE. Today's release of the Powers report should be useful in assessing this. There is no way to know, however, at this point about the structure of the entire 3,000 entities. Stephen F. Diamond School of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enron and Economic Recovery
Humorous story from the Wall Street Journal Chaker, Anne Marie et al. 2002. "Enron Debacle Means Extra Work for Companies and Professionals." Wall Street Journal (31 January): p. B 1. Estimated number of attorneys at Weil, Gotshal & Manges working on behalf of Enron in its bankruptcy case: 50, each billing anywhere from $200 to $700 an hour. Estimated number of attorneys at Davis Polk & Wardwell representing Arthur Andersen in Enron-related matters: more than 40. Additional office space leased in Pennzoil Place, Andersen's Houston headquarters, to accommodate Davis Polk lawyers: one entire floor. Groups of ex-Enron employees leasing space from Front Office Business Centers in Houston to start new companies: three. Technicians working to recover deleted Enron computer files at Electronic Evidence Discovery Inc. in Seattle: 40, at a cost of $150 an hour each. Congressional committees and subcommittees involved in Enron investigations, at last count: 12. Investigators at Securities and Exchange Commission scrutinizing Enron: at least six. Estimated number of Houston law firms pursuing cases on behalf of unsecured Enron creditors: 20. "Increase in staff at Houston office of Bernard Haldane Associates, which helps job-seekers brush up interviewing skills, to handle influx of jilted Enron workers: 25%. Value of Enron memorabilia sold on eBay since Jan. 20 (estimate as of 3 p.m. EST Tuesday): $114,923.61. EBay's estimated commission on those sales: $8,044.65. Size of crisis-management team assembled for Arthur Andersen by Chlopak, Leonard, Schechter & Associates, Washington, D.C.: eight, including two partners, at estimated cost of $80,000 a month. Full-page advertisements for Andersen CEO Joseph Berardino to say "we will not tolerate any unethical behavior ": $600,000. Cost of damage-control services for Enron from PR firm Brunswick Group: $400,000 a month. Media inquiries handled by Brunswick daily: 275 to 400. Amount advanced so far by publishers for books on Enron debacle: $650,000. Estimated out-of-pocket expenses for a law firm to pursue a major class-action suit similar to shareholder complaints against Enron: $3 million to $5 million. Major law firms jockeying to become counsel to lead plaintiff in shareholder class-action suit: at least three. Rooms rented by CNN at Hyatt Regency Houston for crews descending on Enron earlier this month: six. Increase in viewership at CNBC in key 25-to-54-year-old group this month: 20%. Percentage of 5 p.m. newscast at Houston NBC affiliate KPRC typically devoted to Enron coverage: 45%. Stories mentioning Enron in top 50 U.S. newspapers since Oct. 1: 8,456. Wait -- make that 8,457. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note
What is the "algebraic theory"? Bortkewicz-style "solutions" to the so-called transformation problem? I think those are of extremely limited interest, since the purpose of the law of value isn't to allow the calculation of prices. -- Jim D. -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/3/02 3:32 PM Subject: [PEN-L:22284] Re: RE: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note I agree with you, except the algebraic theory presumes ex ante -- values today that depend on conditions in the future. On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:44:45AM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > > I've argued in the past (e.g., my 1990 article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL > ECONOMY) that values make sense as an _ex post_ (and true-by-definition) > accounting framework. Obviously, _ex ante_ matters matter, in helping to > determine values. But, for example, in realization crises (in which profits > which seem to have been produced _ex ante_ turn out not to be so _ex post_). > My impression is that what Marx emphasizes is what actually occurs in > practice, i.e., _ex post_ values. > JDevine > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note
I agree with you, except the algebraic theory presumes ex ante -- values today that depend on conditions in the future. On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:44:45AM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > > I've argued in the past (e.g., my 1990 article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL > ECONOMY) that values make sense as an _ex post_ (and true-by-definition) > accounting framework. Obviously, _ex ante_ matters matter, in helping to > determine values. But, for example, in realization crises (in which profits > which seem to have been produced _ex ante_ turn out not to be so _ex post_). > My impression is that what Marx emphasizes is what actually occurs in > practice, i.e., _ex post_ values. > JDevine > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Value talk
> >A reasonable objection. Actually I don't think it's uninteresting, >but I don't think the way it gets deployed in Capital is ultimately >useful or necessary. I do think that it plays an important role, but >not an exclusive one, in explaining the dynamics of market >economies; Marx treated the centarlity of value so understood as >definitional. I think this use is undermined not only by the fact >that (as ANrx acknowledges) this is a very extreme idealization >useful for a particular purpose at best, but more importantly by the >fact that you can do what needs to be done without it, and sticking >to the definition leads you into the sterile debates about how toi >save theexclusivity and centrality of value that have haunted >Marxisn political economy ever since. Justin, Let me leave aside problems with this alternative neo Ricardian method, e.g., it assumes no qualitative differences between output and inputs and no adverse natural shock to gross output (bad harvest) so that the assumption of input prices=output prices can be safely made and the number of equations thereby reduced to the number of unknowns, though this puts the whole system in the straightjacket of inherently static linear equations as John Ernst, Alan Freeman, Paolo Giusanni have argued. But let's leave that aside, and let us say that we can work from the data of physical production and the real wage. Now we are told that it is possible to calculate an equilibrium profit rate and a equilibrium, uniform profit rate from that data alone without making mention, much less giving centrality, to labor value. And in carrying out these calculations we will find that (a)the concept of the productivity of capital is incoherent, thereby fatally undermining the justification of non labor income and (b)that the system cannot be solved and closed unless the class struggle over income distribution is determined exogeneously--that is, through political struggle. While the gains of Marxist theory are thereby preserved, the advantages of doing without labor value are presumably (i) anti metaphysical--no reference to labor value that cannot be seen underneath prices and physical production data (though the idea that social labor time is meta-physical would surely not occur to those who engage in it) (ii) parsimony--why needlessly multiply the number of entities used in a theory (iii) anti obscurantism--ability to move beyond presumably obscrurantist defenses of Marx's transformation procedure which is indeed hopelessly flawed except in the most bizarre cases--identical compositions for all all capitals, the economy is on the von Neumann ray, etc. In short, the theory of labor value is excess baggage which the working class can no longer afford to carry. Now let us say that we can calculate prices and profits from data of physical production alone. But again I think you are mixing up calculation with determination. Let me requote Shaikh since you may have missed this passage in the barrage of criticism that you have received: "Notice how often the word 'determines' crops up: the physical production data *determine* values, and in conjunction with the real wage, also *determine* prices of production. but what determiens the physical production data. In Marx, the answer is clear : it is the labor process. It is human productive activity, the actual performance of labour, that transforms 'inputs' into 'outputs', and it is only when labor is sucessful at all that we have any 'physical production data' at all. Moreover, if the labour process is a process of producing commodities, then it one in which value is materialized in the form of use values. Thus both 'inputs' and 'outputs' are the use forms of materialized value, and we can they say that in the *real* process it is values that determine the physical production data...The physical *data* are then a conceptual summary of the real determination, and if we then use the data to conceptually *calculate* values, we only capture in thought their real magnitudes. Such a calculation no more determines these values than does the calculation of the mass of the earth determine determine either the earth or its mass. It merely recognizes what already exists. This is a fundamental point in a a materialist view of the world, and the 80 year failure of the neo Ricardians to distinguish real and conceputal determination reveals their long attachment to the idealist method" p. 280-1 the Value Controversy, ed. Steedman. This may now turn out at all, but this reminds me a bit of the argument between Pearsonians and Mendelians. Pearson after all thought that he could develop a purely descriptive/phenomenalist theory of heredity by making linking the character of an individual through regression equations to the average character of each ancestral generation. Once the coefficients had been empirically established, a Pearson could calculate
Religing Marxism, was AM Historical Materialism
Greetings Economists, Justin Schwartz (a.k.a. JKS) casually writes about Analytical Marxism (AM) in a typically rationalist way, JKS written 01 February 2002 03:05 UTC Pen-L, making do not require reductionism of any sort. What remains of AM--and it does survive in places like the journal Historical Materialism--is an emphasis on clarity, precision, explicitness, and rigorous standardss of argument, along with a totally unworshipful attitude towards traditional formulations or classic texts. These are worth preserving. Doyle Rationalism is about separating subjectivity from rationality as the above example amply demonstrates. And in general that subjectivity means religion (though I don't want JKS's words to represent a serious effort to advance rationalism here, but instead a convenient place to anchor a counter argument), and that JKS clearly says certain kinds of Marxist have a religion called Marxism, rather than a materialist attitude toward economics issuing from Marx. What I will do below in examining this claim is first of all reject the rationalist split above by referring to contemporary science which suggests direct material explanation of religing (the verb form of the brainwork process of the religious activity). Secondly to examine the act of religing (the labor process of actively doing a work called religion) in such a way as to tie the work into contemporary IT (Information Technology). Importantly that tying together of religing to a material labor process would then show the theory and practice of IT must utilize what JKS says is a worshipful attitude towards traditional formulations of classic texts. While this does not directly address LTV (Labor Theory of Value) and other of Marx's economic theories this addresses what is a wide spread and difficult rationalist knot aimed at disparaging committed Marxist as religious. As is typical of Marx himself, JKS draws attention to Christian cognitive strategies i.e moralism, and asserts that AM as a movement following from Marx himself ; JKS 01 February 2002 16:02 UTC Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism Marx accepts, but not in the sense used by most of its adherents, who think that the vulgar version implies taht workers are entitled, morally, to the value that their labor is the source of. Marx was not interested in claims of justice and would have regarded the labor theory of property underlying this argument as so much ideology. The vulgar version is wrong in any case because there is no reason to deny that there may be many factors, including subjective ones (demand) that go into value. ...and 01 February 2002 16:32 UTC value and morality This confused. First of all, Marx adamantlt, savagely, and ruthlessly rejects egalitarianism and any appeal to to principles of justice. He is not an egalitarian. He also rejects justice as "shit." He mocks those who proceed from moralism to economics. His use of the LTV derives from the fact that it was the standard theory of his day, used by Smith, Ricardo, Mill, etc.; he used ita s Roemer uses Walrasian economics, it was jsut the place to start. It had no, zero, zip, moral implications. Neither has it any moral basis, since brutal inegalitarians like Ricardo embraced it. Doyle However, JKS in the casual remarks above does not adequately describe to us what makes the Christian cognitive emotional management regime known as "morality" work. We are in fact in the dark about religing issues, because Rationalism splits apart (and maintains silence about) religious consciousness and brainwork from kinds of brainwork such as science. A rationalist then maintains that Science removes subjectivity. Science for the rationalist states the activity is demonstrably compromised by subjective cognition and "fundamentalist" attitudes toward Marxism. If we say Science is not in the business of using the emotional component of how theory is created in human beings we in effect split off feelings from brainwork however we might label religing as not acceptable.JKS writes above to re-quote more narrowly; JKS written 01 February 2002 03:05 UTC Pen-L (quoted above), ...an emphasis on clarity, precision, explicitness, and rigorous standardss of argument, & Leave fundamentalism to the religious. If there is a scientific dimension to historical materialism, it will survive. But it requires a skeptical temperment. Doyle In regard to religion there are three interlocking Scientific theories that address what JKS means by religion but are not rationalist in the sense of splitting off consciousness from rationality and therefore directly address the issue of Marxist religing. Simply stated those theories are a "Theory of Mind", that underlies producing language, that a human being may have a Theory of Mind (ToM) or may not, and therefore can use language or can't use language. A structure of "Joint Attention" (JA), between human beings that connects human beings in language network,
U.S. Told It Shouldn't Act Alone
Top World News 02/03 10:16 U.S. Told It Shouldn't Act Alone in Terrorism Fight (Update1) By Andreas Cremer Munich, Feb. 3 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush shouldn't take unilateral action to expand the war on global terrorism and should act only within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO Secretary General George Robertson said. ``Afghanistan reinforces the fact that no modern military operation can be undertaken by a single country,'' Robertson told a conference on security policy. ``Even superpowers need allies and coalitions to provide bases, fuel, airspace and forces.'' Robertson didn't comment on a possible expansion of the war against terrorism, as indicated by Bush and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who spoke yesterday at the Munich conference. Iran, Iraq and North Korea may become new military targets unless they give up producing and exporting weapons of mass destruction, Bush said last month. Still, the U.S. would be prepared to act alone, said Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, a security adviser to Bush. Wolfowitz urged the 19 NATO nations to improve its defenses against unprecedented assaults such as the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington. ``We were attacked,'' Wolfowitz said. ``I would take strong exception to the view that we need a United Nations mandate.'' Speaking earlier, Perle said, ``If we have to choose between protecting ourselves against terrorism or a long list of friends and allies, we will protect ourselves against terrorism.'' Prague Summit NATO should present a concept for change by November, when it holds a summit in Prague, to explain how it will counter the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That's as important as a decision on which of the nine central and eastern European countries are supposed to become members of NATO. ``Fighting terrorism, which has been so clearly linked to weapons of mass destruction, is part of NATO's basic job description: collective defense,'' Wolfowitz said. Without the political, military and logistical support of NATO partners, the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan would've been less successful, Robertson said. NATO members have made a ``vital contribution'' to helping the U.S. defeat the Taliban regime, destroy terrorist cells and set up a stability force. Still, continuing cuts in European governments' defense budgets would widen the ``technology gap'' between the 15-nation European Union and the U.S., Robertson said. NATO's European members spend a total of $140 billion a year on defense, not enough to spread the burden more evenly. ``For all the political energy expended in NATO and in the EU, the truth is that Europe remains militarily undersized,'' Robertson said. ``If we're to ensure that the U.S. moves neither towards unilateralism nor isolationism, all European countries must show a new willingness to develop effective crisis management capabilities.
Re: Enron's SPV's
Steve, thanks again for your helpful clarifications. It sounds like after the private placement takes place and the SPV pays off its loan, there is nothing left of the debt of the SPV, and hence of the debt of the Parent. Is this the case with Enron? Do all there 3000 SPV's have little or no debt left? So there is little or no "hidden debt" of Enron? Or, are SPV's also used for other operations (like the purchase of stocks of other companies) that require some continuing debt? Thanks again, Fred On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Steve Diamond wrote: > Yes, I realize I left out a few things. The debt that the SPV takes on is > used to front the money for the "asset" (like speculative broadband futures) > from the parent. But the SPV soon pays off this loan by selling its new > securities in the private placement. In fact, the loan that the SPV takes > on might just be an LOC (letter of credit) or very short term since the > private placement with 3d party investors is done almost simultaneously. In > the deals I worked on of this general type while in private practice, the > SPV was set up at the same time as the placing of the securities, tho I am > certain there is a wide range of possibilities. > > Keep in mind that in most cases the SPV's underlying equity is controlled > by the Parent, thus they really set the value of the asset. In the case of > Enron, CFO Jeff Fastow was an officer (or general partner) of these types of > entities. One can see how this can easily lead to an inflation of the value > of the asset. It is this step that creates the "fictitious" value - > establishing some notion of the present value of an asset that will only pay > out over a long time in a very inefficient, even nonexistent, market (what > IS the market for broadband? ENE was creating it thus they could decide the > price!) It is hard not to conclude that this was an elaborate pump and dump > scheme (see the terrific film Boiler Room to get a sense of what kinds of > snakes these people really are). > > Also, I understand your interest in the debt, but keep in mind that the bank > that provides the loan for the SPV is only taking on the risk that the SPV > will not be able to complete the private placement to the third parties - in > fact, the loan is really just a guarantee - serving to provide some > reputation effect to help get the private placement done - in one case, for > example, a piece of the private placement was sold to the MacArthur > Foundation, so you have to convince one of their fund managers that this was > a great deal - the investment banker marketing the deal will, of course, > point to the loan from, e.g., JP Morgan. Often the loan would not go > through unless the private placement was clearly going to succeed. Once > started the entire operation - for up to a billion dollars - can be done in > six weeks. > > Steve > > Stephen F. Diamond > School of Law > Santa Clara University > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Fwd: Israel , Iran and the evil axis
From: kaveh ehsani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Subject: Israel , Iran and the evil axis Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 08:07:21 -0800 (PST) Israel thrusts Iran in line of US fire As Bush weighs up the 'axis of evil', one country is bringing its full influence to bear David Hirst Saturday February 2, 2002 The Guardian America's campaign in Afghanistan is winding down, but who will be its next big target in the "war on terror" remains in the realm of conjecture. Of the three chief members of the "axis of evil" that George Bush identified in his state of the union address - Iraq, Iran and North Korea - he dedicated most of his wrath and spoke most threateningly of that hardiest of Washington's villains, Saddam Hussein. Yet, if Israel gets its way, the next target could be Iran. President Bush was forthright in his address: he told Tehran to stop harbouring al-Qaida terrorists and added the heavyhanded threat that if it did not, he would deal with Iran "in diplomatic ways, initially". Israel has long portrayed the Islamic republic as its gravest long-term threat, the "rogue state" at its most menacing, combining sponsorship of international terror, nuclear ambition, ideological objection to the existence of the Jewish state and unflagging determination to sabotage the Middle East peace process. Israel classifies Iran as one of those "far" threats - Iraq being another - that distinguish it from the "near" ones: the Palestinians and neighbouring Arab states. As the peace process progressed, the near threats were steadily being eroded.A vital benefit of the 1993 Oslo accord was said to be that it would fortify Israel for its eventual showdown with its far enemies. The closer their weapons of mass destruction programmes come to completion, the more compelling the need for Israel - determined to preserve its nuclear monopoly in the region - to eliminate them. For a long time, the strategy of enlisting the growing Arab peace camp against Iran and Islamically-inspired extremism from afar seemed to be working. Committed, under Oslo, to fight all forms of Palestinian violence against Israel, the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, came to blows with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the anathemas he hurled at Iran, their ideological mentor, were all but indistinguishable from Israel's. But now both threats have converged, malignantly, as never before. This, for Israel, was the deeper meaning of the Karine-A affair, the 50-ton shipment of Iranian-supplied weaponry destined for Gaza, which it seized last month. It was a "most dangerous axis", said the Israeli chief of staff, that threatened to "change the face" of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. As well as supplying arms and finance, Iran, the Israelis say, is developing a supervisory role over the Palestinian "terror" through the exploitation of its existing assets in the arena, mainly the Lebanese Hizbullah, and its new ones, a direct link with Mr Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, and a recently created Palestinian Hizbullah of its own. Had the Karine-A cargo made it to Gaza, and thence to the West Bank, it could have made at least a dent in Israel's enormous military superiority. The Palestinians would no longer have been entirely helpless in the face of Israeli armoured incursions into their self-rule areas. The weapons would also have brought whole population centres within range. Though Mr Arafat and Iran denied any part in the arms shipment, there were compelling reasons why these former friends-turned-enemies should have resumed their collaboration of old. Mr Arafat's desperate need is obvious. The ever-growing violence of the conflict and the complete failure of any country to come to the Palestinians' aid present a golden opportunity for the Islamic republic, at least for the conservative, clerical wing of its leadership, which has exclusive, unaccountable control over underground aspects of foreign policy, such as support for Islamist "revolutionaries" like Hizbullah and Hamas. Iran's president, Mohammad Khatami, and most of the reformist camp may seek to dilute the extreme anti-Israeli orthodoxy, but Tehran's foreign policy is very much an area of competition between the country's rival political wings. The simplest way to thwart the growth of such a Palestinian-Iranian alliance would be to deny it its essential raison d'être by restoring a peace process that has some prospect of success. But it has become clear that peace is just what the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, does not want: Palestinian violence serves him much better. Persuasion For him, the Karine-A incident provided further, dramatic justification for the undeclared but ill-disguised agenda he is pursuing in the name of retaliation and self-defence - to destroy the whole notion of self-determination on any portion of Palestinian territory. But the Israelis took particular alarm at the words of the former Iranian president, Hashimi Rafsanjani, who
Re: Re: Stalinist Proyect
Carl Remick wrote: > > > > [Sadly, the larger concern is what a fat load of nothing Cuba has gotten for > placating the US -- e.g., from today's NY Times:] > So far there is not a U.S. division stationed in Havana, nor are any bombs falling. What you call placating the U.S. can also be seen as maintaining links with the rest of the world. Cuba's main protection has always been the world opposition to an outright U.S. invasion. Carrol
Re: Stalinist Proyect
This note has no relevance here. On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 08:16:52AM -, Karl Carlile wrote: > I wonder what views the stalinist Louis Proyect has on Mr Castro now > when his brother Raul has apparently said that if any of the prisoners > in Guantanomo Bay escape the Cuban authorities will return them to the > Yankee soldiers. > Regards > Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) > Be free to join our communism mailing list > at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stalinist Proyect
>I wonder what views the stalinist Louis Proyect has on Mr Castro now >when his brother Raul has apparently said that if any of the prisoners >in Guantanomo Bay escape the Cuban authorities will return them to the >Yankee soldiers. >Regards >Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) [Sadly, the larger concern is what a fat load of nothing Cuba has gotten for placating the US -- e.g., from today's NY Times:] Bush Hires Hard-Liners to Handle Cuba Policy By Christopher Marquis WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 At a time when Cuba is exhibiting increasing signs of reaching out to the United States, the Bush administration is filling its Latin America policy ranks with officials known for a hard-line stance toward Fidel Castro's government. Several incoming officials advocate an unyielding hostility toward Cuba and the maintenance, if not strengthening, of a trade embargo that is four decades old. The policy being promoted by people like Otto J. Reich, a Cuban exile who is the State Department's top policy maker for Latin America, is increasingly placing the administration at odds with farmers, business executives and a growing number of members of Congress including many Republicans who have been pushing for trade with Cuba. But the hard line is still an article of faith among many Cuban-Americans. [Full text: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/03/international/americas/03CUBA.html] Carl _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Value Talk
" ... if you want to point out that there's exploitation going on. you don't need the LTV to do this" I'm not entirely sure why one would merely want to point out that exploitation is going on in capitalist society. In theory, it seems to me that this is a static approach to reality. In practice, most people who work would say--Fine. Exploit me. But I'll settle for a steady job with good pay. What Marx attempts to show is that in the process of creating new value, already existing value in the form of fixed capital is destroyed. It is this destruction of value that makes increasing the degree of exploration a capitalist imperative. If a capitalist can make a 20% return using a new machine, then those with older machines making, say 15%, can only minimize the amount they must write-off by exploiting their workers more efficiently. At the same time, the 20% fellows can't rest easy as their machines may face the same fate in the not so distant future. Thus, workers are never offered that steady job with good pay.
Re: LOV or LTV
> Crudely, the difference between LTV and LOV is the difference between a
> simple equation, which may indeed be weak nourishment, and a dynamic
system.
>
> IMHO
>
> Chris Burford
I agree with the authenticity of LOV rather than LTV. Nevertheless, a
"simple equation" may match a model of a "dynamic system", as follows.
In 1911, F. W. Taylor observed that "the history of the development of each
trade shows that each improvement, whether it be the invention of a new
machine or the introduction of a better method, which results in increasing
the productive capacity of the men in the trade and cheapening the costs,
instead of throwing men out of work make in the end work for more men" ("The
Principles of Scientific Management").
This empirical observation may be done further, up to nowadays. And it may
be explained by having in mind a theoretical assessment of Marx, on the
unequal distribution of organic composition of capital, that is of
productivity, along the economic chain (B.3, Ch.45; Dietz: pp.767-768). By
putting n productive sectors in a growing-productivities order between
ecosystem and final product, as an abstract model of economic chain, and by
assuming that the very upstream productivity gains are insignificant with
respect to the ones of the very downstream activities, we obtain such an
equation at the limit of flows adaptation ("just-in-time") :
Rate of increase in global employed workforce = Rate of increase in mean
productivity of economic chain
That is to say, along economic chain, capital valorizes its productivity
gains ("relative surplus value") by exchanging them against labour activity.
And we retrieve LOV.
From the point of vue of downstream dominance (USA, Western Europe and
Japan), this law is blured by relocations outside, but from the point of vue
of Third-World countries, providing cheap work force and raw material, it
works as it always worked, driving populations from their traditional
economy towards industrializing centers (cf. Rosa Luxemburg).
Such a model of mine is published at this address:
http://www.edu-irep-org/ romain.htm
under the title: "World-System's Entropy".
It is a dynamic model that notably matches asymmetric exchanges, exogenous
accumulation, expansionnism, inflation by growth and the trending profit
rate to fall. It demands to be harshly criticized.
Regards,
Romain Kroês
RE: LOV or LTV
very good point! I think it's also important to remember that what most critics of the LOV are talking about is a LTP, a Ricardian Labor Theory of Prices. Marx wasn't especially interested in prices (assuming the question away until volume III of CAPITAL) but he was interested in the social relations of production of capitalism as a whole and in microcosm. Jim D -Original Message- From: Chris Burford To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/2/02 11:40 PM Subject: [PEN-L:22261] LOV or LTV Quite rightly, these fundamental questions come round and go round. I have not been able to keep up with all the recent posts. But I notice that some of the debate is using the abbreviation LTV. I suggest that this slants the debate and makes it more likely that people will talk past each other. Marx and Engels never used the term Labour Theory of Value, nor did they invent it. It was conceptualised by the classical political economists. Marx and Engels to be fair also did not formulate a neat definition of the Law of Value, but LOV is the term they did use. I suggest that approaching these debates with the mind set of LTV, sustains an assumption which is essentially about a simple equation: the value of something is its labour content (with various subtleties added about terminology and more or lessness) LOV however is essentially a whole systems dynamical approach to the circulation of the collective social product that is produced in the form of commodities. Crudely, the difference between LTV and LOV is the difference between a simple equation, which may indeed be weak nourishment, and a dynamic system. IMHO Chris Burford London
RE: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note
Michael Perelman writes:>They [Schwartz and Miyachi] seem to look at the value of the depreciated computer EX POST -- after the fact. The problem that i see is ex ante. How do you set the value of the product made with the computer years before the depreciation occurs? I can expect a future path of depreciation but I cannot know it.< I've argued in the past (e.g., my 1990 article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY) that values make sense as an _ex post_ (and true-by-definition) accounting framework. Obviously, _ex ante_ matters matter, in helping to determine values. But, for example, in realization crises (in which profits which seem to have been produced _ex ante_ turn out not to be so _ex post_). My impression is that what Marx emphasizes is what actually occurs in practice, i.e., _ex post_ values. JDevine
RE: Re: re: anal. Marxism and value
I wrote:>>I think that Levins & Lewontin's DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST is a good antidote to these "analytic" approaches. They see micro as determining macro -- and macro determining micro -- as part of a dynamic and holistic approach. Within this context, Marx's "law of value" makes total sense.<< Justin writes:> This isn't going to work without explanation of how and why value (labor value, that is) as a macroproperty actually does work and avoids the problems that have been posed for it.< the messages on this subject I've recently posted to pen-l answer that. >It's quite possible to believe in emergent properties and entities and reject "redyuctionsim" ... about such properties and entities, and still think value talk is hopeless. At the risk of quoting myself again, I thought that I settled this in my paper Functional Explanation and Metaphysical Individualism, Phil of Sci 1993, where I sorted out the confusions around methodological individualism. It's a red herring.<< the problem with meth.indiv. is that its practioners (e.g., many AMists, such as Elster) deliberately limit the questions they ask and the answers they are willing to accept. The rejection of that blinkered vision has nothing to do with "functionalism." >MI (the idea that the social can be explained entirely in terms of the properties of individuals) is a reductionist doctrine. Reductionism is entirely consistent with the existence of macroproperties and entities. If I say, mind can be reduced to brains (explained entirely in terms thereof), I do not say there are no minds, just that they are explicable as brains. When Elster and some of the AMs talked about MI, they meant, really, eliminativism about macroproperties, which was a mistake.< right. It was a mistake, one that dominated the AM field. the thing about reductionism (of this sort, not GA Cohen's) is that it tries to derive "macroproperties" and "entities" from microproperties and entities without looking at the way that macroproperties and entities _feed back_ to determine the character of microproperties and entities. JD Now, I don't know if MI as a reductionist theory is true, although I rather doubt it. I also don't think it's taht important. What the real point was, which folks were confused about, is the need to provide microexplanations, to fill in the causal chains at least in principle, especially where functional explanations are involved, so you can be sure that you don't have accidental nonexplanatory functional relations. Wright, Sober, and Levine, AMs all, are expressly antireductionist. They believe, as I do, that macroproperties and entities like class, the state, and so forth can be real and explanatory. They are also skeptical about the LTV, as I am, So it is only a preliminary to defending the LTV to say that such properties exist. The hard work is in showing that value is one of these properties and that we really need it. Moreover, also, that it is fruitful and useful to talk that way. jkks _ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Re: re: anal. Marxism and value
MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] As you see "analytical marxism " as reductionist, it is right. Marx began with critique of religion, secondly critique of state, and his conclusion was to critique state and its members(civilian),it was needed to analyze economic structure. So he never forgot critique of state, rather to try combine two factors. Below is from "Capital" "The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers -- a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity -- which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state. This does not prevent the same economic basis" Brenner's reductionism is clear. he only analyze market, finance, or credit. This tendency can ascend to Stalin's formula that economic process is natural and to proceed without people's will. Certainly capitalist system is reversed world in which Sachen (commodity, money and capital=== In any English translation of " Capital" there is no distinction between Sachen and Ding, but the two are different category, Sachen means occupying property, and Ding is mere physical matter, and identifying Sachen with Ding, we can not distinguish Versacherling and Verdinging, which is important to understand Marx's critique of fetishism)rule people, and people unconsciously and collectively produce Sachen which produce self-destructive power for people. And finally Marx described "In capital -- profit, or still better capital -- interest, land -- rent, labour -- wages, in this economic trinity represented as the connection between the component parts of value and wealth in general and its sources, we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the conversion of social relations into things, the direct coalescence of the material production relations with their historical and social determination. It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life. It did so by reducing interest to a portion of profit, and rent to the surplus above average profit, so that both of them converge in surplus-value; and by representing the process of circulation as a mere metamorphosis of forms, and finally reducing value and surplus-value of commodities to labour in the direct production process" We works with will, although its result is self-alienated. It is clear. But Stalin neglect this fundamental fact. "Crisis theory" was produced from experience of Marx, and Lenin. Marx firstly expected economic panic as condition of revolution, but in Capital, "As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialized
China's middle class
Economist.com China's middle class To get rich is glorious Jan 17th 2002 | BEIJING China's middle class is expanding rapidly. But what does it want? HAS China taken in a Trojan horse? The country's accession last month to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), optimists in the West often argue, will make China more prosperous and thereby boost the development of the middle class. This in turn will lead to demands for democratic reform because middle classes naturally want a say in government. Many Chinese scholars argue, however, that if substantial political change does occur in the next few years, the middle class will have little hand in bringing it about. The growing affluence of urban China would appear to be striking enough evidence that a middle class is already fast emerging. Cities that 15 years ago were grim, Stalinist backwaters are today aglow with the trappings of middle class life. The cities that have benefited most from the flood of foreign investment into China over the past decade-Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen-now boast more white collar workers than blue collar ones. The working class, which according to Communist rhetoric still leads the country, is shrinking. The state sector is crumbling. Private enterprise is booming. The party itself, meanwhile, remains way behind the times. It still will not use the term "middle class" in its official documents, preferring instead such phrases as "those with high incomes". To recognise such people as a class would turn the ideology of the last 50 years on its head. Mao Zedong sought to eliminate the capitalist-roaders and, despite the more tolerant economic climate of the past 20 years, it was only less than three years ago that the legitimacy of private enterprise was fully recognised in the constitution. President Jiang Zemin caused a furore within the party last July when he suggested that entrepreneurs be officially allowed to join. In a study of China's social classes published this month, the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) also shied away from the term "middle class", explaining in a footnote that the word "class" has negative connotations. The survey says that this "middle stratum" is still very small, amounting to about 15% of the working population compared with 60% in America. Still, this would amount to about 110m people, or about half of the urban population in employment. China's chief negotiator at the WTO accession talks, Long Yongtu, boasted last November that within ten years, some 400m-500m Chinese would enjoy a "middle income", making China's market "much bigger" than that of the United States. An official from the State Information Centre estimated recently that by 2005 China would have 200m middle-income consumers. The official was quoted by a state-run news agency as saying this class could afford to buy cars and housing and spend money on leisure travel. No wonder the foreign business community is salivating over the promises made by China to open up its markets after entering the WTO. But while no one doubts that there is a burgeoning group of relatively affluent Chinese, the size and political significance of this class is more questionable. Zhang Wanli, another participant in the CASS study, says there is a lot of "journalistic hype" in China about the size of the country's middle class. She says the middle class will still be much closer to 100m in five years' time, its growth constrained by growing urban unemployment as well as depressed incomes and widespread under-employment in the countryside. Not by bread alone Some Chinese officials clearly do believe that the middle class could pose a political threat. A study by the party's powerful Central Organisation Department published last May noted that "as the economic standing of the affluent stratum has increased, so too has its desire for greater political standing." The report said that this would inevitably have a "profound impact on social and political life" in China. President Jiang's gesture to businessmen last July was presumably aimed at ensuring their loyalty and deterring them from using their economic power in ways that might threaten the party. But so far, at least, there is scant evidence that the middle class is seeking anything more than political security. Some Chinese researchers say that entrepreneurs who have applied to join the party or sought election to legislative bodies want to gain social status and security rather than change the system from within. The CASS study says the government has failed to give "full political recognition to the interests of their social stratum" as well as adequate legal protection for their property. But private businesspeople do not look likely to push for such guarantees, at least not collectively. According to Shen Mingming, director of Beijing University's Research Centre for Contemporary China, the only groups in China with collective political consciousness are those traditionally re
Re: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note
on 2/3/02 02:40 PM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Here is the difference between Justin and Miyachi and my understanding. > > They seem to look at the value of the depreciated computer EX POST -- > after the fact. The problem that i see is ex ante. How do you set the > value of the product made with the computer years before the depreciation > occurs? I can expect a future path of depreciation but I cannot know it. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sir Michael Perelman Answer is easy. Below is fundamental category due to which Marx develop his capitalist critique "A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour-time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours. We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. [9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class. [10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour-time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. "As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour-time." [11] "The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour-time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical2 conditions
Re: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note
Michael: Miyachi's solution is not so simple. You have a new computer. Some of the value will be transferred to the product today. You have no idea how long the computer will last; when it will become obsolete. Unless you have foreknowledge of the future, you cannot know how much value transfers to the product. Karl: So what! This kind of speculation is analogouse to the how many angels can fit on the head of needle or pin or whatever bull. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: Enron SPV's and debt
Stephen: iv) Enron books the $100 mn as revenue today tho it may have made various promises to the bank and to future investors in the SPV to make them whole for losses (through warrants or issuance of additional ENE stock, again without full disclosure to current public shareholders). v) the SPV packages the "asset" into a security and sells it to large institutions or wealthy individuals as some kind of debt instrument typically, promising a return linked to the asset's future cash flows. This is done in a private placement, thus not registered with the SEC. I do not know FOF data records private placements of securities. The list of private investors in the various SPV's is only partially known. Pension funds, endowments, foundations, trust funds, are typical purchasers. Karl: This kind of stuff above is entirely designed to have a specific political effect --a bourgeois effect. Instead of analysing the Enron case to understand and highlight the way in which imperialist capital functions in its exploitation and oppression of the working Stephen tries to compete with bourgeois economic and financial commentators in spinning a story about Enron. What Enron did and did not do is, in a sense, is neither here nor there if it is not underlined by clearly defined politics based in the class interests of the working class.This is why the subscriber who suggested that value relations is the level from which wages and price must be understood. Enron must be understood from that same critical basis. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: Take the Money Enron.
Rakesh: Another question is who the creditor is. The creditors could be US in origin operating out of offshore accounts for purposes of tax advantage. But I don't believe the Fed's Flow of Data allows one track creditors working through offshore accounts back to their nations of origin. Karl: So what if they can or cannot. It is not an issue for the working class. It may be an issue for the bourgeoisie. But surely you aim is not to assist them in solving what may be their problems. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: value and price: a dissenting note
The discussion about the labor theory of value misses one important point, which I have been trying to push for years. Suppose you want to calculate the value of a commodity according to the simple algebraic formula C+V+S Held the calculate C? Marx describes a simple method: the suppose you have a machine that last 10 years, take the C and apply 1/10 of it to the value of the final product for each year. If, however -- and Marx pushes this quite a bit -- new technology destroys the value of the remaining C before the 10 years is up, how the calculate the amount of value embodied in the constant capital consumed? Of course, such calculations are impossible. Marx's value theory is very important for showing, as Jim emphasized, how the capitalist system works, but the simple algebraic description neglects the dynamic nature of capitalism. Marx's goes much farther in his description of the dynamic nature of capitalism, but nobody seems to have incorporated that part of his work into value theory, as such. In effect, those who talk about the dynamic nature of capitalism seem to ignore value theory and those who emphasize value theory seem to ignore dynamics -- the partial exception of Alan Freeman, Andrew Kleiman, and myself. None of us has done a satisfactory job. Karl: If, as you suggest, "Marx goes much further in his description of the dynamic nature of capitalism" the question then arises as to how far you view as having gone and how. Your may be contain a hint that he did not go far enough. Can you elaborate please? Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: Value talk
Yoshie: I agree with Rakesh. One of the points of thinking in terms of value is, I think, to overcome the limit of economism. That is, thinking in terms of prices & wages alone can only tell us how one segment of workers fare in comparison to others, as well as whether the purchasing power of individual workers _as consumers_ is going up or down. Thought in terms of prices & wages, lower wages for other segments of workers may seem good to you, as they allow your segment to command more products & services created by them. Thought in terms of value, however, lower wages for other segments of workers essentially cheapen the value of your segment's labor power. Thus, even though your real wages as well as nominal wages are going up, you may be still losing out to the class that exploit you. Thought only in terms of wages & prices (terms of market competition), there is no objective basis for solidarity across barriers (occupational categories, national borders, productive vs. unproductive labor, races, genders, etc.) that separate different segments of workers, but thinking in terms of value allows us to discover the objective basis. Karl: Yes. This is precisely the problem with the radical left on the Argentinian crisis. They confine politics to the limits of price and wages. Instead transcending those bourgeois limits to the real limits that entail critique they steadfastly confine themselves to the level of reformism which reflects itself in their vulgar political economy: more wages and more money. Value relations is the only basis for critique of capitalism. Value relations is the theoretical basis for revolutionary communist programmatic action --not prices and wages. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Stalinist Proyect
I wonder what views the stalinist Louis Proyect has on Mr Castro now when his brother Raul has apparently said that if any of the prisoners in Guantanomo Bay escape the Cuban authorities will return them to the Yankee soldiers. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
