Re: Re: The World We're In by Will Hutton
At 14/05/02 10:46 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Hutton joins the bandwagon of critics who oppose the symptoms of capitalism, but stop short of any solution that will go to the roots. That is the sort of central question that we should be debating. Do you have any direct quotes from Hutton's book to support this? Like George Soros, Edward Luttwak, Joseph Stiglitz and William Greider, he is upset with global inequality but would be equally upset with structural changes to eradicate inequality. Hutton is probably proposing Keynesian solutions. It would certainly not be socialism. But even a capitalist programme really to eradicate global inequality would be a big shock to the privileged populations of the imperialist countries, let alone their bourgeoisies. This could only be overcome if Keynesian measures brought so much underutilised means of production in the third world into play, (especially their underutilised labour power) that the total social product of the world increased substantially at the same time as surplus was invested almost exclusively in the the third world. This would allow a great increase in available use value in the world to disguise a massive redistribution of exchange value, within the total social product of the world. A bourgeois programme however moving more gradually in this direction might be possible and might get the backing of international finance capital as a way to stabilise continued capitalist exploitation. So, the Cuba socialist path is really the only alternative, not vaporous calls for social justice from the likes of George Soros. How this scumbag worms his way into left circles is beyond me. I presume this is a reference to George Soros. I would have thought that he has been invited to a forum for commercial reasons of his notoriety and because he has argued for capital to be recirculated to the global peripheries, (no doubt at public expense). Hutton, who is a fairly honest radical bourgeois, may well also be arguing for capital to be redistributed to the peripheries. Chris Burford
Re: Protectionism US style
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Michael Perelman wrote: Theoretically speaking, how does a deteriorating fiscal position lead to a strong dollar? deficits = high interest rates = strong dollar. That makes perfect sense. Except how come for all other countries, growing deficits lead to weaker currencies? And how come, during the 90s, surpluses and low interest rates led to a strong dollar? And deficits and high interest rates led to a weak Euro? Are these not considered enough anomalous results to make this theory slightly questionable under present arrangements, where capital accounts are all wide open? Michael
Re: Re: Protectionism US style
I have already answered this pertinent question. The asymmetry is due to the status of dollar as the wolrld account unit of debt. So that the USA are the only ones paying their debt with their debt. The very question is : why is the trade balance of world system's metropolis systematically negative through history, from ancient Athens to the USA, notably through Rome, 16th-century Europe and Victorian England? and the answer can be found in a Luxemburgist way. RK - Original Message - From: Michael Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:50 AM Subject: [PEN-L:26008] Re: Protectionism US style On Mon, 13 May 2002, Michael Perelman wrote: Theoretically speaking, how does a deteriorating fiscal position lead to a strong dollar? deficits = high interest rates = strong dollar. That makes perfect sense. Except how come for all other countries, growing deficits lead to weaker currencies? And how come, during the 90s, surpluses and low interest rates led to a strong dollar? And deficits and high interest rates led to a weak Euro? Are these not considered enough anomalous results to make this theory slightly questionable under present arrangements, where capital accounts are all wide open? Michael
Re: Re: Re: The World We're In by Will Hutton
Chris Burford: Hutton is probably proposing Keynesian solutions. It would certainly not be socialism. But even a capitalist programme really to eradicate global inequality would be a big shock to the privileged populations of the imperialist countries, let alone their bourgeoisies. A capitalist programme to really to eradicate global equality is a contradiction in terms, like democratic fascism or enlightened savagery. This could only be overcome if Keynesian measures brought so much underutilised means of production in the third world into play, (especially their underutilised labour power) that the total social product of the world increased substantially at the same time as surplus was invested almost exclusively in the the third world. This would allow a great increase in available use value in the world to disguise a massive redistribution of exchange value, within the total social product of the world. Keynsianism is an impossible course of action in 3rd world countries because their economies are too tightly integrated into the world capitalist system. The only option that makes sense is a proletarian dictatorship, a planned economy and a monopoly on foreign trade--in other words the Cuba model. It is also important to acknowledge that Keynsianism did not work very well in the first world when it was tried out. After all, it was WWII that lifted the USA out of a depression, not public works. I presume this is a reference to George Soros. I would have thought that he has been invited to a forum for commercial reasons of his notoriety and because he has argued for capital to be recirculated to the global peripheries, (no doubt at public expense). Hutton, who is a fairly honest radical bourgeois, may well also be arguing for capital to be redistributed to the peripheries. What does it mean for capital to be redistributed concretely? Banks have no trouble making loans to places like Chile or Jamaica. If this is what you mean, then that's like recommending tobacco to somebody with lung cancer. If, on the other hand, you mean the kind of arrangement the USSR had with COMECON, which effectively subsidized the Cuban and Eastern European economy, then I'm for it. Of course, people like George Soros, Tony Blair et al are obstacles to that. In any case, the two roads are incompatible. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
RE: Hetero Depts
rollins college/winter park florida, six member dept includes: charles rock eric schutz (who was - and may still be - on pen-l, check out his 2001 book 'markets and power: 21st century command economy') kenna taylor michael hoover
[no subject]
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, MAY 13, 2002: A sharp decline in food prices out-weighed the increase in gasoline and tobacco prices, causing the producer price index to drop 0.2 percent in April, compared with a 1.0 percent increase in March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The prices of consumer foods dropped 3.2 percent in April, compared with a 0.6 percent increase in March, BLS said. The so-called core rate of wholesale inflation -- finished goods minus food and energy -- increased 0.1 percent in April. Over the year, the core PPI has risen 0.4 percent (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). Wholesale prices fell 0.2 percent in April, led by the biggest drop in food costs in nearly 3 decades. The decline in the producer price index was a big turnaround from the sharp 1 percent increase registered in March, the Labor Department reported. Excluding volatile food and energy prices, the core rate of wholesale inflation rose 0.1 percent for the second straight month (The Washington Post, May 11, page E2). Producer prices fell unexpectedly in April as food costs showed the biggest decline in almost 3 decades and sluggish demand made it harder for companies to charge more, the government reported today. The Producer Price Index, which measures prices paid to factories, farmers, and other suppliers of goods and materials, dropped 0.2 percent after gaining 1 percent in March, the Labor Department said. Excluding food and energy, the index rose 0.1 percent, the 11th consecutive reading of that size or smaller (Bloomberg News, The New York Times, May 11, page B2). April's unexpected decline in U.S. wholesale prices, which includes the biggest drop in food prices in 28 years, suggests inflation is abating even as the economy rebounds. The Labor Department said Friday the producer price index for finished goods fell 0.2 percent, the first decline in 4 months. The drop largely reflected a 3.2 percent fall in food prices and a slowdown in the growth of energy prices: When food and energy items are excluded, the core index rose 0.1 percent, the same rate as in March. Excluding a 3.9 percent increase in tobacco prices, core prices declined 0.1 percent; according to Morgan Stanley (The Wall Street Journal, page A6). Writing on trade unions Mary Ellen Slayter (The Washington Post Career Track feature, page E4) says Although a 1999 survey by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. found that young adults (18 to 34) are twice as likely to think positively about unions than negatively, many young workers don't quite understand how unions work. In her article, she quotes Bureau of Labor Statistics' data, saying ...union members made 15 percent more than nonunion workers in 2001, according to the U.S. Labor Department. On average, union workers made $718 a week in 2001; nonunion workers made $575. One commonly cited complaint (about union membership) is the cost of dues. Most unions set dues as a percentage of pay. Those who make more, pay more, says Slayter. Another common objection is that unions aren't suitable for professionals or intellectual workers, that they are only appropriate for factory workers. White-collar workers generally believe they should negotiate individually based on their talent and skills, not based on where they fall under the union contract. This is one reason why there are fewer union workers today than 10 years ago. In a service economy, individual talents, which are often hard to judge objectively, allow some to advance in their careers faster than others. In 2001, 13.5 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, unchanged from 2000, according to the U.S. Labor Department. This is a significant decline from the high of 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year such statistics were reported. Maintaining a gradual rate of improvement, hiring plans for most industries are stronger for the third quarter than they have been in more than a year, the latest Manpower, Inc. survey shows. It was the second consecutive quarter in which job prospects improved. In its second-quarter survey, Manpower projected a turnaround as many industries pulled out of recession. Manpower's survey of nearly 16,000 firms showed that 27 percent plan to add employees in the third quarter, up by 6 percentage points from the second-quarter reading of 21 percent. Only 8 percent of employers said they plan layoffs for the third quarter, down from 10 percent reporting such plans for the second quarter. Manufacturing employment gains projected by the latest survey are especially encouraging, given the long-running downturn in that sector, Manpower Chairman Jeffrey Joerres said (Daily Labor Report, page A-9; Melissa McCord, Associated Press, http://www.nypost.com/apstories/business/V4788.htm). DUE OUT TOMORROW: College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2001 High School Graduates application/ms-tnef
Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Romain Kroes wrote: I have already answered this pertinent question. The asymmetry is due to the status of dollar as the wolrld account unit of debt. So that the USA are the only ones paying their debt with their debt. Why does the world continue to accept debt payment in dollars? I remember De Gaulle refusing dollars and demanding payment in gold in '60s. The very question is : why is the trade balance of world system's metropolis systematically negative through history, US trade balance is negative, but not Japan's. What is the net balance for the metropolis, Japan and EU included? from ancient Athens to the USA, notably through Rome, 16th-century Europe and Victorian England? and the answer can be found in a Luxemburgist way. How would Luxemburgism explain this phenomenon? Ulhas
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002: RELEASED TODAY: Slightly more than three in every five graduates of the 2001 high school class were enrolled in colleges or universities in the fall, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The college enrollment rate was little changed from the previous 2 years, but was below the record high of 67 percent in 1997. Information on school enrollment and the work activity of high school graduates comes from an October supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS). Among the 2.5 million members of the 2001 high school graduating class, 1.6 million (61.7percent) were enrolled in college the following October. Worker productivity, a key indicator of long-term economic vitality, rose 8.6 percent in the first quarter -- the best performance in nearly 19 years, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. The index, which measures changes in worker output per hour, means firms are squeezing more from their employees. Still, gains in productivity allow firms to pay workers more without raising prices and let the economy grow without sparking inflation. Analysts say the Fed won't likely raise interest rates until firms start hiring again (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p14s01-wmgn.html). After a tightfisted March, U. S. consumers splurged in April, boosting retail sales by 1.2 percent, the biggest increase in 6 months. The latest sales snapshot released today by the Commerce Department suggests that consumers -- the lifeblood of the economy -- are helping to support the budding economic recovery by keeping their pocketbooks and wallets open. The April advance came after retail sales nudged up by 0.1 percent in March and was stronger than the 0.6 percent gain many analysts were forecasting. Consumers, whose spending accounts for two-thirds of all economic activity in the United States, snapped up cars, building materials, garden supplies and health care and beauty products last month. They also ate out more (Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/401156p-3195271c.html). The U.S. economy will grow 2.8 percent this year and pick up to 3.7 percent in 2003, but with inflation in check, the Federal Reserve is unlikely to raise rates until the third quarter, the National Association for Business Economics said in its latest survey May 13. NABE forecasters have raised their predictions for real gross domestic product growth to 2.8 percent from 1.5 percent they had back in February. When GDP is measured from fourth quarter to fourth quarter, they predict that the economy will grow 3.9 percent this year and 3.6 percent in 2003. The survey of 30 forecasters was taken during the last week of April and the first week of May (Daily Labor Report, page A-11). Women may be bringing home larger paychecks, but when it comes to earning the really serious money -- wages of $1 million or more -- men far outnumber them, as they did a generation ago. Study results released recently by the Internal Revenue Service, based on an extensive analysis of wages reported by employers in 1998, show that men outnumber women in the $1 million-plus category by more than 13 to 1. A similar pattern was found in the $500,000 to $1 million category. But in the $100,000 to $200,000 class, the ratio was about 5 to 1; $75,000 to $100,000, 3 to 1; and $50,000 to $75,000, nearly 2 to 1. It was not until wages were $25,000 to $30,000 that there were roughly equal numbers of men and women, according to the I.R.S. report in the winter 2001-2002 Statistics of Income Bulletin. At wages of less than $25,000, women outnumbered men, accounting for 57.6 percent of the wage earners in that category. Three decades ago, women accounted for only 3 percent of students seeking an MBA degree, compared with about 30 percent today, added June O'Neill, an economist at Baruch College and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. Fewer women make it to the top because fewer women have set out from the start to make it to the top, she said. Ms. O'Neill said the predominance of women among low-wage earners reflected decisions by many women to focus more on the family than on work (The New York Times, May 12, Money Business section, page 8). Corporate cost-cutting efforts have generally not affected the work and life benefits that have become more widely offered over the last year, according to a Hewitt Associates survey released May 13. The survey of 945 U.S. employers showed that nearly all work/life programs have experienced modest growth over the last year. Group purchasing programs and onsite personal conveniences showed the most growth, the firm said. Survey findings contradict a general assumption that companies often cut back on so-called soft benefits when the economy turns down, said Hewitt work/life consultant Carol Sladek (Daily Labor Report, page A-4). DBM, an outplacement firm based in New York, said it recently
RE: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Ulhas writes:Why does the world continue to accept debt payment in dollars? I remember De Gaulle refusing dollars and demanding payment in gold in '60s. because the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world and in the era since 1971-73, money based on political-military power has replaced money based on precious metals. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Ulhas Joglekar wrote: Why does the world continue to accept debt payment in dollars? I remember De Gaulle refusing dollars and demanding payment in gold in '60s. During the second half of 19th century, England, because of her systematically negative balance of trade, had invented the balance sterling with wich she paid her debt with her debt. This system was possible and well self-maintained, due to holders of these sharing parts of the debt, who prefered to see their financial capital on the banks of Thames, because England was then the metropolis of the capitalist world system. But that was not irreversible, as sterling was convertible into gold at a fixed parity. Between the two World Wars, the Gold exchange standard advised nations not to demand gold in payments, but balances in any kind of convertible currency (convertible theoretically into gold). After the second World War, the treaty of Bretton Woods has reduced the previous Gold exchange standard to one bench currency: the dollar which took on itself the convertibility of all convertible currencies into gold. So that it was not necessary to demand gold in payment, as the gold of the whole capitalist world system was more secured, sleeping within Fort-Knox. Two reasons for such a belief. First, all convertible currencies were by definition in a relationship of fixed parities. Second, due to European debt toward the USA, the balance of trade of these latter was expected to be positive. In 1958, the currencies of Bretton Woods's system became, as planned, convertible. But the USA's balance of trade had become negative. Nevertheless, due to Cold War, the allies of the USA, that is the capitalist world system, did not dare to demand gold payments from the metropolis and their nuclear umbrella. Additionally, capitalist individuals and corporations perfered to see their financial capital in Wall-Street. Between 1953 and 1958, the USA balanced their debt by only 18% in gold. De Gaulle obliged Washington to increase this part to 48% between 1958 and 1962. After what it was the relentless crisis of dollar. In 1971, president Nixon unilaterally suspended, then abolished any kind of convertibility for the dollar. What was to be done, when the wold system of trade was based on dollar? The only possibility of escaping such a trap is a consensus between a sufficient huge number of nations, for do not putting themselves into debt in dollars any more. You can see the level of the problem. US trade balance is negative, but not Japan's. What is the net balance for the metropolis, Japan and EU included? European balance toward the USA, as Japan's, is positive. But European balance toward the rest of the world, except the USA, is negative. In the capitalist world system, there is a main metropolis and there are secondary ones. How would Luxemburgism explain this phenomenon? In this matter, Luxemburgism postulates an organic relationship between imperialism and capital accumulation process. Current Globalization is verifying it. RK
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Devine, James: Ulhas writes:Why does the world continue to accept debt payment in dollars? I remember De Gaulle refusing dollars and demanding payment in gold in '60s. because the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world and in the era since 1971-73, money based on political-military power has replaced money based on precious metals. US is powerful, but there are limits to US power. (e.g. US has not been able to capture Bin Laden 8 months after 9/11) US is the most powerful country in the world, but this power has grown dramatically after the disintegration of fSU. US power wasn't so all pervading in the 70s and 80s. e.g. India's trade with the Soviet block (between 15-20% of India's foreign trade) was entirely in Indian currency. US political- military power could do nothing about it. Can US compel China to hold fx reserves in dollars, if China was unwilling? Yes, precious metals have been replaced by $. But, if Euro or Yen were strong enough, the rest of the world would, perhaps, hold its reserves or a portion of them, in those currencies? Ulhas
Re: Re: self-interest vs class consciousness or pro -israel...
Chris-- There are three issues we should not confuse: 1) Who benefits from U.S. government actions? 2) Why does the U.S. do the things it does? 3) Which sections of the U.S. population support the actions of the government? It seems to me the answer to 1) is that the principal beneficiary of all actions by the U.S. government is the bourgeoisie, the U.S. ruling class. It is also true that other classes in the U.S. benefit to some secondary degree from U.S. imperialism, both the so-called middle class and also substantial sections of the working class. Partly this is due to the ability of the bourgeoisie to make concessions to the workers (and others who might potentially theaten their stable rule) with a part of the loot they rip off from the rest of the world (oil and otherwise). But in my opinion the U.S. ruling class, through its government, never does ANYTHING, at home or abroad, for the benefit of other classes in the U.S. unless it is something that it sees is necessary to do in order to serve its OWN interests. (Such as in order to keep things stable and under control in the home country.) That is, the answer to 2) is that the SOLE reason the U.S. government acts as it does is in order to serve the interests of the U.S. bourgeoisie. With regard to 3), yes, large sections of other classes have been indoctrinated to support the ruling class' government. This is completely irrelevant to point 2), even granting that there is a partial material basis for such mass support. The main point I was trying to make is that when we analyze things like this we should do so in class terms, and not simply talk about Americans in a classless way. Class interests are the key to understanding such events and actions even when the people involved have themselves little or no class consciousness. People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the INTERESTS of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. --Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913). --Scott Harrison In a message dated 5/14/02 3:05:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the ruling class is the principal beneficiary of the US support for Israel, but the middle-class and working class love those big suvs And some of them (the fundamentalist christians) see Israel as a bulwork against the dark satanic forces of Islam...Chris Niggle -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 2:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:25999] Re: self-interest rather than pro-israeli support drive US In a message dated 5/14/02 11:41:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...the primary aim of U.S. policy in the Middle East is U.S. dominance over the region and its oil resources, through support for regimes that play our game and through our ever-increasing military presence... ...That reality is clear: The central principle of every U.S. administration since the end of World War II has been that the resources of the region do not truly belong to the people of the region, but instead exist for the benefit of Americans http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0513-07.htm Please! This should be but instead exist for the benefit of the American RULING CLASS. We live in a society that is so class UNconscious, that even on the left this is a problem. --Scott H.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Romain Kroes wrote: Ulhas Joglekar wrote: How would Luxemburgism explain this phenomenon? In this matter, Luxemburgism postulates an organic relationship between imperialism and capital accumulation process. Current Globalization is verifying it. My question was about the nature of this organic relationship in the contemporary capitalism in concrete terms, as it impacts world's willingness to accept dollars ? Ulhas
Japan, as of April 2002
http://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai3/getsurei-e/2002apr.html
RE: Re: Re: self-interest vs class consciousness or pro -israel...
Scott: I agree with you. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26018] Re: Re: self-interest vs class consciousness or pro -israel... Chris-- There are three issues we should not confuse: 1) Who benefits from U.S. government actions? 2) Why does the U.S. do the things it does? 3) Which sections of the U.S. population support the actions of the government? It seems to me the answer to 1) is that the principal beneficiary of all actions by the U.S. government is the bourgeoisie, the U.S. ruling class. It is also true that other classes in the U.S. benefit to some secondary degree from U.S. imperialism, both the so-called middle class and also substantial sections of the working class. Partly this is due to the ability of the bourgeoisie to make concessions to the workers (and others who might potentially theaten their stable rule) with a part of the loot they rip off from the rest of the world (oil and otherwise). But in my opinion the U.S. ruling class, through its government, never does ANYTHING, at home or abroad, for the benefit of other classes in the U.S. unless it is something that it sees is necessary to do in order to serve its OWN interests. (Such as in order to keep things stable and under control in the home country.) That is, the answer to 2) is that the SOLE reason the U.S. government acts as it does is in order to serve the interests of the U.S. bourgeoisie. With regard to 3), yes, large sections of other classes have been indoctrinated to support the ruling class' government. This is completely irrelevant to point 2), even granting that there is a partial material basis for such mass support. The main point I was trying to make is that when we analyze things like this we should do so in class terms, and not simply talk about Americans in a classless way. Class interests are the key to understanding such events and actions even when the people involved have themselves little or no class consciousness. People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the INTERESTS of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. --Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913). --Scott Harrison In a message dated 5/14/02 3:05:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the ruling class is the principal beneficiary of the US support for Israel, but the middle-class and working class love those big suvs And some of them (the fundamentalist christians) see Israel as a bulwork against the dark satanic forces of Islam...Chris Niggle -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 2:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:25999] Re: self-interest rather than pro-israeli support drive US In a message dated 5/14/02 11:41:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...the primary aim of U.S. policy in the Middle East is U.S. dominance over the region and its oil resources, through support for regimes that play our game and through our ever-increasing military presence... ...That reality is clear: The central principle of every U.S. administration since the end of World War II has been that the resources of the region do not truly belong to the people of the region, but instead exist for the benefit of Americans http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0513-07.htm Please! This should be but instead exist for the benefit of the American RULING CLASS. We live in a society that is so class UNconscious, that even on the left this is a problem. --Scott H.
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style
This is something that pen-l has discussed a lot in the past, so I'm not going to provide a full-scale reply. But, _of course_ their are limits to U.S. power and I didn't say otherwise. And the fall of the USSR was crucial to boosting the power of the US, so that the dollar is better seated as the world currency than it was in the 1970s or 1980s. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Ulhas Joglekar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:36 PM To: pen-l Subject: [PEN-L:26017] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Protectionism US style Devine, James: Ulhas writes:Why does the world continue to accept debt payment in dollars? I remember De Gaulle refusing dollars and demanding payment in gold in '60s. because the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world and in the era since 1971-73, money based on political-military power has replaced money based on precious metals. US is powerful, but there are limits to US power. (e.g. US has not been able to capture Bin Laden 8 months after 9/11) US is the most powerful country in the world, but this power has grown dramatically after the disintegration of fSU. US power wasn't so all pervading in the 70s and 80s. e.g. India's trade with the Soviet block (between 15-20% of India's foreign trade) was entirely in Indian currency. US political- military power could do nothing about it. Can US compel China to hold fx reserves in dollars, if China was unwilling? Yes, precious metals have been replaced by $. But, if Euro or Yen were strong enough, the rest of the world would, perhaps, hold its reserves or a portion of them, in those currencies? Ulhas
Re: Re: Protectionism US style
Ulhas Joglekar wrote: My question was about the nature of this organic relationship in the contemporary capitalism in concrete terms, as it impacts world's willingness to accept dollars ? Ulhas In the contemporary capitalism and in concrete terms, the Luxemburgist relationship links the imperialist expansionism (Balkans, Agghanistan, Georgia and soon Irak) with the necessities and the crises of the process of accumulation (accumulation being exogenous in the Luxemburgist conception). As for the willingness to accept dollar, it would be a choice, only if the most of nations could rise up against the empire. Yen has been high in relation to the dollar for a long time, because Japan was by force the kind banker of the winner and in this quality obliged to defend its currency against the dollar. Every time Japanese or European central banks drop million dollars on the Open Market, to defend their currency, they cancel graciously a quantum of American debt, due to the status of dollar as the world account unit of debt. RK
Carter's speech
Why not call your local Spanish language TV station and ask when they are going to broadcast Carter's speech? Gene
