Re: Emissions trading
I have seen good articles in Z and in Dollars and Sense (and The Ecologist) on this in the past; though they were not elaborate empirical studies, they referred to real world cases and problems. Mat
Re: Red Baiting Labor Studies
Actually, that one I sent is a different one. Here is the one on the Labor Studies: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9057
Re: Red Baiting Labor Studies
I think the link you want is here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=8358 Unless there is another one? Looking for it, I found another one that says that ethnic studies and Black Studies programs are all "racist" and unknowingly followers of Hitler etc. Outrageous stuff. -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 1:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Red Baiting Labor Studies I picked this up from the Labor History List. From: Bob Zieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A student just passed along to me the following message and website. The article is an "expose" of the radical labor activism being preached in the guise of "Labor Studies," etc., at places such as Wayne State, Florida International, and so forth. Heads up! http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID?57 The web site itself is David Horowitz's Mellon-Scaife funded portion of the "vast right-wing conspiracy." -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Paul Hirst (1946-2003)
I'm surprised there is no mention of either PRE-CAPITALIST MODES OF PRODUCTION or MODE OF PRODUCTION AND SOCIAL FORMATION, both co-authored with Barry Hindess. They were very influential works contributing to the mode of production debates of the 70s and 80s. Mat
Re: moneyball
Marc Lavoie at U. of Ottawa has written on sports in Canada, some of it on discrimination against French-Canadians. A friend of mine from the New School did his dissertation on political economy of baseball under the late David M. Gordon's supervision. A U Mass grad student also did a political economy of baseball dissertation a few years back.
Re: OBL gatecrashes Prince William's 21st
If this is what the guy looked like, one really does have to wonder about security, or perhaps what is meant by "fancy dress"... http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_792983.html
Sacco's Palestine
Title: RE: [PEN-L] market competition fails again Just picked up a copy of Joe Sacco’s Palestine (the complete collection of all the previously issued comics in this series, with an Introduction by Edward Said). Can’t recall it being discussed here. Anyone else checked it out? Mat
Re: frontline: home | PBS
At the recent (and first ever) ICAPE (international confederation for the advancement of pluralism in economics) conference here at UMKC, an Austrian economist on a panel on "Rethinking (Post-)Capitalism" said he would not use the word "capitalism" because it was created by people who were critical of the market system to try to highlight the negative things about it. Heilbroner in his Nation review of Mankiw's textbook and elsewhere puzzled over why the word "capitalism" cannot be or is only very infrequently found in economics textbooks and journal articles (comparing it to a textbook or journal on Medieval Studies not using the word feudalism), and rejected the answer that it is due to the "negative" connotations. Instead, he said he thought that it was because the word "capitalism" makes clear that the object of study has an undeniable sociopolitical aspect, which economists see as a challenge to the "scientific" status of economics. Mat -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 4:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] frontline: home | PBS Michael Hoover wrote: >pbs apparently has policy prohibiting persons being interviewed for >broadcast from using terms 'capitalist' and 'capitalism', reference to >'business elite' is ok, info comes from michael zweig who was recently >subjected to said policy... michael hoover That's an outrageous policy, of course, but if I were on mainstream TV, I wouldn't use "capitalist" or "capitalism" either - I'd opt for more acceptable euphemisms. I've found over the years that lots of ordinary people are susceptible to Marxist analyses as long as they don't know that's what they're hearing. Doug
Re: Susceptibility to Marx
I didn't think they were talking about capitalism, Ellen, I thought this was for socialism. Mat From: Ellen Frank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I recall reading some poll results where a majority identified the line "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" as coming from the US Constitution. I've always thought that an odd line, by the way. Are Marx and Engels suggesting that, in a capitalist economy, distribution is based on ability? Ellen >
Re: Shleifer
I nominate Barkley to edit the JEL. Btw, Heilbroner use to say that the only thing the Journal of Economic Perspectives lacks is...perspectives. mf -Original Message- From: Barkley Rosser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 3:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Shleifer I just got my latest copy of the Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP). That is what Andrei Shleifer is editor of, not the JEL. Guess they are still looking for an editor of the JEL. Barkley Rosser
Re: Empire and Current Account
Ellen, I asked someone who does stuff in this area and he said that trade with the colonies was counted as foreign trade in all the cases he knows of, but some of the European countries in their statistical yearbooks that he has seen divided foreign trade into intra-empire trade and other trade. Mat -Original Message- From: Ellen Frank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Empire and Current Account This reminds me of a question I have long had to which one of you out there may have an answer. How did imperial Europe account for trade with colonies in the 1800s? Was Congolese rubber sent to Belgium counted as a Belgian import or was it treated as internal trade within Belgium? I would think the whole point of an empire is to extract resources and labor from one's colonies, not the other way round. Ellen PEN-L list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >John Gray (not the author of "Men are from Mars") >thinks that the really strange thing about the current >situation is that the USA is the first empire to be >running a structural current account deficit rather >than a surplus. I rather think that I agree with him, >although I have not checked his assertion that Britain, >Spain, Rome etc all exported capital. > >dd >
Re: query: Levy Profits equation
Title: query: Levy Profits equation Jim – Sorry, didn’t see this when it first came through. First, you should check out: Profits and the future of American society by S. Jay Levy and David A. Levy; New York : Harper & Row, c1983. (Jay is the son, and David the grandson, of Jerome Levy, the originator of the equation.) This is the source of the “complete” Levy Profits equation. There is also a booklet, not on hand at the moment, by David Levy, that does another, shorter, version. When I find a copy I can send it to you. I have used it in some courses. The closest thing to it is Kalecki’s profits equation, but of course Kalecki was very influenced by Marx. I never viewed it as akin to the Cambridge equation—see Garegnani’s presentation of the latter in Nell, et al. BEYOND THE STEADY STATE, and also Nell’s review of Marglin, (“Jean Baptiste Marglin”!). Mat
RE: Re: Re: patriotism by andie nachgeborenen
We have been through this before, progressive nationalism vs. reactionary nationalism. Some nationalism can be consistent with progressive politics, when it is on behalf of a nation fighting a liberation struggle against (neo)colonialism or imperialism. This might be thought of as an example of Spivak’s ‘strategic essentialism.’ But nationalism on behalf of an imperialist nation can be dangerous, even when cloaked as romantic ‘patriotism.’ -Original Message- From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:36547] Re: Re: patriotism by andie nachgeborenen and (2) US leftists affirming freedom and democracy as "American values," adopting nationalist symbols, etc. would make socialism in particular or leftist thought in general more palatable to more Americans. * * * Where did you get this about me advocate nationalist(!) symbols? I said nothing about symbols, except that I expressly said that flags and anthems do nothing more me. I admitted to choking up at the Lincoln Memorial, but it's sort of large to wave around, and can't easily be sung. I would not, for example, put it on my car. I like it in part because it prompts one to sober reflection rather than jingoism. I am opposed to nationalism (identication with a state and its policies, claims of superiority overothers). I am an internationalist. I just don't think that is inconsistent with patriotism (respect and identification with ideals and traditions of one's people) in my sense. jks Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
RE: patriotism
It’s insane that those of us who are anti-war have to say we are not against the troops or that we are not fans of Saddam. The level of discourse in this country is pretty embarrassing.
RE: Re: Re: Re: the emporer
I refused to pledge allegiance to the flag in 4th grade. It was the 1970-71 school year and I was 9 or 10 years old. The teacher kept me and a friend I had convinced to go along after class and asked us why. Our answer: "Because there isn't liberty and justice for all." Nobody had told us to do it, it was the spirit of the times to think about those things and question them.
RE: Re: WSJ - "Is This A Great Country?"
The insane aspect of this, which I suppose is obvious to everyone here, is that they are celebrating a world in which people hold on stubbornly to fantasies of material prosperity, even though it is clear that for the vast majority the dreams will never be fulfilled. What's to celebrate? -Original Message- From: Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:36383] Re: WSJ - "Is This A Great Country?" At 09:31 AM 4/1/03 -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote: >An item from April 1 2003 WSJ editorial page suggests something the >Left needs to deal with: The author left out what is probably most important for understanding the poll: It asked people what they thought "being rich" actually meant. Not surprisingly, what being rich means to someone making $30k is a lot different from what it means to someone making $75k or $140k The poll also reveals that gender and age play a part in people's perceptions. Unfortunately, when I read this, it was (I thought) freely available and I didn't save the entire report. here's the clip that I do have: "A recent Gallup Poll, conducted Jan. 20-22, finds that 31% of Americans expect to get rich at some time in their lives, and another 2% volunteer that they already are rich. The public's definition of rich means an annual income of about $120,000 or financial assets of about $1 million (each figure is the median estimate). These figures, as well as the percentage who expect to get rich, all vary considerably by gender, age, and income." http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030311.asp Kelley
RE: RE: Re: [Fwd: ROBERT K. MERTON, SOCIOLOGICAL GIANTON WHOSE SHOULDER WE ALL STAND]
Title: RE: [PEN-L:35056] Re: [Fwd: ROBERT K. MERTON, SOCIOLOGICAL GIANTON WHOSE SHOULDER WE ALL STAND] Been around this before I think, but anyway: analyzing functionality need not carry the baggage of functionalism, we must all agree with that? An importance difference between Marx’s theory of unemployment and that of Keynes is that Marx recognizes the functionality of unemployment in capitalism, while for Keynes unemployment is an irrational by-product of capitalism, but it serves no function. Fox and Piven look at the functionality of the “underclass” (‘This could be you.’). Darity argues for the functionality of discrimination. This has important policy implications—one must address the loss of those functions. mf -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:16 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:35058] RE: Re: [Fwd: ROBERT K. MERTON, SOCIOLOGICAL GIANTON WHOSE SHOULDER WE ALL STAND] michael hoover:> pluralist and elitist theories are two sides of same functionalist coin, former assumes that capitalism and liberal democracy are values consciously and spontaneously shared by most americans and that system of dispersed political power, limited gov't, incremental political change keeps society going...latter sees same shared values as outgrowth of 'power elite' manipulation/indoctrination, elites have means - including force - to hold system together... < These theories don't _have to_ be part of structural functionalism. In fact, an elite theorist such as C. Wright Mills or G. William Domhoff can contribute to a Marxian analysis. After all, the capitalists do have a dominant elite (along with some competing elites) and opposition forces have their potential counter-elites. (It's important to separate elite vs. mass theory and class theory, of course.) Jim
RE: Re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
Title: Re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics? The critique that I couldn’t recall in an earlier post is called the Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu theorem. It is not something that can easily be summarized for a popular audience, but it is an overlooked major problem with mainstream theory. It is summarized nicely in Marc Lavoie’s Foundations of Post Keynesian Economic Analysis (Elgar, 1992). Lavoie also has a nice summary of the capital critiques. Maybe no one of the criticisms of neoclassical economics will end a debate, but when taken all together, I think there is a very damaging argument against the mainstream. The bigger problem is what to replace it with. I remember in graduate school asking a professor, who was a major figure in the capital debates and who has dedicated a life and probably made many career sacrifices to crafting an alternative, why is neoclassical theory still dominant? If anyone has the motives to say “ideology” this person has. Instead, he said that we have not yet built a comprehensive-enough, rigorous-enough alternative. “Much work remains to be done.”
C-FEPS report on Economists' Statement
CENTER FOR FULL EMPLOYMENT AND PRICE STABILITY Special Report 03/01 February, 2003 OPPOSITION TO THE BUSH TAX CUTS Recently, a group of economists (including at least 10 Nobel laureates) has been circulating a statement opposing the tax cuts proposed by President Bush. Their critique boils down to three related points. First, they argue, the tax cuts have been advanced as part of a stimulus package, but the design of the proposal is flawed. It will not stimulate jobs and growth in the near-term. Second, the tax cut plan is not “revenue neutral”, hence, will add “to the nation’s projected chronic deficits.” Further, this will reduce the government’s long-term capacity “to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research”. Finally, the President’s plan would impose a “permanent change in the tax structure”, when what is needed, according to these economists, is an “immediate but temporary” package to expand demand. In summary, a proper stimulus plan would provide only “temporary incentives for investment”, spurring “growth and jobs in the short term without exacerbating the long-term budget outlook.” While we share some skepticism about the likelihood that the President’s plan will provide sufficient stimulus to prevent continued deterioration of economic growth, we think the economists’ statement represents a flawed and even dangerous misunderstanding of the problems faced by our economy. The US is not merely facing a “temporary” shortfall of demand (wrongly attributed by the economists to “overcapacity, corporate scandals, and uncertainty”). Nor will a “revenue neutral tax reform effort” do any good. Rather, the problem we face is a prospective long-term insufficiency of demand that results from four constraints. First, and most important, our federal government’s budget has become imbalanced to a degree last seen in the 1920s. Partially due to budget-balancing agreements, partially due to large increases of Social Security taxes in the 1980s, and partially due to a long-term trend to devolve spending responsibility to the states, the federal budget has become excessively biased to run surpluses at moderate rates of economic growth. These surpluses, in turn, require that the nongovernment sector taken as a whole (including households, firms, and the foreign sector) must run deficits. Indeed, the record budget surpluses achieved during the Clinton years were matched by unprecedented domestic private sector deficits—that reached above 6% of GDP. This leads to the second headwind. The US private sector has been spending more than its income every year since 1996. The long-term legacy is record indebtedness that burdens households and firms. As is widely recognized, firms have already cut back spending as they try to work off some of this debt; short-term tax incentives will not induce firms to undertake new projects given idle capacity and heavy indebtedness. American households are widely given credit for the recovery (albeit, an anemic one) as they have continued to borrow and spend. However, no one doubts that consumption is running out of steam. No “revenue neutral” tax cut plan is going to reduce the burden on households and encourage continued growth of consumption. Third, devolution has placed more responsibilities on state budgets. This is undesirable for two reasons. First, state taxes are regressive (highly so in some cases), placing the heaviest burden on those least able to pay. More importantly, states must act procyclically, increasing spending in a boom (fueling the boom) while slashing spending and raising taxes in a slump (there is little doubt that states helped to turn the early 1990s recession into a “double dip”). It is time for the federal government to increase grants to states, especially on a counter-cyclical basis. Only the federal government can lean against the wind, cutting taxes and increasing spending in a recession. Finally, the US trade deficit has trended upward over the past two decades. Unlike many economists, we do not view this with alarm. In our view, the trade deficit results mostly from insufficient demand in the export surplus nations, and a trade deficit allows American consumers to enjoy real benefits (after all, exports are a cost and imports are a benefit). At the same time, however, we recognize that all else equal, a trade deficit reduces American demand for domestic output. Given a balance of payments deficit equal to about 4% of GDP, the US government sector must run a deficit of 4% of GDP simply to allow our private sector to balance its own budget (with spending equal to after-tax income). Hence, all else equal, the federal budget should be biased toward a deficit—not a surplus—at moderate rates of economic growth. The appropriate structural adjustment is on the order of 6-7% of GDP ($600-700 billion). In conclusion, the not
RE: Re: RE: Re: FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts
Doug - The person you are talking about either does not understand the Wray/Bell argument or is subscribing to some other view, such as that of John Gelles (there is a New School grad student who does fit this latter, btw). You will not find the argument that no taxes are necessary or that the government should just print money to pay its expenses in anything by Wray, Bell, or Mosler for that matter. When I said no taxes, no currency, I thought it would be understood that I meant state fiat currency. It was not an historical argument, although there are historical cases of new currencies being introduced through public receivability (requirement that tax obligations be settled in gov't currency), it was intended to make the point that public receivability is an important component of the demand for government fiat currency. Again, I have never read in anything by Wray et al that says no taxes are necessary, in fact quite the opposite. I also agree that there are important political issues involved. But modern governments (operating with a fiat currency and flexible exchange rates) are not constrained in their spending by purely financial constraints. My point about the Economists' statement is that the notions that any stimulus package should provide only a temporary boost; that investment incentives should be temporary; and that tax cuts must be revenue-neutral, seriously misunderstands our present economic situation. All these are found in the statement. I have serious reservations about the Bush tax cut proposal, but I also have serious reservations about the Economists' statement. One may disagree with me, as obviously many have (although I get the feeling some may have just signed on without really thinking it through--"oh, here's a petition against Bush, let's sign it"), but I see nothing outrageous or cranky (in the monetary sense) about my position. Mat -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34755] Re: RE: Re: FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts Forstater, Mathew wrote: >I don't think anyone argues that no taxes are necessary? Several years ago, I had an argument with a New School grad student who claimed just that - that the gov could just print money to pay its expenses. It was like no real resources were involved. > No taxes would >mean no currency, because taxes create the demand for money (see Wray's >book, etc.). That really strikes me as loopy. There's no private need for money? Money doesn't arise in exchange? Re: the deficit. Could the USG run a deficit of, say, 5% of GDP indefinitely? Could the debt/GDP ratio hit 100% with no ill effect? How about 200%? And doesn't, as Jim O'Connor put it, public debt increase capital's power over the state? Doug
RE: RE: re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
This brings up a side issue that I have not been able to decide on: is an empirical critique part of an internal critique, external critique, or neither. I have been treating it as neither--something sort of halfway between the two. Internal critique has always meant to me to be about internal logical consistency--accept the basic assumptions and evaluate whether the conclusions claimed are valid. If a theory doesn't pass this test, it doesn't need to be empirically tested. External critique has always meant to me to be about challenging the basic explicit or implicit assumptions. An empirical critique isn't challenging these--like internal critique it accepts the basic framework, at least provisionally, and just asks whether data or history support it. Is there a basic consensus in the philosophy of science about where empirical criticisms fit in? -Original Message- From: Lee, Frederic Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34739] RE: re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics? For all those who are interested in what is wrong with neoclassical economic theory should read Steve Keen's book, Debunking Economics. If you want a critique that is directed at neoclassical micro see the attached paper. There are many ways to show that neoclassical micro is incoherent--internal critiques, external critiques, empirical critiques--to easily conclude that it should be completely dismissed. Fred Lee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34731] re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics? jks wrote, >Communersability isn'tr interpersonal comparison of utilities. It's the assumption that even within a single individual's utility functions all values are commebsurable, that it's possible to compoare, e.g., my distaste for brussels sprouts with my contempt for Enron, my love for my sweetie with my delight in trashy movies. In standard high NC theory, noncommerserability--as you've defined it--isn't a problem. You don't need to be able to sum up for an individual to get a single value for "utility." You don't even need any idea of utility at all in high neoclassical theory. All you need is some consistency in the choices that people make: revealed preference and all that. No primal concept of utility is needed; only the _observation_ that people make choices in a "reasonable" way (and you don't need to posit what motivates these choices). PO just requires that more for person A (one more pencil) requires less something for person B (one less brussels sprout). It doesn't matter how you measure the "harm" to person B. In high NC theory utility is replaced by a vector of the individual items a person consumes. If any more to person A causes person B to move from consumption vector B1 to consumption vector B2 (and they would have chosen B1 over B2 if given the opportunity--that is, you would observe this which requires no reference to utility as it is an _observation_) this is not a PO move. No need to posit utility only that people can, and do, make choices in a consistent fashion. As long as someone can say, "hey I would rather have B1 over B2" everything is okay (as far as its use/nonuse of utility notions.) So high NC theory says. Although most NC theorists are weird, enough are smart enough to have "immunized" most of their theory from internal logical challenges. Eric .
RE: Re: re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
You mean poetry is not commensurable with pushpin? -Original Message- From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34730] Re: re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics? Communersability isn'tr interpersonal comparison of utilities. It's the assumption that even within a single individual's utility functions all values are commebsurable, that it's possible to compoare, e.g., my distaste for brussels sprouts with my contempt for Enron, my love for my sweetie with my delight in trashy movies. As to whether PO is a fundamental rethinking or a technical device, reasonable minds can differ. jks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jks wrote, >That's what I meant by technical devices. However, commsurability is still maintained,a nd you can't talk about Pareto optimality without it . . . PO does _not_ require any interperson utility comparison (ie, commsurability); that is its beauty from the point of view of NC economics. And, PO is not a mere technical device, it is a fundamental rethinking of the notion of social welfare (from the odd mainstream idea of social welfare). Eric . Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
unemployment insurance
Any work supporting the economic stimulus benefits of extended or increased unemployment insurance? There’s a bill coming up in Kansas some of us are working on drafting some letters and testimony, any empirical work showing positive effects, that kind of thing?> tyhanks
RE: Re: FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts
I don't think anyone argues that no taxes are necessary? No taxes would mean no currency, because taxes create the demand for money (see Wray's book, etc.). I do subscribe to the Lerner functional finance view that all that matters are the *effects* of any particular relation between G and T, that deficits can be too big, but they can also be too small, and that the purposes of taxes and bond sales are different from the 'financing' function under a gold standard or a currency board or dollar peg or the like. I truly think that the authors of that statement are taking advantage of some common misguided fears of deficits and the debt to try to sell their argument, and that besides being untruthful (though some of the signers probably believe it), can backfire when the times call for larger deficits and a growing debt. I also subscribe to the Eisner view that "for every buyer there is a seller, for every debtor there is a creditor" and that the government deficit shows up on the other side of the balance sheet as a private sector surplus (given the trade balance), so that if you want to decrease the deficit you are going to have to live with a lower private sector surplus and if you want to run surplus and pay down the debt you are going to have to live with a private sector deficit and smaller national wealth. I no nothing more on the Mosler tax thing than what was in the one article I saw and nothing has changed here at UMKC. Mat -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34718] Re: FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts Forstater, Mathew wrote: >This statement is so frustrating--"chronic deficits" "exacerbating the >long term budget outlook" "reduce the capacity of the government to >finance"... Just keep backing yourselves further an further into the >corner, so you can never support common sense budgetary policy again, or >only do so at the risk of having this thrown back in your face. Why not >just criticize it for what its real problems are, instead of exploiting >the misunderstandings about federal budgetary matters? Mat, are you one of those folks who think that deficits don't matter at all? Do you go as far as other Moslerites and think that the government doesn't even need to tax people? Speaking of Mosler, I read that he's in big tax trouble. This mean problems for the UMKC group? Doug
RE: RE: re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
By the way, the argument that the capital critique is "so 60s/70s" which I generally consider to be a compliment, to me is similar to the one that peace is "so 60s/70s". By the way way, Syed Ahmad's Capital in economic theory: neo-classical, Cambridge, and chaos; Elgar, c1991, received some good attention. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34715] RE: re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics? Mat wrote, >Perhaps one of the most easily expressed and understandable critiques of mainstream economics is that so many of its results rely on the full employment assumption. . . I'm not sure that is exactly true for applied labor models in which "unemployment" does occur. Because of this, I don't think that an attack via the full employment assumption of non-labor models will have much of an effect. I'm not sure, but it seems the introduction of unemployment in mainstream GE models wouldn't be too hard to do. Beckers allocation of time work is completely consistent with people not working but whining that they really want jobs (but don't take them). Among the many different mainstream approaches to unemployment are the oppportunity costs of working are too great (lazy workers!) and the labor extraction models. And the capital controversy is so 1960/1970s. (It didn't have an effect then and there is not reason to suppose it will have an effect in the 2000s. Eric .
RE: RE: re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
Eric - I wouldn't spend a lot of time on the capital critique, but it is worth a mention. The fact that the 'other side' conceded defeat (Samuelson 1966) and it still didn't stop the theory from being used can support the argument that the continued dominance of mainstream economics may be due to factors such as ideology, institutional lock-in, etc. I am not convinced by your unemployment remarks. Of course neoclassical theory has a theory (more than one, actually) of how unemployment can occur, but that doesn't mean that many models that rely on the full employment assumption don't collapse when that assumption is violated. The factors that would generate unemployment also upset the other results (that the outcome is 'optimal' etc.). So, when there is unemployment, free markets don't result in the best of all possible worlds. I think the famous comments by Hahn the GE model are also very powerful. I don't have the quote in front of me, but he says that the most important function of the model is its 'negative' one. It shows that even in theory prices only truly reflect scarcity when there are complete markets including futures markets, no money in the system, perfect information and foresight, full employment, etc. so that any time someone is arguing, for example, that if we are worried about exhaustible resources all we have to do is let the price mechanism do the trick, then one can point out that the person is assuming all the assumptions of the GE model. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34715] RE: re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics? Mat wrote, >Perhaps one of the most easily expressed and understandable critiques of mainstream economics is that so many of its results rely on the full employment assumption. . . I'm not sure that is exactly true for applied labor models in which "unemployment" does occur. Because of this, I don't think that an attack via the full employment assumption of non-labor models will have much of an effect. I'm not sure, but it seems the introduction of unemployment in mainstream GE models wouldn't be too hard to do. Beckers allocation of time work is completely consistent with people not working but whining that they really want jobs (but don't take them). Among the many different mainstream approaches to unemployment are the oppportunity costs of working are too great (lazy workers!) and the labor extraction models. And the capital controversy is so 1960/1970s. (It didn't have an effect then and there is not reason to suppose it will have an effect in the 2000s. Eric .
RE: RE: FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts
Hasn't 20 years of this position proven not only its ineffectiveness but its damaging consequences? I remember a D.C. bureaucrat telling me in the mid-80s how upset the Dems were about the Heilbroner and Bernstein book, The Debt and the Deficit: False Alarms, Realm Possibilities. Enough! I know all kinds of lies one could write if the only goal is to attract signatures. Doesn't the substance matter? -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 5:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34708] RE: FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts Cuz then the signatories would be limited to the members of this list! mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Forstater, Mathew Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34704] FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts This statement is so frustrating--"chronic deficits" "exacerbating the long term budget outlook" "reduce the capacity of the government to finance"... Just keep backing yourselves further an further into the corner, so you can never support common sense budgetary policy again, or only do so at the risk of having this thrown back in your face. Why not just criticize it for what its real problems are, instead of exploiting the misunderstandings about federal budgetary matters? http://www.epinet.org/stmt/
RE: RE: FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34704] FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts Why use arguments one knows to be untrue? They can only come back to haunt. -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 5:12 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:34705] RE: FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts heck, it only backs us into a corner if the government pays attention. The only impact the statement is likely to have is to discourage further large tax cuts for the rich... a signer, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Forstater, Mathew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 3:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:34704] FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax > cuts > > > This statement is so frustrating--"chronic deficits" "exacerbating the > long term budget outlook" "reduce the capacity of the government to > finance"... Just keep backing yourselves further an further into the > corner, so you can never support common sense budgetary > policy again, or > only do so at the risk of having this thrown back in your > face. Why not > just criticize it for what its real problems are, instead of > exploiting > the misunderstandings about federal budgetary matters? > > http://www.epinet.org/stmt/ > >
RE: RE: re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34696] re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics? Perhaps one of the most easily expressed and understandable critiques of mainstream economics is that so many of its results rely on the full employment assumption (trade theory again is a great example). As Shaikh put it long ago, “full employment is just the hidden dual of the concept of opportunity cost” because “this concept of cost as opportunities foregone cannot be used if there are unemployed resources.” It strikes me that one could do a nice, brief, powerful critique of mainstream economics, employing external, internal, and empirical criticisms using the example of trade theory, emphasizing that the criticisms apply to other areas as well. The capital critiques have been shown to be devastating for HOS theory (Steedman, etc.); the external critiques can be made nicely simply by looking at the assumptions of HOS theory (perfect competition, full employment, identical technologies, perfect info, etc.), and Leontief’s 1950s empirical test of HOS for the empirical relevance. mat
FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts
This statement is so frustrating--"chronic deficits" "exacerbating the long term budget outlook" "reduce the capacity of the government to finance"... Just keep backing yourselves further an further into the corner, so you can never support common sense budgetary policy again, or only do so at the risk of having this thrown back in your face. Why not just criticize it for what its real problems are, instead of exploiting the misunderstandings about federal budgetary matters? http://www.epinet.org/stmt/
RE: Re: RE: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
One way to go about addressing the question would be to divide your criticisms into internal critiques, external critiques, and empirical (in)validity. The internal could mention the problems in capital theory and other logical inconsistencies (Marc Lavoie does a good job of summarizing them in his Foundations of Post Keynesian Economics). External could stress the things others listed, not dealing with social, cultural, etc., atomism and all that. Empirical validity you could use trade theory as an example since you already know that lit.
RE: Re: Re: the executive committee
Sorry of these have already been dug out: “The state is a machine for maintaining the rule of one class over another.” Lenin, The State, 1975, p. 11. “The state is a product and manifestation of the *irreconcilability* of class contradictions.” Lenin, The State and Revolution, 1976, p. 9. (both from the Foreign Languages Press editions of the works, People’s Republic of China.)
RE: Today's quiz
Jim wanted the source. Apparently it was from the Nuremburg trials, although a very similar statement is in In War. Since you guys think you are so hot, try this one: "Now I am prowling through the backyard and I am hiding under the car and I've gotten out of everything I've gotten into so far and I eat when I am hungry and I travel alone."
RE: RE: RE: Re: Today's quiz
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34607] RE: Re: Today's quiz One of the Urban legends sites says it is actually true. -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:43 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:34609] RE: RE: Re: Today's quiz I really wonder if it's really Goering, since a few years ago there was a spurious (and similar) quote from Hitler floating about. (My copy of THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT, which debunks famous "quotes" is at home.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Forstater, Mathew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 8:35 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:34607] RE: Re: Today's quiz > > > Goering is right. Is it that well-known or is it going around the net? > Or are you guys really, really smart? > >
RE: Re: Today's quiz
Goering is right. Is it that well-known or is it going around the net? Or are you guys really, really smart?
Today's quiz
Who said: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." ?
RE: PEN-L equals redistributionist LIBERALS
Alois wrote: >I look at PEN-L and all I see are a bunch of LIBERALS from universities >whose economic schemes all seem to involve big government coming in to >enact their redistributionist schemes. At this point I was sure we were going to be told we should stop being so reformist.
in context
More on the “in context” text: Instructors can order an exam copy of Microeconomics in Context, Preliminary Edition over the web at http://college.hmco.com/cgi-bin/SaCGI.cgi/college/catalog.class?FNC=titleSea rch__Asearch_Results_html___3306 (Or, go to www.hmco.com, select College Division, and search under author "Goodwin"). Or they can contact faculty services at Phone: 800.733.1717 Fax: 800.733.1810 Email: college_faculty_services @hmco.com (While the website says that the Instructors Web Site, Test Bank, and and Resource Manual are currently "not available," these should be available before the end of January 2003.) Non-instructors can pay $41.96 to order Microeconomics in Context, Preliminary Edition over the web or by calling Customer Service toll-free (877) 859-7241.
FW: aals follow-up
From Neva Goodwin, in response to Jim’s question about the availability of their text. She is also working on a macro book. -Original Message- From: Neva Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 9:42 AM To: Forstater, Mathew Our textbook is now available in the Preliminary Edition; if you had any interest in using it in a class (at a much reduced cost to the student, since this edition is printed in black and white) we are looking for people who might give us feedback before the final edition goes into production. Please let me know if this is of interest. All the best -- Neva
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: tax theory/policy
Entire texts now exist on line, or can be pieced together from places on-line. There are also "course notes" and slides from lectures that can be used to cover most or all of the topics in a principles course. Why make your students buy a $100 book? You would think the profs are getting the 18 bucks. >My god. Amazon sez it's $120.70. Assuming 15%, he gets $18.11 apiece. Doug
RE: Re: Re: Morality & Engels
>Hyman Minsky used to say there were 57 varieties of capitalism. I think it is getting to the point where more people have said Minsky said it than he actually said it himself. He always said it was 57 pickles. I thought it was ketchup. In any case, I always wondered, are there really so many varieties of capitalism? Well, maybe not. It turns out, the 57 was completely arbitrary. The "rest is history" indeed! >From the Heinz web site: What is the significance of "57"? The Heinz 57 Varieties slogan is synonymous with the name "Heinz." Our corporate history tells us that in 1896, Henry John Heinz noticed an advertisement for "21 styles of shoes." He decided that his own products were not styles, but varieties. Although there were many more than 57 foods in production at the time, because the numbers "5" and "7" held a special significance for him and his wife, he adopted the slogan "57 Varieties." Thus, a new advertising campaign was launched for Heinz 57 Varieties - and the rest is history! http://www.heinz.com/jsp/consumer_faq.jsp#11
FW: Statement from the Black Radical Congress
Yoshie had asked about the BRC; apparently alive and well. - - This is a Press Release/Statement from the Black Radical Congress - - This is a Statement from the Black Radical Congress - The Black Radical Congress (BRC) The Black Radical Congress Opposes a Military Attack on the People of Iraq. Statement of the Black Radical Congress, January 2003 The BRC joins the International Call for No war on Iraq. By the beginning of January 2003 the United States military accelerated the biggest military build up in the Persian Gulf since the Gulf War of 1991. The Pentagon called up more than 100,000 soldiers - including their tanks and attack helicopters to the Gulf. This will be the first full deployment of a U.S. combat division in the region since the Gulf War. Among these 100,000 soldiers were crack units from the offensive forces of the infantry, the Marines, the Navy and the air force. These soldiers joined some 4,000 troops already on the ground in Kuwait and added to the tens of thousands of U.S. personnel in various offensive bases in Qatar, Djibouti; Saudi Arabia poised to attack and invade Iraq. There is at the same time the call up of military reservists in the USA in preparation for war. The BRC is mindful of the fact that a disproportionate number of those who are being called up to go to the frontlines are of African descent and other peoples of color. At the present moment there is no international force to stop the military build up for war. On January 1st the Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan said that he sees no basis at present for the use of force against Iraq. The impending conflagration spells the end of the legitimacy of the United Nations. The most important sections of the mainstream media in the USA continue to carry out psychological warfare against the citizens of the USA in order to mobilize them to support this military invasion at a time when millions want jobs, heat, health care, affordable medicine and decent education. The impending war in Iraq is supplemented by an accelerated war at home under the banner of Homeland Security. Africans in America have been the main victims of the oppression and war against the poor inside the USA. Millions of blacks are in the prisons or awaiting sentencing in this war at home. In order to intensify this war at home there are advanced plans for urban warfare to supplement Homeland Security.! The draconian measures being taken by the present government include the use of more sophisticated instruments of coercion and repression than was available at the time of the Nazis in Germany. The Black Radical Congress unequivocally opposes military intervention in Iraq. The people of Iraq, especially the children have suffered immensely since 1991. It is estimated that over half a million children have died as a result of the sanctions imposed on the people of Iraq. The war against Iraq will create more sufferings. It is up to the people of Iraq to initiate regime change. The BRC sees this war as one component of the escalation of the hegemonistic actions of a small section of the political leadership in the USA that maintains control over the Organs of state power. Unfortunately, other sections of the bourgeoisie have been silenced or are seeking to gain lucrative contracts from the implementation of Homeland Security. This obscene behavior on the part of these corporations is reminiscent of the relationship between major corporations in the USA and the fascist regime in Germany. The BRC joins the youth, students, progressive women's movement, the rank and file workers, the church and religious leaders, those in the environmental justice movement and ordinary citizens who are mobilizing against this war. The BRC recognizes that this is an unjust war and will be part of the national and international opposition to this war. The BRC calls on all sections of the African community at home and abroad to find ways to oppose this war. The BRC is calling upon all political leaders in the African community to support the youth who refuse to be called up to fight against the people of Iraq. The National Members Congress of the BRC will be convened in June to consider ways of strengthening the work of the BRC in the peace and anti globalization movement. The current peace movement is playing an important role in delegitimizing the false patriotism that is being orchestrated by the conservative media. This peace movement is very central to the building of a new political movement in this period. One requirement is for the larger movement to begin to grasp the important interconnections between Reparat
RE: RE: suggestions for a syllabus of course on the Middle East
There were a few Zed books that were good on various related issues. You might check their website. M
RE: RE: quesion from Michael Yates
Title: RE: [PEN-L:33652] quesion from Michael Yates You might want to check out Edward Nell, Prosperity and Public Spending, and also some of the contributions in another book edited by Nell, Free Market Conservatism. I also vaguely recall there being something in one of the URPE readers, either/both U.S. Capitalism in Crisis or Macroeconomics from a Left Perspective. -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:28 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:33656] RE: quesion from Michael Yates Michael Perelman writes: > Can anyone recommend a good article on the causes of > stagflation in the US > in the 1970s? Thanks. see, for example, James Devine, "The Rise and Fall of Stagflation: Preliminary Results," Review of Radical Political Economics, 32(3), 2000: 398-407. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: suggestions for a syllabus of course on the Middle East
"Nationalism and Class Struggles in the Arab World" by Ahmad El Kodsy (I recall hearing this was a pen name of Samir Amin?) is dated but very useful still. It was included in the Monthly Review book THE ARAB WORLD AND ISRAEL, and the other piece in that by Eli Lobel may also be useful. Arie Bober's work was useful to me. I think he had a Zed book, but I'm not sure. What I found helpful was his "reserve army" approach to analyzing Israel/Palestine. Things have changed now with Israel bringing in 'guest workers' to replace Palestinian labor, but the general framework was good, and the history is important. Mat
In Defense of Scrooge (not meant as a joke)
Tuesday, December 24, 2002 In Defense of Scrooge by Michael Levin, professor of philosophy, City University of New York It's Christmas again, time to celebrate the transformation of Ebenezer Scrooge. You know the ritual: boo the curmudgeon initially encountered in Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, then cheer the sweetie pie he becomes in the end. It's too bad no one notices that the curmudgeon had a point—quite a few points, in fact. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=573&titlenum=&FS=&title=&Month=
RE: Re: Whitehead and Marx
This kind of thing has done been done, of course, both specifically Marx and Whitehead, and generally Marx and ___, where the blank is your favorite philosopher or philosophical tradition (that fills in or elaborates something missing or underemphasized in Marx, according to the author). See, e.g., _Marx via process: Whitehead's potential contribution to Marxian social theory_ by Russell L. Kleinbach. Or _Dialectical phenomenology: Marx's method_ by Roslyn Wallach Bologh, or _Marx and Wittgenstein: social praxis and social explanation_ by David Rubinstein. Personally, I like some of this, not so much because I find some gap in Marx that needs to be filled, but because considering the diverse contributions of different thinkers can lead to interesting insights and perspectives. -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:32969] Re: Whitehead and Marx >http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/processphilosophy/papers/Pomeroy.htm My claim is this: that there exists a striking similarity between a Whiteheadian ontology and the ontological presuppositions that necessarily ground Marx's claims regarding the source of capitalist surplus value and that, therefore, if one holds to a Whiteheadian process ontology, then one must simultaneously support Marx's critique of capitalism as it is presented in what has been named the Labor Theory of Value. There will be four moments to the defense of this claim. The first will consist of a characterization of economic activity in general as processive production; the second will outline and describe Whiteheadian ontology; the third will delineate the Marxian ontology hidden in the analysis of the mode of productive activity specific to capitalism; the last will consist of my conclusions. --- This is the first time I've seen somebody with leftist aspirations try to utilize Whitehead since David Harvey did it in "Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference." Why this need exists to resuscitate late 19th century metaphysics is beyond me. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
RE: FW: base-superstructure model
Title: FW: base-superstructure model Jim D. says: Reductionism here means trying to explain everything in the superstructure by reference to the base. It's silly. Are you looking to get drawn and quartered? (is that having your four limbs tied by ropes to four horses that get set off in four directions? That would put a crimp in your day…). It is also economism, and probably vulgar materialism. David (M.) Gordon didn’t like this last phrase, by the way. I forget why, exactly. I thought Marx used it, but maybe not. Jim, you sound like you fall under what David termed, in his inimitable way, R^2HM (R-squared HM), or Revised Revised Historical Materialism. That would be something like “last instance determinism”. That is when you write long paragraphs why culture, politics, and ideology matter, but in the last sentence say that ultimately the economy is the deciding factor. Today you have to be R^3 to get drawn and quartered. Then afterward, you R^4. IR^3. WeB^3. Iwuz^3. Now IM^4. WeeMdevo. M@ 4st@er
economy in novels
A student wants to read some novels to compare the views on capitalism they portray. Any suggestions? (something more contemporary than, say, Dickens' Hard Times). Post-WWII or thereabouts. Thanks, Mat
RE: Re: Re: Re: British 1950's atrocities against the Mau Mau
For related issues in Kenya, see (great title!): Gîthînji, Mwangi wa. 2000. Ten Millionaires and Ten Million Beggars: A Study of Dualism, Income Inequality, Households, Class and Development in Kenya. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing. also my own: "Bones for Sale: 'Development', Environment, and Food Security in East Africa," Review of Political Economy, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2002.
RE: Robin Hahnel's: The ABCs of Political Economy
>From the Znet interview with Robin Hahnel: >I have long been convinced that we can >retain and expand upon the radical insights of Marxism without clinging >to outdated and illogical theories. I believe The ABCs of Political >Economy offers the non-professional audience a modern replacement for >historical materialism, the labor theory of value, and Marxist crisis >theory that is a vast improvement over the old theory. I saw what some of the "new" "replacement" theory looked like once at an URPE panel on the environment. It looked a lot like "old" supply-and-demand-equilibrium theory. Hope the ABCs contains more than just S and D.
RE: RE: Re: separated at birth?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31670] Re: separated at birth? Well, we all probably know a dozen people who look as much like that as they resemble one another. -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 1:29 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:31671] RE: Re: separated at birth? hey, are you saying that middle-aged white men with beards all look alike? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Ellen Frank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:31670] Re: separated at birth? > > > And could it be just coincident that they > BOTH bear a peculiar resemblance to Jim Devine? > Ellen > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >see the attached file. <> > > > >t would be hard to see them together if they weren't in the > same place. > >But i don't know what Krugman looks like anyway. > > > >Gene Coyle > > > >Devine, James wrote: > > > >has anyone noticed how New York TIMES columnist Paul Krugman > and Brazil's > >President, Lula, look the same? has anyone ever seen them > together at the > >same place and the same time? > > > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > >
RE: Re: Re: RE: Sweezy's occ
The cite for those not traveling to Chico in the near future is: Mage, Shane H., 1963, "The Law of the Falling Tendency of the Rate of Profit: Its Place in the Marxian Theoretical System and Relevance to the United States," Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Economics, Columbia University, New York. -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:michael@;ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU] If anyone wants to read Shane's dissertation, come to Chico. Our library has it. It is quite good.
RE: Re: Re: Sweezy's occ
Thanks, Shane. Was your doctoral dissertation ever published, by the way (in part or in whole). Shaikh used to refer to it all the time. Jim D.--I think it does matter for a number of reasons and you are being ornery. Mat -Original Message- From: Shane Mage [mailto:shmage@;pipeline.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 12:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:31633] Re: Re: Sweezy's occ The Marxian concept "Organic Composition of Capital" is the ratio between the number of units of socially necessary labor time embodied in the physical capital stock owned by capitalists (as depreciated in proportion to the physical and "moral" wear and tear since its initial capitalization) and the number of units of socially necessary *productive* (of surplus value) labor time performed in agiven accounting period (typically the time unit is the hourand the accounting period is the Gregorian calendar year). It is thus the ratio between a stock and a flow. The proper symbolic expression is C/(s+v). Simplifying for the benefit of algebraically challenged readers, Marx made (in v.I) the assumption that the entire capital stock "turned over" (ie., depreciated 100%) every year. This has led to much confusion among commentators. Shane Mage "When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even downright silly. When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true." (N. Weiner) >I thought that the c/v was a nice simplification of the concept -- even if >it made the "proof" more difficult. It brings out a stark dead/living >labor distinction. > >On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:32:02AM -0600, Forstater, Mathew wrote: >> The organic composition of capital (occ) is usually defined as c/v. >> With this definition, it is easy to show that the value rate of profit, >> s/(c+v), depends on the rate of surplus value, s/v, and the occ, because >> s/(c+v) = (s/v)/[(c/v) + 1]. >> >> Why does Sweezy define the occ as c/(c+v) in The Theory of Capitalist >> Development? This then leads him to a more complicated proof to show >> that s/(c+v) = s' (1 - q), where s' is the rate of surplus value and q >> is the occ by his definition, = c/(c+v). >> >> Thanks, mat > >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 530-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Sweezy's occ
But the proof is easier with the c/v. So Sweezy's has neither of the advantages. That is why I am wondering why he did it that way. (by the way, the dead labor/living labor ratio is also often represented by c/(v+s) = c/L). -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:michael@;ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 11:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:31628] Re: Sweezy's occ I thought that the c/v was a nice simplification of the concept -- even if it made the "proof" more difficult. It brings out a stark dead/living labor distinction. On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:32:02AM -0600, Forstater, Mathew wrote: > The organic composition of capital (occ) is usually defined as c/v. > With this definition, it is easy to show that the value rate of profit, > s/(c+v), depends on the rate of surplus value, s/v, and the occ, because > s/(c+v) = (s/v)/[(c/v) + 1]. > > Why does Sweezy define the occ as c/(c+v) in The Theory of Capitalist > Development? This then leads him to a more complicated proof to show > that s/(c+v) = s' (1 - q), where s' is the rate of surplus value and q > is the occ by his definition, = c/(c+v). > > Thanks, mat -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sweezy's occ
The organic composition of capital (occ) is usually defined as c/v. With this definition, it is easy to show that the value rate of profit, s/(c+v), depends on the rate of surplus value, s/v, and the occ, because s/(c+v) = (s/v)/[(c/v) + 1]. Why does Sweezy define the occ as c/(c+v) in The Theory of Capitalist Development? This then leads him to a more complicated proof to show that s/(c+v) = s’ (1 - q), where s’ is the rate of surplus value and q is the occ by his definition, = c/(c+v). Thanks, mat
RE: Re: India: debt trap?
Who is Marcella Perelman (or Doug Fernwood for that matter)??
pension blowup is next
PENSION BLOWUP IS NEXT http://www.nypost.com/business/55304.htm
FW: Open Letter Against War with Iraq
-Original Message- Hi -- I am writing to encourage everyone on this list to go to the following web site and sign the letter opposing a war against the Iraqi people. www.noiraqattack.org As you will see -- it is an open letter from the academic community opposing a US invasion of Iraq. The letter was initiated by the faculty at the University of Minnesota, and later placed on the web by the faculty at MIT.
RE: Armey honors economics
Title: Armey honors economics Hey, I take issue that economics is not an “occupation of the heart”! Samuelson had a book Economics from the Heart, Blinder had one Hard Heads, Soft Hearts. I think they are both even Jewish. Of course, Nancy Folbre has The Invisible Heart, which sounds like it might overlap somewhat with Armey’s separation of economics and “occupations of the heart”, only unlike Armey she sees it as a bad thing, not good. (although she may be thinking more of markets than economics?) -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 10:26 AM To: Pen-l (E-mail) Subject: [PEN-L:30546] Armey honors economics According to SLATE, major U.S. newspapers report > remarks made recently by retiring House Majority Leader, Dick Armey (R-Tex.). Speaking at an event last Friday in Florida, Armey said, "I always see two Jewish communities in America: one of deep intellect and one of shallow, superficial intellect. Conservatives have a deeper intellect and tend to have occupations of the brain in fields like engineering, science and economics," while liberals gravitate to "occupations of the heart." After a couple of Democrats kvetched about the comments, Armey explained that he didn't mean to offend anybody, it's just that "liberals are generally not very bright."< Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Argentina capitulates???
Michael - There are mixed signals. Some officials said they would use reserves to make payments, some said they would under certain conditions, some said they would make their September payment, but not October, etc. See, e.g.,: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020924-033746-5194r If you have something different, please share the link. Mat
RE: lula and the imf
One of the problems in Argentina is that there is no Lula (not to say that that is all they need). Unless something is going to change, none of the Argentine Presidential candidates is really proposing to tell the IMF to take a hike. They may give some lip service to the IMF policies causing their problems, but that is because this is the popular sentiment right now. But they are afraid to piss off the IMF, to undertake policies that would increase the deficit or government spending, e.g. They also still have the corralito, which is unnecessary and hampering things. Unemployment is 25% (official rate, which doesn't include many), 53% of the population is below the official poverty line which is way too low), and the indigency rates are rising. Homeless, mostly women and children, line the streets of Buenos Aires like never before. Even under these conditions, petty politics continues to prevent bolder policy approaches. For example, there is not enough cooperation between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Economics, so macro policy and employment and wage policies are not being coordinated. There is also a resistance to any policies involving significant state participation, e.g., a large public works program or even significant government spending. This is not due to faith in markets, but skepticism about the state's ability to successfully handle large or complex administrative tasks, as well as corruption, patronage, etc. So one of the only proposals on the table is to increase in the minimum wage from 200 to 300 pesos per month. No that this is a bad thing, but it won't get at the larger macro and monetary problems or lift the economy out of depression. Since there was already a temporary increase in wages of 100 pesos per month for many workers, the minimum wage increase will only keep low wage workers where they already are. And since the peso has lost a lot of its purchasing power since going off the peg, it will just make up for a little of the purchasing power that was already lost. The task is to anticipate IMF and related objections, such as that the minimum wage hike will cause unemployment, decrease competitiveness, or cause inflation. But it is also necessary to get some bolder approaches circulating should there be a political opening. The problem right now is that looking at the current candidates, there is no one that inspires hope like a Lula. Mat
raising min wage
I'm trying to collect a list of arguments for raising the minimum wage, especially those that apply in 'developing' nation contexts. Fairness, equity, social justice arguments and/or efficiency/economic/macro arguments are all fine. Do people know of any good articles, books, websites that catalogue these arguments? Also, I'd be interested in any newer or less well known arguments people may have. (send on or off list--I'll collect the ones I get off list and submit them at the end). Also I'd be interested in counter-arguments to the usual arguments against raising minimum wages. Thanks, Mat
RE: RE: Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29890] Re: Re: Bushies say NAIRU is 4.9 My understanding has always been that the ”natural rate of unemployment” and the “NAIRU” are technically different, though looking like and supporting some similar conclusions. Mat
RE: Akerlof's Nobel Lecture
At an Economics and Sociology conference at Stanford a couple years ago, a grad student had written a paper on the Bahamas that argued that the contemporary Bahamian economy should be viewed as a continuation of the "piracy" economy of its past. Afterward in a small group chatting about it with the author, Akerlof said--completely sincerely--so how are you going to model it, kind of thinking out loud about it and so on. Everyone was just, like, whoa, where is this guy from? He is a very "nice" person, and to my surprise stayed through the entire day on the day he gave his talk (didn't come back for the second day, but, you know, let's not set our expectations too high here). I've also heard very nice things about him from students--he'll meet students in the office on weekends and takes calls from them at home, etc. But with the modeling thing, I think it's hopeless. They implant a wire in your head at MIT and similar programs and it prevents any kind of analysis that is not "modeled." -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 4:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:29696] Akerlof's Nobel Lecture What do you think about this claim? It seems correct to me. Now you cannot say anything to an economist without producing a model. George A. Akerlof. 2002. "Behavioral Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Behavior." American Economic Review, 92: 3 (June): pp. 411-33. 413: "Prior to the early 1960's, economic theorists rarely constructed models customized to capture unique institutions or specific market characteristics. Edward Chamberlin's monopolistic competition and Joan Robinson's equivalent 8 were taught in graduate and even a few undergraduate courses. However, such "specific" models were the rare exception; they were presented not as central sights, but instead as excursions into the countryside, for the adventurous or those with an extra day to spare. During the early 1960's, however, "special" models began to proliferate as growth theorists, working slightly outside the norms of standard price-theoretic economics, began to construct models with specialized technological features: putty-clay, vintage capital, and learning by doing." -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Stiglitz interview
Louis writes: >even though I believe he is way off the mark on the question of >"export-based" economies in places like Brazil. Excellent point, and also valid for Argentina, whose exports are dominated by 'primary products' that still suffer in global markets from declining terms of trade a la Prebisch. The mantra in countries like Argentina has to be on domestic job creation, income generation, and economic *expansion* rather than austerity. When people are hungry the answer is not to 'tighten their belts.' Mat
RE: Re: B. Friedman on Stiglitz
The Friedman/Nell exchange in NYRB, linked from the BF on Stiglitz page, also has BF in the position of deficit hawk. Nell gets in some good points. Unfortunately, NYRB is charging for peeking at their archives now, is that right? -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 2:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:28790] Re: B. Friedman on Stiglitz I once organized a panel with Robert Pollin, Larry Summers, Robert Eisner, and Benjamin Friedman. The weird part was when Summers said that he had enough anti-Americanism. He didn't lash out at Robert Pollin, but at Friedman, who was worried about excessive debt. Now he thinks that Summers might be the person to respond to Stiglitz. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: More on Shive from Hari
So I pose the same question I asked others to Hari (I may have missed it but saw no response from others--perhaps some people aren't familiar with the Greenbelt movement in Kenya--apologize if I missed any responses): Is Wangari Mathai subject to similar critique? Again, I think there are some valid and well-informed criticisms and questions raised. But I also have some concerns. I'm not ready to dismiss all reference to "indigenous knowledge" or precapitalist culture or whatever we want to call it--especially by euro-american know-it-alls (not talking about anyone here of course) who have a horrible blood-soaked record of knowing and doing what's best for the people of Asia, Africa, and the Americas, etc. And assuming that any reference to indigenous knowledge and culture must mean total rejection of all knowledge and technologies developed elsewhere or after 1492 is unfair. Also, the "working class" cookie cutter shouldn't be any more blindly applied to all countries and cultures around the world anymore than development plans should. Are movements that are made up of and defend the rights of primarily poor subsistence farmers, e.g., against TNCs, agro-capitalism, authoritarian government elites, not 'class' based? We also need to be careful about lumping all "eco-feminists" in the same pot. There are as many brands of eco-feminism as feminism and environmentalism, at least. There are important differences between 'deep' eco-feminists and social eco-feminists, e.g. But again, flags come up for me if I perceive the possibility of wholesale dismissal of feminist theory or politics by men (again, not here of course). I must admit to having learned something from Maria Mies' Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale and even Carolyn Merchant's The Death of Nature when I read them 15 years ago or so. Not that I agreed with everything, but surely not in my view "New Age mysticism" or a capitalist plot. What if the choices are not clean, high-tech, hi-productivity industrial socialism versus low-tech, low-productivity drudgery, but questions like working with dangerous chemicals or not, planting only one kind of crop or not, planting cash crops versus food, etc.? Mat
RE: RE: Baker and Kar on SS
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28486] Baker and Kar on SS Argentina’s problem was not budget deficits, but the currency board (among other things). I agree that external debt (debt denominated in another country’s currency) is a problem. And I am certainly not arguing for SS privatization! But haven’t we learned anything from the mistake the Dems made during the 80s of calling the Repubs fiscally irresponsible? They could have even called them fiscally irresponsible if they had qualified what they meant. Instead sensible views were eliminated from the mainstream. Now, what will Baker be able to say when some call for Argentina or other countries to cut G spending more? He is on paper that deficits are a problem and surpluses are good. Disappointing. -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 3:38 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED] ' Subject: [PEN-L:28502] RE: Baker and Kar on SS Mat writes: Pardon if others have already seen this, but I am shocked that their argument partly includes the position that "However, the increase in the government deficit, due to the loss of Social Security tax revenues during a transition period, can lead to serious financial problems." They argue that "if Argentina had not privatized it Social Security system in 1994, and done everything else exactly the same, it would have run a budget surplus in 2001." Are we to assume it is understood that budget deficits are always harmful and surpluses helpful? Or is this a case of expected political expediency overriding economic logic? Mat - In the case of Argentina, and other poor countries, government deficits should be avoided. They typically lead to external debt, which leads to IMF dictatorship, etc. Also, it makes sense to me that a country would rather its government spend its budget on stuff that's really needed rather than on administering an inefficient pension plan. The way that budgetary analyists say this kind of thing is terms of the government budget constraint. In any event, Dean Baker regularly makes assertions based on dubious theories that are generally accepted by economists. Awhile back, in his _Economic Reporting Review_, he used the bogus aggregate production function (a Cobb-Douglas one at that) in order to make a point against some policy perspective he rejected. Still his ERR is useful (while to ERR is human). JD Defined Contributions from Workers, Guaranteed Benefits for Bankers: The World Bank's Approach to Social Security Reform By Dean Baker and Debayani Kar July 16, 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the last decade the World Bank has actively promoted the partial or complete replacement of public Social Security systems with systems of individual accounts. While proponents of such accounts had originally hoped that they would boost growth by increasing national saving, the evidence to date has convinced even most advocates of individual accounts that the net effect on national saving will be minimal. However, the increase in the government deficit, due to the loss of Social Security tax revenues during a transition period, can lead to serious financial problems. In the case of Argentina, the current budget crisis can be attributed largely to the decision to privatize its Social Security system. The lost tax revenue, plus the interest resulting from the additional incurred expenditure, exceeded its central government budget deficit in 2001. In other words, if Argentina had not privatized it Social Security system in 1994, and done everything else exactly the same, it would have run a budget surplus in 2001. This paper compares the administrative costs associated with individual accounts, measured as a share of contributions to the system, with the costs of operating an efficient public Social Security system like the one in the United States. Among the findings: 1) According to data from the World Bank, the administrative cost of running privatized systems of individual accounts is between ten and fifty times as much as the administrative cost of running the public Social Security system in the United States. These additional fees are direct transfers from workers' retirement income to the financial sector. 2) According to data from the World Bank, the cost of the running the public agency that supervises the operation of a system of individual accounts (the equivalent of a Securities and Exchange Commission for these accounts), is between 62 percent and 400 percent of the administrative cost of running the entire Social Security system in the United States. In most countries, the cost of running this oversight body is far greater than the cost of actually running the whole Social Security system in the United States. 3) The cost of converting funds accumulated in individual accounts into an annuity that provides a lifetime stream of earnings is betw
RE: RE: RE: RE: Baker and Kar on SS
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28553] RE: RE: Baker and Kar on SS I assume he is opposed to IMF policy, Jim.. I usually find myself in agreement with most everything Dean Baker writes. But that is the point of my surprise to read his words: “the increase in the government deficit, due to the loss of Social Security tax revenues during a transition period, can lead to serious financial problems. In the case of Argentina, the current budget crisis can be attributed largely to the decision to privatize its Social Security system. The lost tax revenue, plus the interest resulting from the additional incurred expenditure, exceeded its central government budget deficit in 2001. In other words, if Argentina had not privatized it Social Security system in 1994, and done everything else exactly the same, it would have run a budget surplus in 2001.” Except for the fact that he is arguing against SS privatization, there is nothing there that I can support, and it doesn’t even make an argument—it assumes we all know that and why deficits are bad and surpluses are good. Is this an “end justifies the means” thing? -Original Message- From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 11:38 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:28557] RE: RE: RE: Baker and Kar on SS Mat wrote:>Argentina's problem was not budget deficits, but the currency board (among other things). I agree that external debt (debt denominated in another country's currency) is a problem.< right. >And I am certainly not arguing for SS privatization! < I didn't think you were. I apologize if my prose implied as much. >But haven't we learned anything from the mistake the Dems made during the 80s of calling the Repubs fiscally irresponsible? They could have even called them fiscally irresponsible if they had qualified what they meant. Instead sensible views were eliminated from the mainstream. Now, what will Baker be able to say when some call for Argentina or other countries to cut G spending more? He is on paper that deficits are a problem and surpluses are good. Disappointing.< I agree that "fiscal irresponsibility" is a right-wing slogan. I think Baker agrees, but you'll have to ask him. I know that he's against the whole IMF program, which includes budget-balancing uber alles. JD
RE: Re: Re: Re: Vandana Shiva
Doug wrote: >I thought the problem was capitalist farming, not "industrial" farming. I think this is something that needs to be thought through carefully. There is a long debate between those who take the position that technology itself is for the most part "neutral" with the problem being only what is done with it, and those whose position is that technologies often reflect the social relations (and ideology) under which they were developed and thus cannot be so simply re-applied under alternative social relations without any repercussions. If I recall correctly, Murray Bookchin, in "Towards a Liberatory Technology" (in POST-SCARCITY ANARCHISM) takes the former position, while David Dickson in ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND THE POLITICS OF TECHNICAL CHANGE takes the latter position. I think we could all think of examples of some machines that were designed to exploit workers to the fullest and result in bodily harm to operators--so that their use in a non-capitalist economy would not be sufficient, whereas we can also think of many examples of technologies that would seem to be potentially usable under alternative social relations, but anyone who thinks that the former are the exception and basically a relic of the 19th c. and the latter are the rule and characterize more recent technologies, Dickson's book should be read and his arguments and examples considered. If I had it handy I would give some examples--thy are very compelling. Mat
Re: Vandana Shiva
Some of the criticisms seem well-informed and at least partly valid, but I have to admit that I think there are bigger enemies out there than Vandana Shiva, and a lot of what she has written seems to have merit to me. Vikash, Ulhas, and others--would Wangari Mathai be subject to similar criticisms in your view? Mat
Baker and Kar on SS
Pardon if others have already seen this, but I am shocked that their argument partly includes the position that "However, the increase in the government deficit, due to the loss of Social Security tax revenues during a transition period, can lead to serious financial problems." They argue that "if Argentina had not privatized it Social Security system in 1994, and done everything else exactly the same, it would have run a budget surplus in 2001." Are we to assume it is understood that budget deficits are always harmful and surpluses helpful? Or is this a case of expected political expediency overriding economic logic? Mat - Defined Contributions from Workers, Guaranteed Benefits for Bankers: The World Bank's Approach to Social Security Reform By Dean Baker and Debayani Kar July 16, 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the last decade the World Bank has actively promoted the partial or complete replacement of public Social Security systems with systems of individual accounts. While proponents of such accounts had originally hoped that they would boost growth by increasing national saving, the evidence to date has convinced even most advocates of individual accounts that the net effect on national saving will be minimal. However, the increase in the government deficit, due to the loss of Social Security tax revenues during a transition period, can lead to serious financial problems. In the case of Argentina, the current budget crisis can be attributed largely to the decision to privatize its Social Security system. The lost tax revenue, plus the interest resulting from the additional incurred expenditure, exceeded its central government budget deficit in 2001. In other words, if Argentina had not privatized it Social Security system in 1994, and done everything else exactly the same, it would have run a budget surplus in 2001. This paper compares the administrative costs associated with individual accounts, measured as a share of contributions to the system, with the costs of operating an efficient public Social Security system like the one in the United States. Among the findings: 1) According to data from the World Bank, the administrative cost of running privatized systems of individual accounts is between ten and fifty times as much as the administrative cost of running the public Social Security system in the United States. These additional fees are direct transfers from workers' retirement income to the financial sector. 2) According to data from the World Bank, the cost of the running the public agency that supervises the operation of a system of individual accounts (the equivalent of a Securities and Exchange Commission for these accounts), is between 62 percent and 400 percent of the administrative cost of running the entire Social Security system in the United States. In most countries, the cost of running this oversight body is far greater than the cost of actually running the whole Social Security system in the United States. 3) The cost of converting funds accumulated in individual accounts into an annuity that provides a lifetime stream of earnings is between 11 and 22 times the cost of operating the Social Security system in the United States. These fees are direct transfers from workers' retirement income to the financial sector. 4) Proponents of individual accounts have failed to consider the opportunity cost to workers, in the form of the time needed to oversee their accounts. If the time required to manage these accounts is equal to half an hour per year, the opportunity costs would be between 55 percent and 280 percent of the administrative costs of the Social Security system in the United States.
re: Estimating Surplus
A while back I forwarded a message concerning this subject to Anwar Shaikh. Here is his reply--better late than never! Mat -Original Message- From: Anwar Shaikh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:12 PM Response to Eric Nilsson Dear Eric The issue you raise is discussed, theoretically and empirically, in our book on pp. 173-181, in the discussion of Mage's work (who essentially uses the approach you outline). [A. Shaikh and E.A. Tonak, Measuring the Wealth of Nations, Cambridge, 1994] The difference in the two methods is huge: for 1958, Mage's method yields a measure of the surplus of 60.461 billion $(Table M.5, p. 355), while ours yields 256.15 bill $ (Table H.1, line 1). See also Fig 6.7 on p. 181, which shows the difference graphically in terms of the corresponding estimates of the rate of surplus value. Hope this helps. Anwar Anwar Shaikh Professor Department of Economics Graduate Faculty New School University 65 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. 10003 Tel: 212 229-5729 Fax: 212 229-5724 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh
RE: Short Book on Marx for Undergraduates
Title: Rogoff letter How about: Karl Marx by David McLellan, Viking Press, 1975.
RE: Colonialism and the rise of capitalism
>From Hamza Alavi >What is specific and central to the capitalist mode of >production (in agricultural capitalism as well as industrial) is the >separation of the producer from the means of production. As Marx >himself put it, 'This separation of labour from the conditions of >labour is the precondition of capitalist production.' (Marx, 1969:78) Alavi refers here to Volume One of Capital, where Marx laid out what he called "The Secret of Capitalist Primitive Accumulation." Capitalist accumulation must be preceded by some previous accumulation, "an accumulation which is not the result of the capitalist mode of production but its point of departure." (1990, p. 873). Marx, concentrating on European history, identified the 'double-freedom' requirement necessary for capitalist production: workers must be 'free' to sell their labor-power and they must be 'free' from the means of production. The existence of a working class ready to sell their labor-power to capitalists requires that a mass of population have no means of production with which to produce their own means of subsistence. If they could produce their own means of subsistence, they would not be compelled to sell their labor-power to capitalists. A legal system is also required under which workers are freed from their feudal obligations and by law may enter the market to sell their labor-power. As Marx wrote, "so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production" (1990, pp. 874-875). But Marx not only was focusing his remarks on Europe, he actually states that the "classic" case is limited to England, while the "history of this expropriation assumes different aspects in different countries, and runs through its various phases in different successions, and at different historical epochs" (p. 876). For Marx, "It is Otherwise in the Colonies" (Marx, p. 931). In the European colonies, land expropriation and forced labor were used, but another important means of forcing indigenous populations to work as wage-laborers or produce cash crops was taxation and the requirement that taxes be paid in colonial currency. Taxation also played an important role in the monetization and commoditization of colonial economies, and in the rise of a peripheral capitalism. If an individual, household, extended family or even village is taxed, and that tax obligation can only be settled in currency created or held by the colonial authority, then those obliged to pay taxes must offer for sale whatever the colonial authority is willing to buy, *regardless of whether they possess means of production sufficient to produce the means of subsistence.*. The two most important markets in this regard were labor-power and cash crops, although there are other important ones, such as raw materials not easily confiscated by the colonial authority (e.g., ivory). Over time, some required to pay taxes may accumulate currency beyond that necessary to settle the tax obligation, and so others who need the currency to pay taxes may sell goods or services or labor-power to them rather than the colonial authority or its agents. George Padmore was very clear on all this for the African case, but it can be found in just about any work that deals with the colonial economy. Unless taxation is recognized as serving this function, those who make arguments about colonial capitalism will be faced with the question of significant means of production that remained in the hands of indigenous populations. Since indigenous populations in many areas were not divorced entirely from the means of production, their entry into the market will be viewed as voluntary, rather than coerced--unless that coercion called taxation is taken into account.
RE: Japan
See Downgrading Japan, C-FEPS Policy Note 02/01 "It is no secret that the Japanese economy remains moribund, facing its third recession in a decade and with rising unemployment, price deflation, and persistently stagnant growth. And in spite of near-zero interest rates, large fiscal deficits, and a series of economic reforms, the prospects for recovery remain dim. However, anyone who understands the nature of sovereign debt knows that none of these factors should play any role in assessment of default risk on local currency denominated sovereign debt of any nation with a floating exchange rate." http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0201/pn0201.html Ian wrote: [The Guardian] Japan furious at credit downgrade
RE: re: interesting thought
I read it as a derivation of "perpetuate" or "perpetuity" perpetuance? Perpetuant? A truant pet? A pet per to chance? Pet purr to nuance? -Original Message- From: Timework Web [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 3:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26479] re: interesting thought What does a "petpertuance" mean?
RE: Re: Charles and Race Theory 2
But this is why Oliver C. Cox's distinction between "racism" (and "race") and "race antagonism" (or racial oppression) is so important. For Cox, the former is ideological/superstructural, but the latter is very much a part of material reality, soaked with blood. We have all come across some perhaps well-meaning young white kid who has taken a course that deconstructs "race" and who now announces "I am not white" since there is no such thing as "race". Pure folly to think that just because something is a social construction that it isn't "real". Or that just because someone is anti-racist that they do not benefit from their "whiteness" in a white supremacist society. -Original Message- From: Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26436] Re: Charles and Race Theory 2 - Original Message - From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You are absolutely wrong. I assert that race is an ideological category existing in the superstructure without a material reality. === Amen. Ian
RE: RE: Re:Text File Capitalist Slavery/Race
I should have added that Chang goes on to argue that though the below is true, it is also true that there is *some* kind of relation between ‘race’ and class. The role of theory is to go beyond that common-sense observation to identify the *character* of that relation. In addition to the concepts of Gemeinschaft vs. Gesellschaft and reification, Chang uses the concept of objectification to try to sort out the issues. -Original Message- From: Forstater, Mathew Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26432] RE: Re:Text File Capitalist Slavery/Race Chang, following Marx, also uses the Gemeinschaft vs. Gesellschaft distinction to demonstrate that “a race or a racial group cannot be a class in the strictly economic-relational sense of classes.” While, in the U.S. prior to the Civil War it was true that all slaves were Black and all plantation-slave owners were white, it was not true that all Blacks were slaves or that all whites were plantation-slave owners. “In other words, the class polarization is not directly translatable into the racial polarization and the racial dichotomy is not directly translatable into the class distinction.”
RE: Re:Text File Capitalist Slavery/Race
Chang, following Marx, also uses the Gemeinschaft vs. Gesellschaft distinction to demonstrate that “a race or a racial group cannot be a class in the strictly economic-relational sense of classes.” While, in the U.S. prior to the Civil War it was true that all slaves were Black and all plantation-slave owners were white, it was not true that all Blacks were slaves or that all whites were plantation-slave owners. “In other words, the class polarization is not directly translatable into the racial polarization and the racial dichotomy is not directly translatable into the class distinction.”
RE: Charles and Race Theory 2
Both 'purely' natural (biological) and social theories of race are wrong (though if they are the only available the social is certainly preferable, imo). The reason why the purely social theory is incomplete is because of the "physiognomic rule" -- physiognomic traits are biologically inherited. For Chang, the concept if reification helps to sort this out. It is the assignment of social meaning to otherwise arbitrary physiognomic traits that explains "race". It is also the social construction of discrete categories out of what is essentially a continuum. -Original Message- From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26414] Charles and Race Theory 2 Charles and Race Theory 2 by Waistline2 27 May 2002 16:00 UTC Melvin, The shortest answer to all you say in these many, many posts is that "race" is a historical category. Basically, my answers will focus on that. You are wrong when you assert, argue, assume, insist, write at length, that race is only a biological and not a historical category. It is a historical category masquerading as a biological category. Charles >CB
RE: Re: Re:Text File Race
Harry Chang is very good on this. See his “Toward a Marxist Theory of Racism” (two essays by Harry Chang), edited by Paul Liem and Eric Montague in Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 17, No. 3, Fall, 1985, pp. 34-45. (Special Issue: The Political Economy of Race and Class, Gary Dymski, ed.). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 2:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26427] Re: Re:Text File Race CB: What type of thing does Marx mean when he refers to a "Negro"CB: What type of thing does Marx mean when he refers to a "Negro" ? A national colonial group ? Or does he mean a group whose skin is "branded" or whose skin is a brand ? A group defined by its land, language, history ? Or a physical characteristic, a phenotype ? Is not Marx using the concept of race when he refers to Negroes ? ^^^
RE: Re: Re: Re: good economics writing & abstraction
New Schoolers have been notoriously famous for taking 'forever'--ten years not unusual at all, with some coming in for 'extensions' after the time limit has been reached. There have been some notable exceptions--e.g., George Argyrous, Stephanie Bell, Jim Stanford--but all came in with an M.A. from elsewhere. I started in '87 and earned the phd in '96 (although I actually defended in '95 and was teaching full-time on a tenure track job from '92). My sense is that it might be a little better now than it was, if only because who the hell can afford it, and that it is a few years shorter on average at other non-traditional depts., like UMass, American, and Riverside. We're shooting for a 3-4 year deal here at UMKC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:26199] Re: Re: Re: good economics writing & abstraction Michael Perelman wrote: >Doug does not belong on the list. He is not and has never been an "economist." Sure, he can write now, but what about after a deadening 7 years as an econ. grad student. Do grad students take 7 years with econ degrees? I thought they were more "efficient" and finished in 4 or 5. Christian
RE: Heilbroner
But Worldly Philosophers shouldn't be the standard bearer. Try the
Nature and Logic of Capitalism, one of his best. His most serious
scholarly work are his articles on Smith ("Socialization of the
Individual in AS", "Paradox of Progress"), Schumpeter, ideology
("Economics as Ideology" "Economics as Universal Science", "Problem of
Value in the Constitution of Economic Thought", "Vision and Analysis in
the History of Modern Economic Thought").
For an example of the importance of his voice in contemporary economics,
see his review of McCloskey's "Rhetoric.."--What is RLH's main point?:
what's missing in McCloskey's analysis is *power*.
-Original Message-
From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:23 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:26160] Heilbroner
[was: RE: [PEN-L:26158] RE: RE: Lies, damned lies, and economics]
I find Heilbroner to present a watered-down Marxism most of the time,
but
his MARXISM: FOR AND AGAINST was pretty good, simply because he got away
from his usual stuff. I don't agree with it as much as like the way he
tries
to find some good stuff in Marxism. Some of the bad stuff he finds is
off-target, but it's worth discussing with students. (If I remember
correctly, his discussion of dialectics comes partly from Ollman and
thus
isn't half bad.)
To be more specific about how he waters down Marxism, he often talks
Labor
"not existing" before the rise of capitalism (e.g., THE WORLDLY
PHILOSOPHERS, 5th edition, p. 25). Though he's pretty clear that labor
_did_
exist before capitalism and that he's referring to "abstract labor" or
an
"impersonal, dehumanized economic entity," the whole discussion would
have
been much clearer if he'd used Marx's distinction between labor-power
and
labor: what he's saying is that labor-power didn't exist _as a
commodity_. I
don't insist that everything I read agree with either Marx or me, but
his
avoidance of basic Marxian concepts seems to encourage fuzzy thinking.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> -Original Message-
> From: Forstater, Mathew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 2:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:26158] RE: RE: Lies, damned lies, and economics
>
>
> I admire both Galbraith and Heilbroner, but it always seemed
> clear to me
> that Heilbroner (save maybe his New Yorker articles or whatever) was
> writing at a more complex, deeper level (even in NYRB--articles on
> Schumpeter, Keynes, etc.). One may differ with, e.g., his
> interpretation of dialectics in Marxism: For and Against
> (about which he
> has always remarked that the most important word in the title was
> "and"), but I don't think you can say that it is 'watered
> down'. While
> it is true that Heilbroner is trying to communicate with an audience
> beyond professional economists or university professors, I
> think he does
> challenge the reader to put some thought into his arguments.
>
> Recently, Heilbroner has said that he thinks of himself as in
> the field
> of education, not economics, and that his favorite work of his own is
> his Visions of the Future, which is not really about economics, but
> looks at how perceptions of the future have changed through
> history, and
> how those perceptions affect the present.
>
> Mat
>
RE: RE: Lies, damned lies, and economics
I admire both Galbraith and Heilbroner, but it always seemed clear to me that Heilbroner (save maybe his New Yorker articles or whatever) was writing at a more complex, deeper level (even in NYRB--articles on Schumpeter, Keynes, etc.). One may differ with, e.g., his interpretation of dialectics in Marxism: For and Against (about which he has always remarked that the most important word in the title was "and"), but I don't think you can say that it is 'watered down'. While it is true that Heilbroner is trying to communicate with an audience beyond professional economists or university professors, I think he does challenge the reader to put some thought into his arguments. Recently, Heilbroner has said that he thinks of himself as in the field of education, not economics, and that his favorite work of his own is his Visions of the Future, which is not really about economics, but looks at how perceptions of the future have changed through history, and how those perceptions affect the present. Mat
RE: Mass Customization/Flexible Accumulation
For a good piece on related issues and a great example from a NY restaurant menu, see Bruce Pietrykowski, "Consuming Culture" in Rethinking Marxism from a the mid nineties.
Kovel/Dubya in Flo.
I don't know how many pen-lers are on this kapital gang list, I don't think I even subscribed to it, so maybe we are all on there. Anyway, there was just an announcement of Joel Kovel's new book, with the great title The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World. The e-review says we have 1-3 generations to build ecosocialism or it's irreversible bye-bye. Rings true (although I admit that when Reagan was first elected I felt for sure we were headed for nuclear war). On another topic, can anyone fathom the chutzpah of Dubya calling Cuban elections "a fraud and a sham" IN FLORIDA yet?? One occasionally wonders whether someone like Bush is in touch with reality and knowingly plays their role or really believes the hype, e.g., that he won the election, that Cuba has a worse record on human rights than so many of the U.S.'s allies, or the U.S. itself for that matter, etc. Mat
C-FEPS Workshop
Center for Full Employment and Price Stability workshop on “The State of the World Economy” Analysis and Prospects with William F. Mitchell Center of Full Employment and Equity, University of Newcastle Warren Mosler AVM, Ltd. Stephanie Bell Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri-Kansas City L. Randall Wray Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri-Kansas City Tuesday, May 28, 2002 2pm-4:30pm Alumni Room 2nd Floor, University Center University of Missouri—Kansas City Kansas City, MO For further information please contact C-FEPS at 816-235-5835 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.cfeps.org
RE: Hetero Depts
Sven Larson (Post Keynesian) is at Roskilde. CBS actually has a bunch of people interested in non-neoclassical stuff, but they are in something like the Organizational Learning dept. I was there a year or two ago for a conference--it was held in the King's former summer home on the Black Sea--with Phil Mirowski and Richard Swedburg, among others. -Original Message- From: Joshua Bragg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 2:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:25996] Hetero Depts I was at the University of Copenhagen last year studying Economic Development. I expected a very heterodox tradition considering the enormous Danish aid program and the influence of Gunnar Myrdal. Surprisingly, I had a hard time finding a prof who would disagree with anything in the mainstream textbooks. Even scarier was the complete acceptance of this by the students. I tried to get the post-autistic movement going there, but ran into too much resistance from fellow students. As I travelled around, I found this to be the case throughout Scandinavia. Extremely creative social programs, but repressive economics departments. I wonder why? Maybe the Scandinavians on the list can explain this strange phenomenon. The only place of refuge I found was the University of Roskilde in Denmark. They have a heterodox economic development program, but it's looked down upon by most because it lacks math. Joshua _ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
RE: Re: theory of interest
Michael, I heartily disagree that for Smith profits were wages of supervision. In WN, Smith states that: "The profits of stock, it may perhaps be thought, are only a different name for the wages of a particular sort of labour, the labour of inspection and direction. They are, however, altogether different, are regulated by quite different principles, and bear no proportion to the quantity, the hardship, or the ingenuity of this supposed labour of inspection and direction." Profits are regulated by the value of stock employed, and have nothing to do with how much, how hard, or even whether or not the capitalist works at all. -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:25973] Re: theory of interest For Smith, profit was mostly "wages of superintendence." He also said that competition would drive down the rate of profit, but keep in mind that the profit was on "stock." The workers owned their own tools. Employers just gave them the wherewithall to survive. In any case, he did not have a consistent theory. "Devine, James" wrote: > I'm not a Adam Smith scholar: did he believe that the rate of profit would > go to zero, so that capitalism would be in essence transformed into simple > commodity production? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: RE: Hetero Depts
Kalamazoo has two New Schoolers, Louis-Philippe Rochon (who has a name chair) and Matias Vernengo, and they have their own institute, hold conferences, etc. Hey, just about the whole world is heterodox!
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Hetero Depts
Colorado State - Fort Collins still has a bunch of institutionalists and a program or concentration in institutional or political economy. Ron Stanfield, Ronnie Phillips, etc. University of Denver has Post Keynesians and institutionalists like Peter Ho, Tracy Mott, Robert Urquhart, etc. Wright State U. has feminists and institutionalists like Jim Swaney, Paulette Olson, Barbara Hopkins.
RE: RE: Hetero Depts
Sorry, sent my note before I saw Eric's post. Wow, Eric, "thousands of dollars" from alums to fund scholarships in econ--cool!
RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Hetero Depts
Cal State San Bernardino has Nancy Rose, Mayo Torunyo, Eric Nilsson (on pen-l I believe). Listen, one hetero economist does not a hetero dept make. That's called a marginalized token. I say either there has to be a concentration of non-mainstream people (not all, maybe not even half, but a concentration of them) and/or the curriculum has to actually include alternative traditions.
RE: Re: Re: RE: Hetero Depts
Dickinson College in Carlisle PA, has a Marxist (Sinan Koont, phd from UMass-Amherst), a neo-Marxists/radical political economist (Chuck Barone, Phd from American) an institutionalist (Gordon Bergsten, Phd from UCB), and a non-neoclassical Austrian (Bill Bellinger). Their visiting people are usually from UMass (in recent years George DeMartino and Ted Burczak) or George Mason or American. Maybe their recent environmental economist is mainstream, but as a dept, they are pretty non-orthodox. By the way, on the terminology, someone on the PKT list suggested that "orthodox" is actually a misnomer, better thought of as "homodox." UMKC often uses "Pluralistic" instead of heterodox. -Original Message- From: Ellen Frank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:25946] Re: Re: RE: Hetero Depts Max - I don't beleive Tufts has a heterodox department (though the university does house the global development and environment program). Dickinson also does not have a heterodox dept; Matt is probably thinking of Drew University in PA -- where Tom Dickins teaches. As long as you're considering undergrad programs, Simmons College in Boston has a nice mix of faculty as does Mount Holyoke. I personally hate the word heterodox. How about inclusive, open-minded, free-thinking? Ellen
RE: Hetero Depts
UM Lowell? Who's there? Tufts? What's the criteria here? -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 5:59 PM To: Pen-L Subject: [PEN-L:25931] Hetero Depts I want to put a list of heterodox econ depts (loosely defined) on my web site. Here's what I have so far. Who have I left out? Don't be sectarian! Non-US schools welcome too. American University Bucknell University Evergreen College Hofstra University New School University of California/Riverside University of Massachusetts/Amherst University of Massachusetts/Boston University of Massachusetts/Lowell University of Missouri/Kansas City Tufts University of Utah University of Vermont mbs Max B. Sawicky Web Site: http://www.MaxSpeak.org BLOG: http://www.MaxSpeak.org/blogger.html
RE: Hetero Depts
University of Southern Maine If you are including smaller undergrad schools: Franklin and Marshall College Dickinson College (University?) (both in Penna.) There are lots more little ones.
RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: P.S.
One of the best on real and nominal interest rates was the late great George Brockway. See his latest edition of THE END OF ECONOMIC MAN, Norton. For a brief summary and commentary (and tribute to George) see http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn/pn0203/pn0203.html
RE: pop quiz time
Hicks? -Original Message- From: Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 4:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:25863] pop quiz time [who said it?] "...confusion forces practical economists to explain the determination of interest by opportunity cost reasoning - a particular rate of interest being set by the 'pure' rate yielded by the riskless government bonds, with inflation, risk, and administrative cost premia added. But there is no watertight justification for the perpetual existence of this 'pure' rate. Interest exists because it is there; it is still held up by its own theoretical bootstraps. The failure of mainstream economics to explain adequately the existence of interest betrays the fact that it is merely a theoretical concept with no true basis in reality. It is a figment of our collective imaginations."
