Re: Enter the Euro-dragon

1998-03-10 Thread R. Went

Doug Henwood wrote:

> The Euro central bank makes the Fed look like a model of accountability.
> Maastricht specifies that the president of the ECB and its governing board
> must be restricted to "persons of recognized standing and professional
> experience in monetary or banking matters," language even more restrictive
> than the U.S. law regulating appointments to the Fed's board of governors,
> where the president is required to pay "due regard to a fair representation
> of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests" of
> the country and its regions. 

You're totally right, this ECB is unbelievable. There is even in the 
Maastricht treaty a rule which says that it is forbidden to try to 
influence the members of the board of the ECB. Also, directors of the 
bank are in for only one period, to avoid that in the last years they 
start worrying about their re-election and therefore may feel tempted 
to take popular measures or listen (they should not) to governments or 
parliaments.

> And they're so busy being deflationists, I
> don't think they have the lender of last resort thing worked out at all,
> even though the IMF predicts massive financial turmoil as capacity is
> shaken out.

Right again, this is an unsolved problem they're working on if I 
understand the press overhere well. Maintaining price stability is the 
only task formulated for the ECB, employment and things like that are 
not even in the task description.

Robert Went




=
Drs. Robert Went   
Faculty of Economics and Econometrics 
University of Amsterdam   
Roeterstraat 11, k 9.03   
1018 WB Amsterdam 
The Netherlands   
Tel: 31-20-525.4189  
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=





Re: EMU

1998-03-03 Thread R. Went

Some quick remarks for the discussion about the EMU on the list.

1) You can find - a bit schematically - two very different types of 
criticisms of the euro-project in the many European countries, 
varying in strength:
i) a left critique of the social consequences, the undemocratic 
character (see for instance the Open Letter of 331 European 
economists reproduced below for those who missed it at the time); 
ii) A right-wing critique in various brands, i.e. for nationalist 
reasons or criticizing the Maastricht criteria as not tough enough 
(not neo-liberal enough), fearing that the euro will not be as strong 
as the German mark or Dutch guilder or... (note: the reverse is to be 
feared, as the mighty European Central Bank will want to proof 
its anti-inflationary credentials to the financial markets). In 
Holland, for example, leading members of the right-wing liberals (in 
government with social-democratics and 'left-wing' liberals) state 
that we should not throw our strong guilder away, that we can not 
trust the Italians will keep their deficits down and don't want to pay 
for their pensions, etc.

2) I agree that the euro-project (not a project for a common currency 
in itself, but this one with these criteria, set-up, etc.) is a major 
tool to neo-liberalize the EU. Countries give up instruments for 
economic policy (exchange rate, interest rate, fiscal policy 
restricted by Maastricht and the Stability pact) so in case of 
asymmetric shocks and with few fiscal transfers on a European scale
adjustments will have to go through the labour market. That's why in 
the EU you have a drive to deregulate and flexibilize the 'rigid' 
labour markets: international organizations like the IMF and OECD 
(and journals like the Economist) emphasize again and again that the 
euro can not function if European labour markets are not flexible. 
Another aspect, which at least in Holland is only in discussion since 
a year or so, is that with greater transparency of prices and the 
loss of instruments for economic policy there will be an increase 
in policy competition, i.e. European countries competing more with 
each other who has the cheapest welfare state, on taxes (some 
economists predict that taxes on profits in the EU will go down even 
further), on not too expensive ecological demands on companies, etc.

3) Don't forget the stability pact, because that prescribes that all 
countries joining the euro have to cut their budget deficits to 
'close to balance'. This implies first of all that the austerity 
policies since the signing of Maastricht will continue in many 
countries, and secondly that the whole project is pro-cyclical in 
at least the coming years: when entering a recession, euro-countries 
will have to make sure that their deficits don't exceed 3% of GDP 
(apart from exceptional cases there are penalties). Because many just 
reached the 3%, they will have no room to manoeuver or even have to 
cut expenses even more to pay for social security when unemployment 
rises. The pink newspaper was therefore once again right when it 
wrote recently in an editorial that the difficult part of the euro-
project is not behind us but starting.

Robert Went




Open letter from European economists to the heads of government
of the 15 member states of the European Union

Europe, 12 June 1997

On 16 and 17 June you will be in Amsterdam in order to discuss European
integration. You will consult with one another about the progress made
towards the Economic and Monetary Union. Many questions are still
unanswered. Will the EMU begin as planned at the end of this century? Which
countries will take part in the euro from the beginning? Will all the
Maastricht Treaty criteria be met? These are important questions, but they
do not address Europe's essential problems.

You know that Europe is contending at the moment with high unemployment,
poverty, social marginalisation and ecological deterioration. The current
design of Europe's economy does not provide adequate prospects of reining
in these problems. The member states' national policies are clearly
insufficient. The key question is whether the current plans for further
European integration, and in particular for the EMU, will bring us closer
to solutions.

Your economic advisers have told you that the EMU, as laid out in the
Maastricht Treaty (December 1991) and further regulated in the Dublin
Stability Pact (December 1996), will bring Europe more jobs and prosperity.
We, economists in the EU's member states, are afraid that the opposite is
true. This project for economic and monetary integration not only falls
short from a social, ecological, and democratic perspective, but also from
an economic one.

This is a missed opportunity. A single European currency could be very
advantageous and help to find the way to full-employment with good quality
jobs and social security. This and other relevant

Greenspan literature?

1998-02-26 Thread R. Went

Dear Pen-l-lers

A Dutch weekly asks me to write a portrait (profile) of Greenspan. 
Suggestions for books/articles about the man (I don't suppose 
there exists a biography), his background, policies, influence, etc. 
are therefore very much appreciated. I don't suppose other 
subscribers to the list are interested in this, so it is probably the 
best to send messages directly to me.

Thanks a lot,
Robert Went





=
Drs. Robert Went   
Faculty of Economics and Econometrics 
University of Amsterdam   
Roeterstraat 11, k 9.03   
1018 WB Amsterdam 
The Netherlands   
Tel: 31-20-525.4189  
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=




[PEN-L:12201] Re: jobs, jobs, jobs

1997-09-09 Thread R. Went

Jim Divine wrote:

> Third, it suggests that globalization has played a big role, even if we
> don't see globalization as either natural or the whole story. To Dornbusch
> I would add that intranational competition has increased along with
> international competition, due to anti-trust, deregulation, etc.
> 
> What it suggests to me is that the reason why the US sees little or no
> inflationary acceleration despite sub-5% unemployment rates is that the
> economy-wide institutional power of labor has been sapped. I'm all in favor
> of unions and increasing labor's institutional power (including the welfare
> state). But the fact is that the capitalists still have the whip-hand and
> can punish us with inflationary acceleration or unemployment if we use that
> power in a way that goes against profits. With globalization, they have
> additional options. 

The same type of argument is developed by Dani Rodrik in "Has 
globalization gone too far?" In itself the book contains nothing 
shocking, but I still found it useful because he is (and calls 
himself) a neo-classical economist, and shows from within how even in 
the orthodox models about trade globalization can/does lead to 
increasing social inequality and unemployment. And although 
he writes again and again that we have to abandon ideas about 
protectionism, he critizes main-stream economist who don't take 
seriously or dismiss worries about the conseqences of 
globalization (like the strike movement in France in December 1995, 
supported by the overwhelming majority of the population) and 
has to relativize himself the holy free trade gospel.

Robert Went




=
Drs. Robert Went   
Faculty of Economics and Econometrics 
University of Amsterdam   
Roeterstraat 11, k 9.03   
1018 WB Amsterdam 
The Netherlands   
Tel: 31-20-525.4189  
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=





[PEN-L:9537] Re: query: uneven development

1997-04-17 Thread R. Went

I remember a good book by Michael Lowy, The politics of combined and 
uneven development, published in 1981 by Verso.

Robert Went

> Does anybody on pen-l know of any good references on (or special insight
> into) the subject of the Marxian theory of "uneven and combined
> development." I am specifically thinking of the theory that the Bolsheviks
> invoked in the early 20th century, rather than the dependency school's
> "uneven development" (to use Samir Amin's phrase), even though I know that
> the two theories are related, to some extent overlapping, and to some
> extent conflicting with, each other. 
> 
> thanks ahead of time.
> 
> in pen-l solidarity,
> 
> Jim Devine   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
> 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
> 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
> "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
> 
> 




=
Drs. Robert Went   
Faculty of Economics and Econometrics 
University of Amsterdam   
Roeterstraat 11, k 9.03   
1018 WB Amsterdam 
The Netherlands   
Tel: 31-20-525.4189  
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=