Imperialism and Environment
Julio Huato: > But my question was, why should we think that poor > > countries -- as they grow -- won't develop the will and mechanisms to use > > these additional opportunities and resources in a way that limits > > environmental damage? Because it isn't happening. The most industrialized of the poor countries (S.Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia) are environmental disasters. I've seen it first hand. There is a strong incentive to dump the costs of industrialization onto the environment. They--as some rich countries are doing-- might try and clean up their act but the environmental damage is in many cases irreversible (e.g. Lake Erie and Ontario). The incentive to pollute is built into capitalism. Even many neoclassical economists would agree. But, > > important as it is, the relative role of imperialist exploitation in the > > overall exploitation of workers in the Third World tends to decline as > > capitalist production proper expands. Whoa, a real Kautskyite. But no, the rate of exploitation rises as productivity (surplus value) increases. For example, auto workers in Mexico work at close to the same level of productivity as Canadians or Americans but are only paid a fraction. They are more exploited and most of that surplus value ends up in the rich countries. A Marxist economist named Geoffrey Kay once suggested that the problem with Africa was that it wasn't "exploited enough" i.e. there was too little investment and productivity was too low. You seem to agree with him. > > > > If you imply that, in the long run, capitalist growth is a necessary > > condition for the living and working conditions of workers in the Third > > World to improve, I agree. Of course, things would change if a union of > > rich socialist countries showed up to assist the poor ones. > > __ If capitalism--in your view-- is so good for the working class, why bother with socialism? Donald Sassoon in his 100 Years of Socialism, makes the argument that socialism is completely dependent on capitalism (specifically capitalist growth) so all that's left for socialists to do is redistribute the goodies of capitalism. Do you agree? Socialism,for me, is about more than doing capitalism better than the capitalists. Sam Pawlett
[ Imperialism and Environment
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/15/01 09:48PM >>>
Yoshie:
>The essence of imperialism may be best understood as what is
>necessary to ensure the global reproduction of social relations of
>capitalism, for which a variety of means -- including embargoes --
>are used, depending on what changing circumstances demand. [Etc.]
I find this posting very interesting. It goes without saying that I agree
with a lot of what is said in it. :-)
My discomfort with Yoshie's take on the essence of imperialism is that it
suggests the existence of some supra-national capitalist organ aware of the
needs of global capitalist reproduction and acting accordingly and even
flexibly ("depending on what changing circumstances demand"). But what is
such an organ?
CB: Wouldn't the WTO, IMF, World Bank, U.S. Treasury, NAFTA, NATO, US war machine, et
al, combine to be this organ ?
(
All one sees is heterogeneous and even conflicting policies
implemented by different states (and even the same one) and their
international agencies -- even if (and when) under the hegemony of the
richest state. In what sense are these policies 'necessary' for the global
reproduction of capitalism?
Does the global reproduction of capitalism has ever really required much
coherence of this sort? How come the national states from the rich
countries, following imperialistic policies, led themselves into the first
world war?
CB: Isn't the sharp diminution of interimperialist rivalry and war today exactly an
indication of the unity and greater conscious imperialist organization of its unity ?
(
How was the early-20th-century imperialism designed to ensure
the global reproduction of capitalism? Isn't that the Leninist prototype of
what imperialism is about?
[ Imperialism and Environment
Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >CB: Wouldn't the WTO, IMF, World Bank, U.S. Treasury, NAFTA, NATO, US war >machine, et al, combine to be this organ ? > I can't respond to Charles Brown's posting right now. But I'd like to submit a note I sent to marxmail where I address issues that are very closely related to this discussion. Hope that's proper. *** The mischaracterization of Vicente Fox is a corollary of the leftist mischaracterization of the social formation in Mexico, Latin America, and the Third World. The confusion arises from a misunderstanding of the prospects of capitalist development in the world and our reliance on the old dogmas of the Left. The theoretical arsenal of the Left in Latin America continues to be based on (1) the fruitless attempt to force Lenin's analysis of imperialism into the framework set by Marx in Capital, (2) the recycling of the ideas of Sismondi, Malthus, and the Russian populists as dependency theories, etc., and (3) the misunderstanding of the trends and prospects of today's international capitalism. In the view of the historical circumstances that led to WWI, Hilferding, Hobson, Bukharin, and Lenin viewed protectionism, colonialism, and militarism as manifestations of the increasing power of large companies and 'finance capital', who could obtain systematic super-profits, superseding de facto the laws of exchange of the old 'competitive capitalism'. Marx was fully aware of the tendency of capitalist production to overflow its self-imposed boundaries, to break all rules and codes of conduct including those of its own making. But he was clear that the main dynamics of capitalist reproduction was to be pin down as M-C-M' proper, value that expands itself via surplus production and exploitation based on an unswerving compliance with the laws of legally voluntary exchange. The new views came to regard the repeated violation of M-C-M' proper as the natural, 'dialectical' result of the process itself in the conditions of the new capitalism. While Marx stated that as capitalism evolved, its historical configuration would approach more closely the 'pure' economic logic of M-C-M', increasingly weeding out or getting around its external hurdles, the new views regarded extra-economic forms of competition and super-exploitation of foreign workers (using state power as a systematic weapon), in one word, imperialism, as natural and growing expressions of mature and even agonizing capitalism. In this light, the old ways of mercantilism, which played a key role in mustering the historical premises of capitalist reproduction in Europe, were now refurbished at a larger scale, more intensely, as the inexorable methods of choice of rich and mature capitalism. Marx praised political economists who, like Ricardo, pinned down the fundamental dynamic thrust of capitalist production (M-C-M' proper) and viewed its main sources of trouble as arising from the internal process itself in the form of a tendential decline in profitability and, ultimately, the growing rebelliousness of the direct producers. The political economy compatible with the new views would have to be a re-edition of the ideas of Sismondi, Malthus, and the Russian populists, pointing one way or another outside of the M-C-M' process to find the main sources of trouble (and even denying the mere possibility) of capitalist expansion. These ideas, and not the ideas of Marx, were the ones attuned to the belief of 'the development of underdevelopment' in Third World capitalism, as a result of reduced domestic markets and effective demand traps (breakable by state sponsored industrialization), and foreign exchange gaps (breakable by protectionism and import substitution), etc. While the ascent of Keynesianism in the rich capitalist countries is to be pondered in its own specificity, it is partially the result of the same tendencies. The rapid ascent, in both the theoretical and policy realms, of the doctrines of the so-called 'neoliberalism' (frequently mocked and underrated by Keynesian economists who had the ear of Leftist thinkers) came as a shock in the Keynesian-dominated economics establishment. While Marx showed in Capital that, as a result of relative surplus value production, without resort to government deficit spending, seigniorage, or protectionism, it was possible for workers to systematically improve their standard of living under capitalism, the Left seems almost unanimously unable to even consider it. In fact, a great deal of what the Left in Latin America calls 'neoliberalism' is not an expression of imperialism but of its exact capitalistic opposite. To a large extent, 'neoliberalism' is a forceful ideological rationalization of M-C-M' proper. If we fail to see this, we mischaracterize the WTO, the EU, the NAFTA, the FTTA initiative, etc. To the extent that international agencies sponsored by national states, and the national stat
Re: Imperialism and Environment
Sam Pawlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >Because it isn't happening [as they grow, poor countries are not showing >will or mechanisms to improve the enviroment]. The most industrialized of >the poor >countries (S.Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia) are environmental >disasters. I've seen it first hand. There is a strong incentive to dump >the costs of industrialization onto the environment. They--as some rich >countries are doing-- might try and clean up their act but the >environmental damage is in many cases irreversible (e.g. Lake Erie and >Ontario). The incentive to >pollute is built into capitalism. Even many neoclassical economists >would agree. First, let me admit something. I may have misread your first e-mail on this thread. When you said that poor countries will not industrialize the way rich countries have, I thought you meant they could industrialize in a different way, but still capitalistic. But, after reading your responses, it may well be that you think they won't industrialize under capitalism at all. To respond to this, it seems to me that this is yet to be decided. IMO, if there's a socialist transformation in the rich countries within a few decades, then poor countries may be spared a 'regular' capitalist industrialization. But, short of a global military or environmental catastrophe, I think poor countries will more likely get industrialized the capitalist way. Of course, there's also the possibility of a Soviet or Chinese type of industrialization. But, with regards to Latin America, I doubt it. Now, let me address your first paragraph. First, production and consumption (i.e., human life) entail pollution. That's thermodynamics. So, capitalist production can't escape that either. But here we're talking about pollution above and beyond what a historically conceivable superior set of social needs and system of allocation of labor would have to tolerate. That said, yes, under capitalism, if there are no laws to protect the environment or mechanisms to internalize the benefits of using it (or the cost of polluting it), there will be pollution. Even if there are strict laws, if they are not enforced or only partially enforced, there will be pollution. Capital is prone to break laws and moral codes in its pursuit of profit. I agree with you somehow: There's a built-in incentive for capitalists to pollute (profit making). My point is, under laws that -- roughly speaking -- protect private ownership, capital is perfectly capable of abiding by the environmental laws. This leads to what's badly missing in poor countries: growth, laws, and law enforcement. Finally, conventional economists may have different views. For example, (if my recollection is correct) Nancy Stokey (Chicago) suggests in a recent paper that as poor countries industrialize, there may exist at first a positive correlation between their economic level and the rate of pollution but that the sign might reverse as the country reaches a certain point. (International Economic Review?) >Whoa, a real Kautskyite. But no, the rate of exploitation rises as >productivity (surplus value) >increases. For example, auto workers in Mexico work at close to the same >level of productivity as Canadians or Americans but are only paid a >fraction. They are more exploited and most of that surplus value ends up >in the rich countries. A Marxist economist named Geoffrey Kay once >suggested that the problem with Africa was that it wasn't "exploited >enough" i.e. there was too little investment and productivity was too >low. You seem to agree with him. Lenin was a Kautskyite for quite a while. But I won't get into that. Marx, when he tries to pin down the main thrust of capitalist production, looks at it as value that expands itself through the production and appropriation of surplus value. The 'internal' conditions of the reproduction of capital are that there be means of production and free wage labor available at the right quantities and of the right qualities. But there are also 'external' conditions (such as laws and their enforcement, attitudes, etc.) to capitalist reproduction and these are assumed to exist and be perfectly aligned with the process. This is a bold abstraction of a messy historical reality (that has only turned messier with time), but well worth undertaking. Marx does not consider that underpaying workers or submitting them to abuses is sine-qua-non conditio for capitalist exploitation. He clearly tries to keep the 'logic' of capital clean of abuses and focus on a process that, even if respectful of all the laws of commodity exchange (which entail that people don't take extra-economic advantage of each other when they exchange commodities), is exploitative. Using this same approach to dealing with the environment, I conclude that it is not in the 'nature' of capital to overpollute. By the way, Marx also believed that as capitalism evolved, the historical r
Re: Imperialism and Environment
Re:Geoffrey Kay National Summit on Africa - Partner Programs ... 19 Geoffrey Kay, Development and Underdevelopment: A Marxist Analysis. London: Macmillan Press, 1975. ... www.africasummit.org/resources/themes/democracy/foots.htm ROAPE: Article - Underdevelopment and the Law of Value: a ... ... article provides a brief but useful summary of Geoffrey Kay's book 'Development and Underdevelopment: A Marxist analysis', fully acknowledging the importance ... www.roape.org/cgi-bin/roape/show/0606.html Re: Lake Erie, I'd heard that it was much cleaned up. Did that get into my brain from some ad by "People Do (Care) " Chevron or Dow "We Made Napalm" Chemical? Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: "Sam Pawlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pen-l" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 4:35 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15160] Imperialism and Environment > Julio Huato: > But my question was, why should we think that poor > > > countries -- as they grow -- won't develop the will and mechanisms to use > > > these additional opportunities and resources in a way that limits > > > environmental damage? > > Because it isn't happening. The most industrialized of the poor > countries (S.Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia) are environmental > disasters. I've seen it first hand. There is a strong incentive to dump > the costs of industrialization onto the environment. They--as some rich > countries are doing-- might try and clean up their act but the > environmental damage is in many cases irreversible (e.g. Lake Erie and > Ontario). The incentive to > pollute is built into capitalism. Even many neoclassical economists > would agree. > > But, > > > important as it is, the relative role of imperialist exploitation in the > > > overall exploitation of workers in the Third World tends to decline as > > > capitalist production proper expands. > > Whoa, a real Kautskyite. But no, the rate of exploitation rises as > productivity (surplus value) > increases. For example, auto workers in Mexico work at close to the same > level of productivity as Canadians or Americans but are only paid a > fraction. They are more exploited and most of that surplus value ends up > in the rich countries. A Marxist economist named Geoffrey Kay once > suggested that the problem with Africa was that it wasn't "exploited > enough" i.e. there was too little investment and productivity was too > low. You seem to agree with him. > > > > > > > > If you imply that, in the long run, capitalist growth is a necessary > > > condition for the living and working conditions of workers in the Third > > > World to improve, I agree. Of course, things would change if a union of > > > rich socialist countries showed up to assist the poor ones. > > > __ > > If capitalism--in your view-- is so good for the working class, why > bother with socialism? Donald > Sassoon in his 100 Years of Socialism, makes the argument that socialism > is completely dependent on capitalism (specifically capitalist growth) > so all that's left for socialists to do is redistribute the goodies of > capitalism. Do you agree? Socialism,for me, is about more than doing > capitalism better than the capitalists. > > Sam Pawlett >
Re: Imperialism and Environment
Julio wrote to Sam: >>Whoa, a real Kautskyite. But no, the rate of exploitation rises as >>productivity (surplus value) >>increases. For example, auto workers in Mexico work at close to the same >>level of productivity as Canadians or Americans but are only paid a >>fraction. They are more exploited and most of that surplus value ends up >>in the rich countries. A Marxist economist named Geoffrey Kay once >>suggested that the problem with Africa was that it wasn't "exploited >>enough" i.e. there was too little investment and productivity was too >>low. You seem to agree with him. > >Lenin was a Kautskyite for quite a while. But I won't get into that. The essence of imperialism may be best understood as what is necessary to ensure the global reproduction of social relations of capitalism, for which a variety of means -- including embargoes -- are used, depending on what changing circumstances demand. Minus ceaseless imperial interventions of diverse kinds -- major & minor, direct & indirect, short- & long-term -- the ruling class & governing elite of less developed nations, whose economies are more prone to acute crises than developed nations', are most likely too easily overthrown to ensure the reproduction of capitalism. More importantly, without displacement of crises onto less developed nations, contradiction between capital and labor at metropolises would intensify, perhaps to the level of a legitimation crisis that might threaten to get out of hand given a chance. >By the way, Marx also believed that as capitalism evolved, the >historical reality of capitalism would approach even more the >theoretical 'model'. Now, I don't mean to say that, historically, >capitalism doesn't pollute or that it's spontaneously prone to clean >its act. I just say that capital doesn't need to overpollute: It'll >do it if it can get away with it. It follows from Marx -- for good >or ill. Even under capitalism we can and should try to improve & enforce environmental regulations (in production, conservation, waste disposal, etc.), but efforts to do so inevitably encounter (historically evolving & geographically uneven) barriers when they (together with other struggles against capital) begin to hurt the rate of profit significantly. One might think of this question as contradiction between (A) accumulation and (B) social conditions of accumulation (e.g., investment in infrastructure, production of knowledge, social reproduction of human beings & their labor power, etc.); and what's good for B eventually becomes bad for A, and vice versa, though simultaneous improvement in A & B can go on for a limited period of time between crises. In brief, contradiction between socialized production & privatized appropriation limits what can be done to solve environmental problems. Moreover, since environmental regulations are local, national, & at most regional (e.g., EU) affairs, capital can always displace & condense environmental harms onto the politico-economically weakest links, so long as a multitude of political entities are competing with one another for investment. Unless the world becomes one nation under the law with all its parts developed evenly to the same level, such competition won't disappear. Yoshie
Re: [ Imperialism and Environment
Julio wrote: >Marx praised political economists who, like Ricardo, pinned down the >fundamental dynamic thrust of capitalist production (M-C-M' proper) and >viewed its main sources of trouble as arising from the internal process >itself in the form of a tendential decline in profitability and, >ultimately, the growing rebelliousness of the direct producers. The >political economy compatible with the new views would have to be a >re-edition of the ideas of Sismondi, Malthus, and the Russian populists, >pointing one way or another outside of the M-C-M' process to find the main >sources of trouble (and even denying the mere possibility) of capitalist >expansion. Marx praised Ricardo for seeing how capitalism is expansionist (M - C - M'). But the latter, unlike Marx, saw the problem -- including the falling rate of profit -- as arising due to external processes (scarcity of land & raw materials). Marx did reject the underconsumptionism of Malthus, et al, but as I've argued, underconsumption forces can play a role in a Marxian theory of crises. After all, Marx never finished his own theory, so that his rising organic composition theory didn't make much sense, especially as a long-term theory. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Imperialism and Environment
The Nancy Stukey paper seems like another statement of the environmental Kuznets curve. Alan Krueger once presented this idea to the URPE meetings at the economics meetings. It was far from convincing. Some types of polluting behavior will indeed by cut back -- such as burning firewood for cooking -- but other types will increase. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Imperialism and Environment
Yoshie:
>The essence of imperialism may be best understood as what is
>necessary to ensure the global reproduction of social relations of
>capitalism, for which a variety of means -- including embargoes --
>are used, depending on what changing circumstances demand. [Etc.]
I find this posting very interesting. It goes without saying that I agree
with a lot of what is said in it. :-)
My discomfort with Yoshie's take on the essence of imperialism is that it
suggests the existence of some supra-national capitalist organ aware of the
needs of global capitalist reproduction and acting accordingly and even
flexibly ("depending on what changing circumstances demand"). But what is
such an organ? All one sees is heterogeneous and even conflicting policies
implemented by different states (and even the same one) and their
international agencies -- even if (and when) under the hegemony of the
richest state. In what sense are these policies 'necessary' for the global
reproduction of capitalism?
Does the global reproduction of capitalism has ever really required much
coherence of this sort? How come the national states from the rich
countries, following imperialistic policies, led themselves into the first
world war? How was the early-20th-century imperialism designed to ensure
the global reproduction of capitalism? Isn't that the Leninist prototype of
what imperialism is about?
_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: Re: [ Imperialism and Environment
Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >Marx praised Ricardo for seeing how capitalism is expansionist (M - C - >M'). But the latter, unlike Marx, saw the problem -- including the falling >rate of profit -- as arising due to external processes (scarcity of land & >raw materials). You are right about Ricardo's theory of rent. I wanted to refer to Marx's praising of Ricardo for his better understanding of the pervasiveness of M-C-M' as compared to those who looked at the external hurdles or the recessionary (or stagnationist) spells in capitalist history. And you're also right about underconsumption playing a role in Marx's theory of crisis. But, IMO, its role is secondary. In principle, the "effective demand" necessary to close the M-C-M' circuit can be generated by the process itself. I don't think that's controversial, but I may be wrong. Now, what I stated about the contrast between Marx and Ricardo/Malthus/etc. is not meant to be a denial of the theoretical problems of Marx's analysis of capitalism. So, yes, Marx's thesis of the rising composition of capital is problematic. But whether it has been due to a persistent increase in the real income of workers and not strictly to a rising value composition of capital, profitability has exhibited a tendency to decline in the documented history of capitalism. To me that's a partial validation of Marx. In any case, the increase in the real income of workers is internal to M-C-M'. _ Descargue GRATUITAMENTE MSN Explorer en http://explorer.msn.es/intl.asp
RE: Re: [ Imperialism and Environment
Jim and Julio - In Theories of Surplus Value (Vol II), Marx criticizes Ricardo exactly for NOT taking an M-C-M' view of things. Marx accuses Ricardo of treating capitalism as a barter or simple commodity exchange economy, and accepting uncritically Say's Law. "No man produces, but with a view to cosnumer or sell.." etc. He says Ricardo confuses product with commodity, and forgets the social division of labor. Then he forgets that "a person may sell in order to *pay*", etc., in other words, Ricardo misses out on the motivations and organization of production and realization. A person doesn't have the choice of seling or not selling, they must sell. It is all Marx's attempt to outline the possiblity of crisis, as Kenway shows in his CJE article, repinted in Eatwell and Milgate. ?? Julio wrote: >Marx praised political economists who, like Ricardo, pinned down the >fundamental dynamic thrust of capitalist production (M-C-M' proper) and >viewed its main sources of trouble as arising from the internal process >itself in the form of a tendential decline in profitability and, >ultimately, the growing rebelliousness of the direct producers. The >political economy compatible with the new views would have to be a >re-edition of the ideas of Sismondi, Malthus, and the Russian populists, >pointing one way or another outside of the M-C-M' process to find the main >sources of trouble (and even denying the mere possibility) of capitalist >expansion. Marx praised Ricardo for seeing how capitalism is expansionist (M - C - M'). But the latter, unlike Marx, saw the problem -- including the falling rate of profit -- as arising due to external processes (scarcity of land & raw materials). Marx did reject the underconsumptionism of Malthus, et al, but as I've argued, underconsumption forces can play a role in a Marxian theory of crises. After all, Marx never finished his own theory, so that his rising organic composition theory didn't make much sense, especially as a long-term theory. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: Imperialism and Environment
Yoshie Furuhashi: > > Moreover, since environmental regulations are local, national, & at > most regional (e.g., EU) affairs, capital can always displace & > condense environmental harms onto the politico-economically weakest > links, so long as a multitude of political entities are competing > with one another for investment. Unless the world becomes one nation > under the law with all its parts developed evenly to the same level, > such competition won't disappear. There is a huge array of international law and treaty agreement covering all manner of environmental issues from whaling to controls of use of ozone-eating CFC's to controls on dioxins, DDT, PCBs, to controls on infectious disease vectors, to greenhouse gas emissions (Kyoto is only the latest) and much else besides. This is not regional but international treaty and covenantal law. Mark Jones
Re: Re: Re: Imperialism and Environment
Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >The Nancy Stukey paper seems like another statement of the environmental >Kuznets curve. Alan Krueger once presented this idea to the URPE meetings >at the economics meetings. It was far from convincing. > >Some types of polluting behavior will indeed by cut back -- such as >burning firewood for cooking -- but other types will increase. I'm raising a question rather than trying to make a case. And I was responding to a statement about the views of neoclassical economists. Not that she needs me to, but I don't endorse Ms. Stokey's views. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: RE: Re: [ Imperialism and Environment
At 04:41 PM 7/19/01 -0500, you wrote: >Jim and Julio - In Theories of Surplus Value (Vol II), Marx criticizes >Ricardo exactly for NOT taking an M-C-M' view of things. Marx accuses >Ricardo of treating capitalism as a barter or simple commodity exchange >economy, and accepting uncritically Say's Law. this is accurate. But in the GRUNDRISSE, Marx praised Ricardo (compared to Sisimondi, Malthus, et al) for seeing capitalism as a system which drives forward (rather than being naturally mired in underconsumptionist stagnation). He later praised Sisimondi, Malthus et al for being clear that effective demand was crucial, though he never went for their kind of underconsumptionism (cf. Michael Bleaney's book, UNDERCONSUMPTION THEORIES). Marx was trying to synthesize the schools. The way I read him, the Ricardian drive to expand can leap over Sisimondian underconsumption limits, causing over-accumulation relative to consumer demand. The resulting recession might lead to underconsumptive stagnation as in the 1930s, even though that isn't capitalism's "natural state." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism and Environment
environmental problems in north and south are different and related. james o'cconnor on uneven and combined devlopment and ecological crisis in race and class mid 80s special issue on ecolgocial crisis is a good place to start..same issue, piece by Shanmugaratnam. conventional approach sees problems in north and south as different but not connected. right approach would see them as different but very connected. south its deforestation, soil erosion and degradation, problems related to monoculture and raw materials extraction--all connected with global capitalism..north it's pollution urbanization industrial concentration etc, but that's the uneven part, the combined part sees the 'south' within the 'north' and verse visa...kuznets envionemtnal has some of the same probloems as the regular old kuznets...lineal view of devleopment where the 'ldcs' are just further back on the devlopment 'line' and their future is the current 'dcs'---with the structure of the global capitalist economy in which there are crucial historical structural connections between the dcs and ldcs lost in the sauce..with the old Kuznets curve it's 'dont worry about distribution, just grow'- i havent read the env. kuz stuff--is it 'dont worry about the env just grow"? -Original Message- From: Julio Huato To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7/15/01 7:53 PM Subject: [PEN-L:15181] Re: Re: Re: Imperialism and Environment Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >The Nancy Stukey paper seems like another statement of the environmental >Kuznets curve. Alan Krueger once presented this idea to the URPE meetings >at the economics meetings. It was far from convincing. > >Some types of polluting behavior will indeed by cut back -- such as >burning firewood for cooking -- but other types will increase. I'm raising a question rather than trying to make a case. And I was responding to a statement about the views of neoclassical economists. Not that she needs me to, but I don't endorse Ms. Stokey's views. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism and Environment
Julio, I do not have any absolute proof, but I feel fairly confident that most of the pollution caused by consumption in the United States occurs offshore. The extractive industries are terribly destructive. Toxic wastes are shipped abroad. Ugly industries, such as the recycling of lead batteries, go abroad. In the end, perhaps the whole country can sit in air conditioned offices giving orders to the rest of the world on what to do -- except that the US will still need a lot of domestic workers to make life comfortable for the rest. On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 08:53:32PM -0400, Julio Huato wrote: > Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >The Nancy Stukey paper seems like another statement of the environmental > >Kuznets curve. Alan Krueger once presented this idea to the URPE meetings > >at the economics meetings. It was far from convincing. > > > >Some types of polluting behavior will indeed by cut back -- such as > >burning firewood for cooking -- but other types will increase. > > I'm raising a question rather than trying to make a case. And I was > responding to a statement about the views of neoclassical economists. Not > that she needs me to, but I don't endorse Ms. Stokey's views. > _ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism and Environment
Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >Julio, I do not have any absolute proof, but I feel fairly confident that >most of the pollution caused by consumption in the United States occurs >offshore. The extractive industries are terribly destructive. Toxic >wastes are shipped abroad. Ugly industries, such as the recycling of lead >batteries, go abroad. > >In the end, perhaps the whole country can sit in air conditioned offices >giving orders to the rest of the world on what to do -- except that the US >will still need a lot of domestic workers to make life comfortable for the >rest. I yield to your opinion, as I don't really have a reason (or factual information) to claim otherwise. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
