Re: Re: O'Neill and sectors of capitalism
At 08/12/02 23:13 -0800, you wrote: Chris asked: why would manufacturers favour a strong dollar policy? They don't and this was Doug's point. I don't want to appear pedantic, and there does not have to be a one to one correlation between material economic interests and social and psychological constructions but sorting out this detail might be instructive. Doug did write: O'Neill came out of fairly traditional heavy industry and always expressed hostility towards Wall Street - and they returned the favor. They never trusted his dedication to a strong dollar policy, one issue that divides manufacturers and financiers. No doubt there are all sorts of personal detail complicating the broader picture but the international markets seem to assume that the dollar will now be allowed to fall. Now that O'Neill has been sacked. It is not just another industrialist at the US Treasury. It is a change of policy. Chris Burford
Re: O'Neill and sectors of capitalism
Chris: It is not just another industrialist at the US Treasury. It is a change of policy. Maybe. But maybe it is just a tactical change. If your objective is to drive to a certain destination and you realize that the road is congested, you may even take a U turn and travel in the opposite direction for a while. But it doesn't mean that you changed your destination. Whether you can eventually get to your destination or not is, of course, another issue. This is what I mean by non-linear thinking, to give one example. Best, Sabri
O'Neill and sectors of capitalism
At 07/12/02 15:21 -0500, Doug wrote: Chris Burford wrote: But what sector of capitalism did he represent if it was not finance capital? Are you using this term in Hilferding's sense, as the unity of industry and finance on the mystical model of the Holy Trinity? I do not know see Google pickings later. I don't think things are so seamlessly joined. O'Neill came out of fairly traditional heavy industry and always expressed hostility towards Wall Street why? - and they returned the favor. They never trusted his dedication to a strong dollar policy, why would manufacturers favour a strong dollar policy? (unless they are importing aluminium ore?) one issue that divides manufacturers and financiers. Wall Street wants a markets guy at Treasury - we'll see if they get what they want. Doug, these may be fiddly questions and things can get too detailed, but the present abrupt dismissal of O'Neill suggests a lightening flash in a looming storm, at least as far as Bush is concerned. Understanding the contradictions between different sectors of capitalism as they square up for the possibility of a worse crisis, is instructive. I note also your observation that the Wall Street/high tech capital that dominates the Dems, and had their way in the Clinton years. There are some parallels with the Blair administration. So does Bush's firing of O'Neill and his preference for even more radical tax cuts, reflect a shift in the loyalties between different sectors of capital? I know none of these determinations is simplistic - more a sense of tendency or relative gravitational force, and the superstructure of ideas and emotions is only relatively dependent on the economic base. But Chris Burford London
Re: O'Neill and sectors of capitalism
Chris Burford wrote: Doug, these may be fiddly questions and things can get too detailed, but the present abrupt dismissal of O'Neill suggests a lightening flash in a looming storm, at least as far as Bush is concerned. W is worried that he'll suffer the same fate as his father - popular war president who loses re-election because the economy sucked. He wants to project concern about the economy, and what better way to do that than with a headline-grabbing shakeup? But as for policy - well it looks like more tax cuts for the upscale, and that's about it. Doug
Re: Re: O'Neill and sectors of capitalism
Doug, don't forget a massive deregulation drive to stimulate the economy. I presume that such an effort will accompany the tax cuts. On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 11:25:29AM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: Chris Burford wrote: Doug, these may be fiddly questions and things can get too detailed, but the present abrupt dismissal of O'Neill suggests a lightening flash in a looming storm, at least as far as Bush is concerned. W is worried that he'll suffer the same fate as his father - popular war president who loses re-election because the economy sucked. He wants to project concern about the economy, and what better way to do that than with a headline-grabbing shakeup? But as for policy - well it looks like more tax cuts for the upscale, and that's about it. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O'Neill and sectors of capitalism
Chris asked: why would manufacturers favour a strong dollar policy? They don't and this was Doug's point. So does Bush's firing of O'Neill and his preference for even more radical tax cuts, reflect a shift in the loyalties between different sectors of capital? I would say, yes. As I see it, the Bush coup in the US was about the revolt of productive capital against finance capital. You cannot imagine how difficult it was for firms who produced tangible or intangible products to set up long-term strategies for making money. Maybe you had to witness it first hand as I did to grasp that. If you did not produce profits in two consecutive quarters, you were severely punished by the capital markets. They simply sold your stock to death if your objective was not to please them. Why do you think there was widespread fraud in the US? Because the US executives are genetically immoral? What we have been witnessing for the past few years is the collapse of the so-called contract theory and an egg on the face of Business Administration and Economics departments at the mainstream US universities. They claimed that if you let the market decide and tie manager compensation to the performance of company stock, the shareholders and, as a result, the society would be better off. Just the opposite occurred. What we have been witnessing is a proof that they were wrong. I expect that M-M' phase will soon be over because it doesn't work anymore and we will soon be back to M-C-M'phase. Sabri
