RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
Have no objection in principle. Things like that are in process in various ways. It's not so hard to imagine a maximum program. The tough thing to settle on is the minimum program -- the one with immediate relevance to what people are talking about, voting on, & legislating. It's easier to write a model bill than decide among alternatives of varying and qualitatively disparate rottenness. I would concede, for instance, that an anti-PNTR vote this week does not liberate us from a rotten WTO. It does, however, mark a statement that the social content of trade relations (or lack thereof) cannot be a matter of indifference. mbs CB: Howabout proposing a comprehensive anti-NAFTA/GATT, etc., in U.S. law and treaties which puts strict curbs and controls on the rights and powers of U.S. based corporations to move capital ? Just as a maximum program, ultimate target. Build current demands working toward that. Declare a break with all previous approaches which have, overall, failed. And then start lobbying for it, electing candidates based on it. It might require an Amendment to the Constitution. But I already have one drafted that is almost on point. It pretty much comes under the Labor Party proposal for an amendment for right to jobworkliivng decently. CB
RE: Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
>>> "Max B. Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/13/00 06:58PM >>> Rather than labor's present campaign, MHL proposes that we "focus our attention on US capital and the logic of international capitalism." But that's not politics; it's a seminar. Or a book. Getting up in front of a crowd and saying, "I denounce capitalism" is not politics. It's a potential component of politics, but one that lacks any referents in current events or practice. -)) CB: Howabout proposing a comprehensive anti-NAFTA/GATT, etc., in U.S. law and treaties which puts strict curbs and controls on the rights and powers of U.S. based corporations to move capital ? Just as a maximum program, ultimate target. Build current demands working toward that. Declare a break with all previous approaches which have, overall, failed. And then start lobbying for it, electing candidates based on it. It might require an Amendment to the Constitution. But I already have one drafted that is almost on point. It pretty much comes under the Labor Party proposal for an amendment for right to jobworkliivng decently. CB
Re: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
Nathan said: > > So given that the China deal is coming to a vote, does MHL say that in > protest of the fact that the GOP Congress won't let pro-labor legislation > come to a vote, US labor should abstain from lobbying on the China deal in > order to maintain a balanced ideological profile? > > If the China deal should not be a top priority of labor, what legislation > THAT ACTUALLY CAME TO A VOTE would MHL suggest should have taken its place > over the last year? > I just do not think that all politics revolves around particular bills or votes in the Congress. For example, it was good political organizing that led to the Seattle and Washington DC actions. These actions have political impact, or at least, potential impact (if we can successfully continue to build on them). Similarly the Jubilee 2000 actions are not organized around a particular bill but a demand. This demand may well force bills or votes, but we are likely to get better bills or votes if we mobilize militant actions that pressure the system. As for the China issue, I really see this as an elite struggle between and among leaders in China and in the US and the sides are complex. What I do not see it as is a key issue for labor activists. Not every issue is our issue. I would rather demand ratification of all seven core ILO labor standards (the US has only ratified one). That demand takes up the issue of labor standards and demands actions by the US government and forces attention on U.S. capitalism. Our job as left activists is to create a climate which shifte teh political terrain. If we succeed no doubt liberals will shift to the left in their legislative agenda as well. If we try and be liberals then we can expect them to move to the right. So, the issue is how to promote demands that really matter. At the risk of repeating myself way to often, the China question is largely a distraction from the kind of work that radicals should be doing. We are allowing ourselves to be sucked into a debate that at its best does little to radicalize people. The problem is not that liberals are getting excited about the China question; they like US capitalism. But rather that those who claim to want to transform it are making this THEIR issue and thus shaping the political debate in ways that dampens political radicalization. So, if you want a legislative actions: demand ratification of the ILO core labor standards. Beyond that, we must enter every arena and push the demadns as far to the left as is possible. Marty
RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
[mbs] If you spend money it's the company that you deal
with, but if you WORK, where the job is and where you is
matter a great deal.
The bit about 'shaming' firms is pretty funny. ("Go
you Gates, and sin no more!") But actually the point is
ingrained in the views of others as well. If you mean
anything, you mean that targeting a firm is prelude to
some legislative action that means some new sort of
regulation of said firm, and others like it. So
what is this regulation to be? I raised this before.
Do we exalt a law against a firm leaving Michigan as
somehow a different thing than a law against a firm
relocating to some other country? What is the practical
difference from the standpoint of, say, Chinese workers?
Presumably an anti-relocation law bothers people because
it sounds anti-foreign and chauvinistic.
===
I'm thinking more along lines of having pretty fine-grained info on the
"sinners" so that activists working along the direct action spectrum have
the goods to engage in public theatre/education; the necessary grassroots
prelude to mobilizing citizen support for legislative change. So yes.
Thats where AFL-CIO etc. policywonks can help continue growing alliances. I
don't know what kind of barriers to exit any legislative package could
design at this stage of the game.
[mbs]So the anti-relocation focus is on
nations with lousy labor standards etc.
Given that at this stage of the game we don't have said exit cost function
available, the focus would still be on the firm taking advantage of lousy
labor standards. Firms usually need some Bank capital to finance the up
front move costs, and as an AFL-CIO organizer told me at the Meany Center
off New Hampshire Ave[I think that was the Beltway exit] "nothing is more
fun during a corporate campaign than scaring the shit out of bankers by
putting a whole bunch of activists outside their doors when they're doin'
something stupid." At said organizing rally one would have lots of handouts
on how to strengthen the ILO so it has some FANGS and TALONS. Again, to
build grassroots momentum.
[mbs][mbs] What is the content of this non-ersatz cosmopolitanism?
What is the concrete form of "respect for workers dignity"?
If it isn't labor standards embodied in international law,
including trade agreements, what in the devil is it?
==
It "should" be in int'l law. Dismantling the WTO takes away Capital's trump
card because it is the only agency that hits States where they live; their
pocket book. Take away that power while simultaneously giving said
enforcement authority to the ILO. Capital could then do all the regional
trade agreements it wants as long as their labor provisions are consistent
with ILO. I realize proving God's existence is easier, but hell, I'm
definitely open to far wiser ideas.
[mbs]To the contrary, all those young people, not to mention
we over-the-hill types, mean zilch without the potential
mobilization of the working class. That mobilization is
necessarily conditioned by the practical importance of
nation-states and their laws as defenders of living
standards against amoral markets.
===
It's precisely because the young 'unz don't see States as "protecting" them
any more [vacuous labor and enviro. laws "here at home"] that they got in
the streets.
Ian
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
MHL: > I guess we have a difference of opinion on what politics is about. The > issue is not short-run "victories" which are really non-victories. Keeping > China out of the WTO will only ensure the status quo. At issue is first > determining what kind of political understanding we want to promote and > then figuring out how to effectively promote it. In re: the last sentence, some people have already figured out what political understanding we want to promote. We want to defend living standards of the working class by strengthening trade unions and by extending the capacity of the State to provide a greater social wage. We think gains of this sort are feasible because we do not see the State as a monolithic, alien instrument, but as something susceptible to political mobilization. Regulating markets is an elementary resort. A market overlapping national borders is no less worthy of regulation than any other. Pushing international trade regimes in this direction is one dimension of this project. Keeping China out of the WTO under present circumstances is a logical step. I would say that short-run victories are the mother's milk of longer-term campaigns. Symbolic victories have real political implications, witness the campaign to get the confederate flag off the S.C. statehouse. MHL: > I think that in this period ideological struggle is very important. Real > politics is finding a way to help people understand the nature of the > system that they live in and move as quickly as possible to embrace > actions to transform that system in appropriate ways. If the problem is > capitalism and the role of the US state and US MNCs, then we need to think > creatively about how to promote that understanding. MBS: I suspect that 'nature of the system' really means portraying the system as implacable and immune to reforms. If not, so much the better. People do not choose social systems by comparing models on a shelf. They grapple with day to day problems and reach conclusions about politics, reforms, and systems. MHL: > Saying that the issue is china and its lack of human rights for workers is > not some how any more or less a lecture than saying that the issue is > capitalism and the actions of US MNCs. The difference is that the first > is just a bad lecture, from which confused politics is bound to come. And > the second well you can guess. Marty The China issue is not a lecture in the sense that it is part of a larger political project. You can find things to criticize in it, but there is a there there. What's the political project underlying "the issue is capitalism and the actions of US MNC's"? One of the inconsistencies in your argument goes to your idea that labor is targeting China, rather than either the US Gov or MNC's. But our trade relations with CHina (the actual target) clearly derive from the policy of the U.S. state, and in other contexts, it is asserted w/o qualification that the policies of the State are dictated by MNC's. cheers, mbs
RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Martin Hart-Landsberg > > Max says: > > > Capital will go wherever the State permits it to go. > > Hence the laws of and among States are the logical > > target. Trade agreements & the workings of the WTO > > are part and parcel of these laws. > > Somehow that is translated into a politics that says we need to focus on > the actions of the Chinese state or China and not the actions of the U.S. > state. The problems facing US workers from highly mobile capital go > beyond China, but focusing on China and the actions of the Chinese state > narrow the politics in a way that is self-defeating if our aim is to > illuminate what is happening and build a radical movement for change. And your statement would make sense if unions did not spend most of their lobbying time fighting against bad budget policies and fighting for pro-worker legislation. The China deal is getting prominent play because it is actually coming to a vote, unlike pro-labor or anti-capitalist legislation which never comes to a vote. Because of the debacle of the 1995 government shutdown, the GOP Congress has been relatively reluctant to bring up large-scale antilabor legislation, preferring a series of small bills and riders on other legislation. So while labor spends a lot of time fighting those individual bills, there is rarely a single up-down vote with the consequences of the China trade deal. Back in 1993 and 1994, the unions put a similiar scale of effort (especially relative to the anemic energy of the Kirkland regime) into passing striker replacement legislation that fits MHL's definition of "actions of the US state", but such legislation does not even get to the floor for a vote now. So given that the China deal is coming to a vote, does MHL say that in protest of the fact that the GOP Congress won't let pro-labor legislation come to a vote, US labor should abstain from lobbying on the China deal in order to maintain a balanced ideological profile? If the China deal should not be a top priority of labor, what legislation THAT ACTUALLY CAME TO A VOTE would MHL suggest should have taken its place over the last year? -- Nathan Newman
Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
Max says: > Capital will go wherever the State permits it to go. > Hence the laws of and among States are the logical > target. Trade agreements & the workings of the WTO > are part and parcel of these laws. Somehow that is translated into a politics that says we need to focus on the actions of the Chinese state or China and not the actions of the U.S. state. The problems facing US workers from highly mobile capital go beyond China, but focusing on China and the actions of the Chinese state narrow the politics in a way that is self-defeating if our aim is to illuminate what is happening and build a radical movement for change. Max adds: > > > Rather than labor's present campaign, MHL proposes > that we "focus our attention on US capital and the > logic of international capitalism." But that's not > politics; it's a seminar. Or a book. Getting up > in front of a crowd and saying, "I denounce > capitalism" is not politics. It's a potential > component of politics, but one that lacks any > referents in current events or practice. > I guess we have a difference of opinion on what politics is about. The issue is not short-run "victories" which are really non-victories. Keeping China out of the WTO will only ensure the status quo. At issue is first determining what kind of political understanding we want to promote and then figuring out how to effectively promote it. I think that in this period ideological struggle is very important. Real politics is finding a way to help people understand the nature of the system that they live in and move as quickly as possible to embrace actions to transform that system in appropriate ways. If the problem is capitalism and the role of the US state and US MNCs, then we need to think creatively about how to promote that understanding. Saying that the issue is china and its lack of human rights for workers is not some how any more or less a lecture than saying that the issue is capitalism and the actions of US MNCs. The difference is that the first is just a bad lecture, from which confused politics is bound to come. And the second well you can guess. Marty
RE: Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
MHL:
> And what political implications should we draw from the fact that US
> capital is highly mobile, using China, among other places, as either off
> shore production locations or as a threat. Max notes that this mobility
> or threat of mobility has real consequences. I agree. So, should our
> movement attack China and mobilize to keep it out of the WTO or focus our
> attention on US capital and the logic of international capitalism. I
> think that the choice leads to very different kinds of campaigns and
> educational work.Marty Hart-Landsberg
Capital will go wherever the State permits it to go.
Hence the laws of and among States are the logical
target. Trade agreements & the workings of the WTO
are part and parcel of these laws.
THERE IS NO "ATTACK ON CHINA." Rather, there is an
attack on labor standards and suppression of human
rights in China, and on China's posture regarding
international labor standards, and therefore on
China's entry into WTO and on PNTR. I'm not going
to rehash the difference between labor/human rights
in China and the U.S., which some, present company
excepted, seem to fail to appreciate.
Rather than labor's present campaign, MHL proposes
that we "focus our attention on US capital and the
logic of international capitalism." But that's not
politics; it's a seminar. Or a book. Getting up
in front of a crowd and saying, "I denounce
capitalism" is not politics. It's a potential
component of politics, but one that lacks any
referents in current events or practice.
---
Ian:
1)That is different from my point that the system of national accounting we
currently use misrepresents the flows of capital. It's the who and how that
now matters, not where. Consumers owe the money to Sony, BMW, Volvo[Ford];
not Japan, Germany, Sweden. It's firms that make the investments that
catalyzes states into the destructive bidding down of wages via labor
policies to attract investment. The focus should then be placed on "outing
and shaming" the firms that leverage their market power to put states' labor
policies into competitive play against one another; a process that
ineluctably favors the continued evolution of authoritarian/oligarchic
governance structures and governments.
[mbs] If you spend money it's the company that you deal
with, but if you WORK, where the job is and where you is
matter a great deal.
The bit about 'shaming' firms is pretty funny. ("Go
you Gates, and sin no more!") But actually the point is
ingrained in the views of others as well. If you mean
anything, you mean that targeting a firm is prelude to
some legislative action that means some new sort of
regulation of said firm, and others like it. So
what is this regulation to be? I raised this before.
Do we exalt a law against a firm leaving Michigan as
somehow a different thing than a law against a firm
relocating to some other country? What is the practical
difference from the standpoint of, say, Chinese workers?
Presumably an anti-relocation law bothers people because
it sounds anti-foreign and chauvinistic.
In actuality labor must be a bit more discriminating.
We can't denounce a firm for shifting jobs from UAW-USA
to UAW/Canada. So the anti-relocation focus is on
nations with lousy labor standards etc.
>>
2)Capital is now more than happy to use cosmopolitanism in place of
partiotism as a rhetorical complement to it's fictions of comparative
advantage. Labor should expose the ersatz cosmopolitanism of Capital and
put forward a viable alternative that plays on respect for workers dignity
and respect for ecosystem integrity as two necessary conditions for any
definition of cosmopolitanism worthy of the name.
>
[mbs] What is the content of this non-ersatz cosmopolitanism?
What is the concrete form of "respect for workers dignity"?
If it isn't labor standards embodied in international law,
including trade agreements, what in the devil is it?
>>> . . .
Which is where young people in a hurry want to be; they see Capital as
ditching liberalism/nationalism and they/we-me want to do it too and beat
Capital at its own game. Nationalism is no more immortal than
feudalismWhat could be more cosmopolitan than "Workers of the World
Unite!"
Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a 1/2 century
>
Really? "Young people" have all become international
socialists? Do tell.
To the contrary, all those young people, not to mention
we over-the-hill types, mean zilch without the potential
mobilization of the working class. That mobilization is
necessarily conditioned by the practical importance of
nation-states and their laws as defenders of living
standards against amoral markets.
Cheers,
mbs
Re: Re: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
I think that what Martin argues below is similar to the arguments that Bill Tabb made a few months ago in MR, right on the money. Steve > > Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote: > > > And what political implications should we draw from the fact that US > > capital is highly mobile, using China, among other places, as either off > > shore production locations or as a threat. Max notes that this mobility > > or threat of mobility has real consequences. I agree. So, should our > > movement attack China and mobilize to keep it out of the WTO or focus our > > attention on US capital and the logic of international capitalism. I > > think that the choice leads to very different kinds of campaigns and > > educational work. > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
RE: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
> [mbs] The threat to move a manufacturing plant is central to the ability of Capital to suppress wage demands. That's hardly zilch. When this threat entails moving plants to other countries, it exposes business firms to a combined nationalist/laborist attack. In effect, Capital runs afoul of notions of patriotism it had previously used to uphold its rule. Anyone who fails to take advantage of this, for the sake of the working class, is being foolish. Clearly now the trade deficit does not mean an absolute shortage of jobs, but a change in their composition. The impact of this change on living standards has been well documented, and it is not zilch either. === 1)That is different from my point that the system of national accounting we currently use misrepresents the flows of capital. It's the who and how that now matters, not where. Consumers owe the money to Sony, BMW, Volvo[Ford]; not Japan, Germany, Sweden. It's firms that make the investments that catalyzes states into the destructive bidding down of wages via labor policies to attract investment. The focus should then be placed on "outing and shaming" the firms that leverage their market power to put states' labor policies into competitive play against one another; a process that ineluctably favors the continued evolution of authoritarian/oligarchic governance structures and governments. 2)Capital is now more than happy to use cosmopolitanism in place of partiotism as a rhetorical complement to it's fictions of comparative advantage. Labor should expose the ersatz cosmopolitanism of Capital and put forward a viable alternative that plays on respect for workers dignity and respect for ecosystem integrity as two necessary conditions for any definition of cosmopolitanism worthy of the name. >>> Isn't the whole point of free > trade to deconstruct political boundaries vis a vis the boundaries of > firms/commodity chains [assuming tariffs are taxes]? [mbs] No, the whole point is to screw workers by securing absolute rights for Capital. Mere rhetorical difference... >>> And wouldn't that > whole accounting convention be rendered meaningless if and when free trade > becomes triumphant? ]mbs] Yes if we lose, then we would have lost. > It seems the question for the left is no longer [if it ever was] > where, but > rather our far more important and older question of HOW is it made; > property/firm structure and ecological conditions of production take > precedence over Westphalian geographies. Ian [mbs] It will always be where, as long as people have some identification with nations. They always will because nations serve irreplaceable functions, both good and bad. You're skipping ahead to the fourth millennium. mbs == Which is where young people in a hurry want to be; they see Capital as ditching liberalism/nationalism and they/we-me want to do it too and beat Capital at its own game. Nationalism is no more immortal than feudalismWhat could be more cosmopolitan than "Workers of the World Unite!" Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a 1/2 century
Re: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
Excellent! By the way, is the China vote a straight up and down vote or are other things attached as in the WTO and NAFTA votes? Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote: > And what political implications should we draw from the fact that US > capital is highly mobile, using China, among other places, as either off > shore production locations or as a threat. Max notes that this mobility > or threat of mobility has real consequences. I agree. So, should our > movement attack China and mobilize to keep it out of the WTO or focus our > attention on US capital and the logic of international capitalism. I > think that the choice leads to very different kinds of campaigns and > educational work. > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
And what political implications should we draw from the fact that US capital is highly mobile, using China, among other places, as either off shore production locations or as a threat. Max notes that this mobility or threat of mobility has real consequences. I agree. So, should our movement attack China and mobilize to keep it out of the WTO or focus our attention on US capital and the logic of international capitalism. I think that the choice leads to very different kinds of campaigns and educational work. Marty Hart-Landsberg On Fri, 12 May 2000, Max B. Sawicky wrote: > . . . > > Lets see, US firms make the stuff in China then send it back duty free to > > sell to US consumers [or anywhere else]; just what does trade deficit mean > > in this circumstance? My guess is zilch. > > [mbs] The threat to move a manufacturing plant is central to > the ability of Capital to suppress wage demands. That's > hardly zilch. When this threat entails moving plants to > other countries, it exposes business firms to a combined > nationalist/laborist attack. In effect, Capital runs > afoul of notions of patriotism it had previously used > to uphold its rule. Anyone who fails to take advantage > of this, for the sake of the working class, is being > foolish. > > Clearly now the trade deficit does not mean > an absolute shortage of jobs, but a change in their > composition. The impact of this change on living > standards has been well documented, and it is not > zilch either. > > >>> > Isn't the whole point of free > > trade to deconstruct political boundaries vis a vis the boundaries of > > firms/commodity chains [assuming tariffs are taxes]? > > [mbs] No, the whole point is to screw workers by securing > absolute rights for Capital. > > >>> > And wouldn't that > > whole accounting convention be rendered meaningless if and when free trade > > becomes triumphant? > > ]mbs] Yes if we lose, then we would have lost. > > > It seems the question for the left is no longer [if it ever was] > > where, but > > rather our far more important and older question of HOW is it made; > > property/firm structure and ecological conditions of production take > > precedence over Westphailian geographies. Ian > > [mbs] It will always be where, as long as people have > some identification with nations. They always will > because nations serve irreplaceable functions, both > good and bad. You're skipping ahead to the fourth > millenium. > > mbs >
RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
>>> "Max B. Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/12/00 08:51PM >>> . . . > Lets see, US firms make the stuff in China then send it back duty free to > sell to US consumers [or anywhere else]; just what does trade deficit mean > in this circumstance? My guess is zilch. [mbs] The threat to move a manufacturing plant is central to the ability of Capital to suppress wage demands. That's hardly zilch. When this threat entails moving plants to other countries, it exposes business firms to a combined nationalist/laborist attack. In effect, Capital runs afoul of notions of patriotism it had previously used to uphold its rule. Anyone who fails to take advantage of this, for the sake of the working class, is being foolish. CB: You all are getting to some nitty gritty. This might sound typically Marxist, but don't we have to think a little deeper to see how this can really be taken of advantage of by or for the working class ? Doesn't a real solution have to involve some kind of new level of solidarity between the U.S. working class and those in other countries ? Won't the nationalist aspect of the above undermine that ? __ Clearly now the trade deficit does not mean an absolute shortage of jobs, but a change in their composition. The impact of this change on living standards has been well documented, and it is not zilch either. CB: This is no doubt true. But are trade barriers a long term solution for the U.S. working class ? Doesn't it have to be something more like direct legal curbs and controls on the perogatives of the corporations to move plants whenever and whereever they want ? >>> Isn't the whole point of free > trade to deconstruct political boundaries vis a vis the boundaries of > firms/commodity chains [assuming tariffs are taxes]? [mbs] No, the whole point is to screw workers by securing absolute rights for Capital. >>> And wouldn't that > whole accounting convention be rendered meaningless if and when free trade > becomes triumphant? ]mbs] Yes if we lose, then we would have lost. > It seems the question for the left is no longer [if it ever was] > where, but > rather our far more important and older question of HOW is it made; > property/firm structure and ecological conditions of production take > precedence over Westphailian geographies. Ian [mbs] It will always be where, as long as people have some identification with nations. They always will because nations serve irreplaceable functions, both good and bad. You're skipping ahead to the fourth millenium. __ CB: If the corporations are transcending the nation in this millenium, isn't it plausible that the working class can do it a little sooner than a thousand years from now ?
Re: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Lisa & Ian Murray wrote: > Lets see, US firms make the stuff in China then send it back duty free to > sell to US consumers [or anywhere else]; just what does trade deficit mean > in this circumstance? My guess is zilch. Well, it does mean something in the comparative sense that Japan and the EU run big trade surpluses in their good sectors vis-a-vis the US, and they're just as globalized as we are. This suggests, in turn, that the mighty US economy is far less mighty than Wall Street would like us to believe, that deep structural problems are being papered over by a financial bubble. Usually, peripheries run huge deficits with metropoles, not the other way around. -- Dennis
RE: RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
. . . > Lets see, US firms make the stuff in China then send it back duty free to > sell to US consumers [or anywhere else]; just what does trade deficit mean > in this circumstance? My guess is zilch. [mbs] The threat to move a manufacturing plant is central to the ability of Capital to suppress wage demands. That's hardly zilch. When this threat entails moving plants to other countries, it exposes business firms to a combined nationalist/laborist attack. In effect, Capital runs afoul of notions of patriotism it had previously used to uphold its rule. Anyone who fails to take advantage of this, for the sake of the working class, is being foolish. Clearly now the trade deficit does not mean an absolute shortage of jobs, but a change in their composition. The impact of this change on living standards has been well documented, and it is not zilch either. >>> Isn't the whole point of free > trade to deconstruct political boundaries vis a vis the boundaries of > firms/commodity chains [assuming tariffs are taxes]? [mbs] No, the whole point is to screw workers by securing absolute rights for Capital. >>> And wouldn't that > whole accounting convention be rendered meaningless if and when free trade > becomes triumphant? ]mbs] Yes if we lose, then we would have lost. > It seems the question for the left is no longer [if it ever was] > where, but > rather our far more important and older question of HOW is it made; > property/firm structure and ecological conditions of production take > precedence over Westphailian geographies. Ian [mbs] It will always be where, as long as people have some identification with nations. They always will because nations serve irreplaceable functions, both good and bad. You're skipping ahead to the fourth millenium. mbs
RE: EPI Paper on U.S. FDI in China
New from EPI: U.S. INVESTMENT IN CHINA WORSENS TRADE DEFICIT U.S. firms build export-oriented production base in Chinas low-wage, low labor-protection economy by James Burke . . . " . . . Although in 1989 only 30% of imports from China competed against goods produced in the high-wage sector of the U.S. market, by 1999 that percentage had risen to 50%. . . . " = Lets see, US firms make the stuff in China then send it back duty free to sell to US consumers [or anywhere else]; just what does trade deficit mean in this circumstance? My guess is zilch. Isn't the whole point of free trade to deconstruct political boundaries vis a vis the boundaries of firms/commodity chains [assuming tariffs are taxes]? And wouldn't that whole accounting convention be rendered meaningless if and when free trade becomes triumphant? It seems the question for the left is no longer [if it ever was] where, but rather our far more important and older question of HOW is it made; property/firm structure and ecological conditions of production take precedence over Westphailian geographies. Ian
