RE: Re: RE: Re: query
I didn't find the tables in the Fed's books, perhaps because I didn't look in the right place. But economy.com had what I wanted. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:22360] Re: RE: Re: query Devine, James wrote: I wrote: where can I get a time-series/historical graph showing the ratio of U.S. external debt to GDP during the last few decades? Doug replies: Flow of funds, credit market debt or rest-of-world tables: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/data.htm. I notice that the data are only available in bunches of a small number of years. Is there a unified times series somewhere? -- Jim Huh? Quarterly since 1952, and annual since 1945, no? You want earlier? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
Surely Marx did not say either what Justin or Rakesh claim. Rakesh' claim (re Marx) is correct about value in EXCHANGE but does not apply to use value. Air and sunlight etc. are valuable even if not involved in any exchange relationship and their use value is quite independent of labor. Cheers, Ken Hanly Marx recognizes this. His notion of value is a way of talking about exchange value, what makes commodities exchange at stable ratios in a market economy. It has nothing much to do with something's being useful in virtue of its natural properties, although he also says, as someone pointed out, that a commodity with no use value will have no exchange value either. jks _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
I have had an extensive argument with someone influenced by Roemer, though he criticizes Roemer for not appreciating the distinction between labor power and labor. But I'll ask you a question: how do you understand the logic by which Marx discovered the distinction between labor power and labor or--to put it another way--that what Mr Moneybags pays for in what is indeed a fair exchange is labor power, not labor time itself? Or do you think said distinction is as superfluous as the so called labor theory of value? Or do you think Marx's understanding of that distinction has to be modified? This I take up in another paper, In defense of Exploittaion, Econ Phil 1995, also available on the net in the old marxism spoons archive. I think that the distinction is valid and it is a very serious flaw in Roemer's critique of Marxian exploitation theory that he misses the significancxe of it. That is something quite independent of Roemer's positive theory of exploitation, the possibility of a better alternative, which independent of his critique of Marxian exploitaion, and (I argue in IDoE) both a necessary complement to Marx's theory and valid in its own right. As to the this positive theory, it is crucial to emphasize that it's not morally or otherwise culpable for people to have to work for others, etc., if there is no credible alternative to this situation where the exploited would also be at least as well if not better off by some measure. So the explication of feasible alternatives to exploitative relations is a necessary part of the charge that those relations are exploitative at all. So, to bring in another bomb into this discussion, not only was Marx wrong on practical grounds to disclaim writing recipes for the cookshops of the future, he was wrong on theoretical grounds: he can't even say that capitalsim is exploitative unless there is a better alternative. Unless there is a better alterntive, it ios not exploitative. I think that Roemer's version loses a lot of the point of Marx's socological analysis, which, as I say, can be maintained without holding that labor creates all value Justin, Marx does not say that. He says that *abstract, general social* labor creates all value. No, he doesn't. You confuse the strict version of the LTV, SNALT (socially necessary abstract labor time) as a mesure of value, with the vulgar version, labor as the source of value. Marx accepts both. He accepts no other source of value but labor. But value lacks a measure or real significance outside market relations in which it comes to dominate society. Anyway, the vuklgar formulation is widely held by Marxists, whether or not Marx holds it, which hedoes. or that price is proportional to value understood as socially necessary abstract labor time. Marx did not think price is proportional to value; contra Bohm Bawerk, he did not come around in vol 3 to implicitly recognizing the productivity of capital. Vol 3 was written before vol 1. Sure he did--not simply directly proportional, but there's a relation. Unless you think Engels and almost the entire tradition of Marxist economics was wrong about the existence of the transformation problem--yeah, I know Foley and those types do. But I disagree with them. I also find it puzzling--as did even Amartya Sen who is by no means a Marxist--that self proclaimed sympathetic critics would find value--abstract, general social labor time--of little descriptive interest in in itself merely because it is not a convenient way of calculating prices with given physical data. I can understand how Samuelson would embrace the redundancy charge and the eraser theorem but the alacrity with which academic sympathizers accepted such criticism is little short of astonishing, I must say. Why? The question is, what work does this alleged quantity do? I agree that LTV talk is useful heuristic way to saying that there's exploitation. But we can say that without LTV talk, that is, without denying that there are other sources of value than labor or that SNALT does not provide a useful measure of a significant quantity. Or should we say socialists of the chair rather analytical Marxists? Say what you like. Have you got out of your chair and organized anything lately? I thought Cohen's theory of history was a a more rigorous version of Plekhanov's classic texts? I must say that I found Brenner's criticism of Cohen rather persuasive. Agreed on both counts. B is an AM too. I am not convinced that Marx was given a fair hearing. By the AMs? Not by Elster. But even if you disagree with Cohen, you cannot deny that he was scuruposlous and careful, fairer you could not ask. Roemer's critique isa lso deep. See Gil Skillman's essays in Eecon Phil (same issue that my IDoE was in) and Sci Soc, arguing that Roemer's critique of Marx can be made to work. Anyway, whatever the AMs have said, any hearing MArx get must now match the standards of rigora nd
RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
Why? The question is, what work does this alleged quantity do? I agree that LTV talk is useful heuristic way to saying that there's exploitation. But we can say that without LTV talk, that is, without denying that there are other sources of value than labor or that SNALT does not provide a useful measure of a significant quantity. I would have thought that a more important reason for trying to hang onto the LTV is that it embodies a fundamental egalitarian principle; if we believe that my life is equally as valuable as your life, then an hour of my life must be worth the same as an hour of your life, and I think that this ends up implying something like the LTV. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
jks Out of interest, what's wrong with the labour theory of value? Do the AMs have an alternative theory of value, or do you try to get along without one? Feel free to not answer if it would take more labour than is worth bothering with. cheers dd I don't want to get into this in great detail, but here's the short version. What's called the LTV has two meanings. The lose meaning, intended by most people, is the vulgar version, that labor is the only source of value, which Marx accepts, but not in the sense used by most of its adherents, who think that the vulgar version implies taht workers are entitled, morally, to the value that their labor is the source of. Marx was not interested in claims of justice and would have regarded the labor theory of property underlying this argument as so much ideology. The vulgar version is wrong in any case because there is no reason to deny that there may be many factors, including subjective ones (demand) that go into value. The strict version, used by Marx, holds that price is roughly proportional to socially necessary abstract labor time. This faces the famous transformation problem, roughly that there is no nice way to turn labor values into prices. Marx's own solution is fatally falwed,a s is universally acknowledged. Borktiwiesz developed a mathemaeticall adequate solution (expalined simply by Sweezy in The Theory of Cap Dev.), but the conditions under which it holds are so special and unrealistic taht it is doubtful that the model has much applicability--you have to assume constant returns to scale, no alternative production methods, etc. In addition there is the neoRicardan critique (Sraffa and Steedman, arrived at independently by Samuelson) onw hich labor valuesa rea fifth wheel: we can compute them from wages and technical input, and under especial conditions establish a proportionality to prices, but you can get the prices directly from the other factors, so why bother with the labor values? Finally, there's the point that is key to my mind, which is that the theory have proved fruitless. There is a minor industry of defending the LTV, but the fact is that no one has done any interesting work using the theory for over 100 years. what you have is a case of a situation where Marx used the usual bourgeois theory of his day, which he improved, and shortly thereafter the bourgeois economists developed the subjectivist value theory that had been sort of kicking around quietly (Marx sneers at it offhand in various places), but the Marxists stuck with the old theory because it was in the sacred text, even if after it was clear that it faced insuperable logical problems and was doing no work. There is no interesting proposition of Marxist economics or sociology that cannot besatted better without it. It's fucking time to let go, use the damn thing as a heiristic to explain exploitation,a nd stop pretending that it is true,w hich even Marx didn't think. For more detail, read Howard King, The Political Economy of Marx, 2d ed, and A history of Marxian Economics (selected chapters). jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
What's the best book for an introduction/overview/tour d'horizon of analytical marxism? One citation only, please. mbs John Roemer, ed. Analytical Marxism (Cambs UP 1986). Good essays by Roemer, Elster, Brenner, Allan Wood, Adam Pzrezworski, etc. jks _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
This I take up in another paper, In defense of Exploittaion, Econ Phil 1995, also available on the net in the old marxism spoons archive. Could you provide the URL to your paper? I did a google search but it didn't show up Thanks, Alan _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
Rational Choice Marxism edited by Terrell Carver Paul Thomas. Jargon free, very clear. - Original Message - From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 7:51 AM Subject: [PEN-L:22150] RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism What's the best book for an introduction/overview/tour d'horizon of analytical marxism? One citation only, please. mbs It's analytical Marxist. Most AMs, like me, do not believe that Marx's value theory is more than a heuristic, and think that the important and true insights in Marx can be stated without the labor theory of value. jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
From: Alan Cibils [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:22155] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 13:54:07 -0400 This I take up in another paper, In defense of Exploittaion, Econ Phil 1995, also available on the net in the old marxism spoons archive. Could you provide the URL to your paper? I did a google search but it didn't show up Thanks, Alan http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/marxism/DefenseE.htm jks _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
Jks writes: I don't want to get into this in great detail, but here's the short version. What's called the LTV has two meanings. The lose meaning, intended by most people, is the vulgar version, that labor is the only source of value, which Marx accepts, but not in the sense used by most of its adherents, who think that the vulgar version implies taht workers are entitled, morally, to the value that their labor is the source of. But the argument that workers contribute more to the value of output than they receive in compensation does not necessarily imply that either: a) labor is the only source of value or b) that workers are entitled morally to a wage equal to the value of their contribution right?
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
But the argument that workers contribute more to the value of output than they receive in compensation does not necessarily imply that either: a) labor is the only source of value or b) that workers are entitled morally to a wage equal to the value of their contribution right? Right. Moreover the proposition that you state is obviously true, and will be accepted by any sentient being who thinks about the matter for a second. jks _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: HistoricalMaterialism
Hi Justin: I think that the distinction is valid and it is a very serious flaw in Roemer's critique of Marxian exploitation theory that he misses the significancxe of it. OK, good. That is something quite independent of Roemer's positive theory of exploitation, the possibility of a better alternative, which independent of his critique of Marxian exploitaion, and (I argue in IDoE) both a necessary complement to Marx's theory and valid in its own right. we'll have to work through his theory based on differential ownership of assets but let's be clear that even Roemer is ultimately interested in the appropriation of labor by one class of another. As to the this positive theory, it is crucial to emphasize that it's not morally or otherwise culpable for people to have to work for others, etc., if there is no credible alternative to this situation where the exploited would also be at least as well if not better off by some measure. So the explication of feasible alternatives to exploitative relations is a necessary part of the charge that those relations are exploitative at all. So, to bring in another bomb into this discussion, not only was Marx wrong on practical grounds to disclaim writing recipes for the cookshops of the future, he was wrong on theoretical grounds: he can't even say that capitalsim is exploitative unless there is a better alternative. Unless there is a better alterntive, it ios not exploitative. the better alternative is an unwritten book, a book that can only be written by a revolutionary working class in the act of creating a socialist society in order overcome the immiseration, degradation and slavery visited by this one on them. I think that Roemer's version loses a lot of the point of Marx's socological analysis, which, as I say, can be maintained without holding that labor creates all value Justin, Marx does not say that. He says that *abstract, general social* labor creates all value. No, he doesn't. You confuse the strict version of the LTV, SNALT (socially necessary abstract labor time) as a mesure of value, with the vulgar version, labor as the source of value. Marx could not be clearer that the distinction between abstract and concrete labor is one of the great accomplishments of his book, and the key to the critical conception. One simply cannot be making an interpretation of Marx in good faith without trying to understand what he meant by this distinction. Which of course is to say that there is a lot of shoddy interpretation of Marx. Marx accepts both. He accepts no other source of value but labor. But value lacks a measure or real significance outside market relations in which it comes to dominate society. Do you mean that value only exists (and potentially at that) as labor objectified in a commodity? Anyway, the vuklgar formulation is widely held by Marxists, whether or not Marx holds it, which hedoes. We are now in a position to read Marx above and beyond Marxism, Leninism, Social Democracy and Stalinism. or that price is proportional to value understood as socially necessary abstract labor time. Marx did not think price is proportional to value; contra Bohm Bawerk, he did not come around in vol 3 to implicitly recognizing the productivity of capital. Vol 3 was written before vol 1. Sure he did--not simply directly proportional, but there's a relation. Yes there is a relation. Drawing from Ricardo, Marx says that changes in value is the best explanation for changes in relative prices over time; however he does not say that price is proportional to value at any one time. Unless you think Engels and almost the entire tradition of Marxist economics was wrong about the existence of the transformation problem--yeah, I know Foley and those types do. But I disagree with them. That's not the point. Foley's taking the money wage instead of the real wage as given sure seems right to me. The idea of a uniform real wage in terms of an identical basket of commodities for all workers seems a very questionable assumption to make. And no neo Ricardian has ever responded carefully to Shaikh and the others in the Freeman and Mandel volume. I think Shaikh's response to the redundancy charge is marvelous as is Amartya Sen's. Again there has never been a formal response as far as I know. Now Howard and King say that Shaikh's iterative solution is the worst of all, but their response is almost purely vituperative. The point remains that in Shaikh's iteration (as well as Jacques Gouverneur's) the mass of surplus value value remains equal to capitalists' income as composed of profit and revenue, and the proof of this is that the capitalists gain or lose nothing in real terms as a result of a complete transformation which as Fred Mosely and Alejandro Ramos Martinez argue is not needed anyway as the inputs in Marx's own transformation tables are not in the form of values or direct prices
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
Surely Marx did not say either what Justin or Rakesh claim. Rakesh' claim (re Marx) is correct about value in EXCHANGE but does not apply to use value. Air and sunlight etc. are valuable even if not involved in any exchange relationship and their use value is quite independent of labor. Cheers, Ken Hanly Marx's understanding of that distinction has to be modified? I think that Roemer's version loses a lot of the point of Marx's socological analysis, which, as I say, can be maintained without holding that labor creates all value Justin, Marx does not say that. He says that *abstract, general social* labor creates all value. Value as expressed in the exchange value of a commodity does not derive from the subjective or *personal* estimation of the toil and trouble involved in its production. Value does not derive from the useful qualities of the commodity that derive from the *concrete* labor that went into its making. The value of the commodity is not related to the time individual producers put into their making but rather the time socially necessary to reproduce that commodity. The value of a commodity is a represenation of some aliquot of the social labor time upon which divided in some form any and all societies depend. It is not personal, subjective and concrete labor time that is connected with the value of a commodity.
Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
Quick, everyone run for the hills :-) Ian - Original Message - From: Forstater, Mathew [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:23 PM Subject: [PEN-L:22132] RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism Would one of those important and true insights be that the value contributed by labor power to the product of labor power exceeds the value paid to labor by capital for its contribution? -Original Message- From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:22131] Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism [EMAIL PROTECTED] I subscribe Historical materialism I think that its weakness is inadequate insufficient analysis of fundamental category of Marx's analysis of value-form and labor theory. It's analytical Marxist. Most AMs, like me, do not believe that Marx's value theory is more than a heuristic, and think that the important and true insights in Marx can be stated without the labor theory of value. jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
Would one of those important and true insights be that the value contributed by labor power to the product of labor power exceeds the value paid to labor by capital for its contribution? I had said: It's analytical Marxist. Most AMs, like me, do not believe that Marx's value theory is more than a heuristic, and think that the important and true insights in Marx can be stated without the labor theory of value. jks I have defended that formulation in What's Wrong with Exploitation?, Nous 1995, availabkle on the net in the old marxism spoons archive. However, I argued that it did not require the labor theory of value in Marx's canonical formulation to state it. More generally, the point is that capitalism is exploitative, a point that _can_ be put without reference to any theory of value at all--Roemer has an argument to this effect. I think that Roemer's version loses a lot of the point of Marx's socological analysis, which, as I say, can be maintained without holding that labor creates all value or that price is proportional to value understood as socially necessary abstract labor time. I will add that Jim and Chris B have cast amniadversions on the reductionism of classical analytical Marxism, which has largely been abandoned by its founders (Erik Olin Wright excepted, also Alan Carling). But the points I am making do not require reductionism of any sort. What remains of AM--and it does survive in places like the journal Historical Materialism--is an emphasis on clarity, precision, explicitness, and rigorous standardss of argument, along with a totally unworshipful attitude towards traditional formulations or classic texts. These are worth preserving. Because AM as a movement has evaporated, it is not worth beating up on or defending. What is worth defending is what has always mattered--intellectual honesty and care, the pessimism of the mind that must accompany optimism of the will. Leave fundamentalism to the religious. If there is a scientific dimension to historical materialism, it will survive. But it requires a skeptical temperment. jks _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
It's analytical Marxist. Most AMs, like me, do not believe that Marx's value theory is more than a heuristic, and think that the important and true insights in Marx can be stated without the labor theory of value. jks Out of interest, what's wrong with the labour theory of value? Do the AMs have an alternative theory of value, or do you try to get along without one? Feel free to not answer if it would take more labour than is worth bothering with. cheers dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism
I have defended that formulation in What's Wrong with Exploitation?, Nous 1995, availabkle on the net in the old marxism spoons archive. However, I argued that it did not require the labor theory of value in Marx's canonical formulation to state it. More generally, the point is that capitalism is exploitative, a point that _can_ be put without reference to any theory of value at all--Roemer has an argument to this effect. I have had an extensive argument with someone influenced by Roemer, though he criticizes Roemer for not appreciating the distinction between labor power and labor. But I'll ask you a question: how do you understand the logic by which Marx discovered the distinction between labor power and labor or--to put it another way--that what Mr Moneybags pays for in what is indeed a fair exchange is labor power, not labor time itself? Or do you think said distinction is as superfluous as the so called labor theory of value? Or do you think Marx's understanding of that distinction has to be modified? I think that Roemer's version loses a lot of the point of Marx's socological analysis, which, as I say, can be maintained without holding that labor creates all value Justin, Marx does not say that. He says that *abstract, general social* labor creates all value. Value as expressed in the exchange value of a commodity does not derive from the subjective or *personal* estimation of the toil and trouble involved in its production. Value does not derive from the useful qualities of the commodity that derive from the *concrete* labor that went into its making. The value of the commodity is not related to the time individual producers put into their making but rather the time socially necessary to reproduce that commodity. The value of a commodity is a represenation of some aliquot of the social labor time upon which divided in some form any and all societies depend. It is not personal, subjective and concrete labor time that is connected with the value of a commodity. These are very rough qualifications, but Marx spent a lot of time elucidating these qualifications--along with the monetary sides of value--that he thought escaped the classical economists who were thus at a loss to understand capitalism as historically specific form of social labor and the crises by which it was riven. or that price is proportional to value understood as socially necessary abstract labor time. Marx did not think price is proportional to value; contra Bohm Bawerk, he did not come around in vol 3 to implicitly recognizing the productivity of capital. Vol 3 was written before vol 1. I also find it puzzling--as did even Amartya Sen who is by no means a Marxist--that self proclaimed sympathetic critics would find value--abstract, general social labor time--of little descriptive interest in in itself merely because it is not a convenient way of calculating prices with given physical data. I can understand how Samuelson would embrace the redundancy charge and the eraser theorem but the alacrity with which academic sympathizers accepted such criticism is little short of astonishing, I must say. Or should we say socialists of the chair rather analytical Marxists? I will add that Jim and Chris B have cast amniadversions on the reductionism of classical analytical Marxism, which has largely been abandoned by its founders (Erik Olin Wright excepted, also Alan Carling). But the points I am making do not require reductionism of any sort. What remains of AM--and it does survive in places like the journal Historical Materialism--is an emphasis on clarity, precision, explicitness, and rigorous standardss of argument, along with a totally unworshipful attitude towards traditional formulations or classic texts. These are worth preserving. I thought Cohen's theory of history was a a more rigorous version of Plekhanov's classic texts? I must say that I found Brenner's criticism of Cohen rather persuasive. Because AM as a movement has evaporated, it is not worth beating up on or defending. What is worth defending is what has always mattered--intellectual honesty and care, I am not convinced that Marx was given a fair hearing. the pessimism of the mind that must accompany optimism of the will. Leave fundamentalism to the religious. If there is a scientific dimension to historical materialism, it will survive. Not necessarily because Marx's scientific theory threatens the ruling class. This is a science whose existence and (paradoxically) dissolution depends on the political victory of the working class. At any rate, I think this recent argument about crisis indicates how deeply Marx thought about micro foundations. In order for surplus value to be realized capitalists have to expand the scale of production but each capitalist does not do so in order to realize surplus value for the capitalist class as a whole but because hitherto such expansion in
Re: RE: Re: Re: Query on Anti-Colonial Revolts
From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War appeared on PBS. I thought it was great, especially for PBS. to purchase, go to www.greatprojects.com\store mbs The S-A War, just like the splendid little war now in progress, put the US public in quite a feisty mood. PBS rebroadcast another interesting documentary recently on Coney Island in its turn-of-the-century heyday. The documentary, by Ric Burns, noted how the S-A war influenced popular fantasies. One web site that draws on the same material Burns used notes: Americans have always loved violence and at the turn of the century they received it in a different form. Instead of seeing hundreds of people die in a film they went to Coney and watched as an entire city got swept away by a wall of water or saw Mount Vesuvius shower death upon the people of Pompeii. ... [Coney Island] shows like 'War of the Worlds' also gave Americans that feeling of pride, a feeling of what they thought their new country was going to become. In this show the naval forces of Germany, France, Britain and Spain sailed together into Manhattan. Then, [Battle of Manila Bay hero] Admiral [George] Dewey's fleet sailed out and sank every one of the sixty boats which had come to threaten American independence. See http://history.amusement-parks.com/users/adamsandy/coneyhist1.htm Carl _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Query on Anti-Colonial Revolts
didn't get the dvd for lagaan yet (i think lagaan is expected to be
nominated for an oscar?), but this review in the latest on line
economic and political weekly
http://epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2001leaf=12filename=3798filetype=html
may suggest why it has such appeal.
__
My aim in this section has been to show that 'Lagaan', by eliminating
any reference to the 'parasitic' role of the raja/taluqdar and other
indigenous dominant groups, ends up posing -even when dealing with
only subaltern agency without any overt linkages to questions of the
'nation'- the question in terms of a homogenised 'us' ('Indians')
versus 'them' (English colonisers) and thus becomes easy fodder for
nationalist mythologies. As Aijaz Ahmad argues in another context,
if the motivating force of history...is neither class formation and
class struggle nor the multiplicities of intersecting conflicts based
upon class, gender, nation, race, region, and so on, but the unitary
'experience' of national oppression... then what else can we narrate
but that national oppression? [Ahmad 1992:102]. The result is not
only that the 'nation' becomes the legitimate community, but also
that the imagined 'nation' becomes
the mask worn by the ruling classes to cover their face of
exploitation. Thus the nationalist rhetoric here could be seen as a
strategy employed by the ruling coalition led by the bourgeoisie to
overcome the crisis of legitimacy which it is facing in the present
[Lele 1995 and Desai 1999]. It also contributes to the myth of a
benign and benevolent traditional order, which was only interrupted
by 'modernity' represented by the colonial state.22 That is
why it is imperative to recover the silences of the 'fiction' that
'Lagaan' portrays.
_
rb
Re: RE: Re: Re: Query on Anti-Colonial Revolts
Actually the John (aka 'General') Milius' versions of Teddy Roosevelt's view of colonial conflict in The 'Wind and the Lion' and 'Rough Riders' are amusing as mass mystifications. (and of course the Soviet use of Cuban mercenaries to invade Colorado in 'Red Dawn' helps signal that end of irony stuff, given events at Columbine). Their significance is a bit more about the Republicanism of Hollywood production deals and unfortunately require quite a bit of ideological reframing, but do say something about graduates of the USC film school. Ann - Original Message - From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 10:36 AM Subject: [PEN-L:20886] RE: Re: Re: Query on Anti-Colonial Revolts Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War appeared on PBS. I thought it was great, especially for PBS. to purchase, go to www.greatprojects.com\store mbs Do you know of any movies of significance, be they documentaries or fictions, on the following subjects: the Sepoy Rebellion; the Mahdi Revolt; the Spanish-American War/the Philippines-American War; the Boxer Rebellion; and any other non-Marxist but anti-colonial revolts rebellions? -- Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Query on Anti-Colonial Revolts
my mom tells me that she now likes lagaan better which she may be giving me on dvd tonight. rb Synopsis Set in the latter half of the nineteenth century Lagaan is a film about the adversities and injustice perpetrated by the British upon the innocent peasants who face these extraordinary circumstances with fortitude and dignity. It is Aamir Khan's maiden home production and is written and directed by Ashutosh Gowarikar whose earlier directorial attempt Baazi proved to be a dud at the box office. The film casts Aamir Khan, Gracie Singh (of Amaanat fame) and a host of Indian and British actors including Jessica Radcliffe and Rachel Shelley. AR Rahman's music in the film is folkish and have a beautiful amalgamation of Indian and western instruments. And the costumes are by Bhanu Athaiya who had done the costumes for Richard Attenborough's Gandhi. In a small village of Champaner in North India in 1890s is a community of poor and innocent farmers who are happy ploughing, sowing, praying for the rains and reaping their harvest. Part of this community are Bhuvan (Aamir) a young farmer and Gauri (Gracie Singh), his love. A spate of adversities strike them with the entry of a brute-like British army captain who challenges the locals to a cricket match. A dastardly character, he is planning, in the sly, to burden the villagers with a land tax (Lagaan). One of the conditions of the game is that the loser will pay the state the land tax. The captain knows that the villagers are ignorant of the game and its rules and therefore be beating retreat against his trained players. Although poor, the villagers are people of self-respect. Led by Bhuvan they are ready to take on the Britons despite their ignorance of the game. Now comes to their rescue the army captain's younger sister Elizabeth (Rachel Shelley). Firstly Elizabeth helps the rustic lads purely out of sympathy for them but later she grows affection for Bhuvan. But Bhuvan is fixated on one thing. With grit and determination he and villagers stand together against the ruthlessness of their perpetrators. Faith and courage comes face to face with arrogance and ruthlessness and what follows is spectacular climax of showdown between Indians and Britons. Review Lagaan, as Aamir puts it, has not been an easy film to make. When its director Ashutosh Gowarikar first narrated the idea to him, he brushed it off without showing any enthusiasm. But Ashutosh didn't give up and worked on the script and it's subtleties for a good five months. And when he showed Aamir a meticulously written script the second time, the dashing Khan relented. Not only did Aamir give consent to play the film's protagonist Bhuvan but also decided to produce it himself. With that began a challenging task that, after two year's arduous labor, culminated in a Rs 25-crore film. Lagaan is a film with a realistic theme but at the same time retains the gloss of popular cinema. With Nitin Desai as the art designer, Ashutosh has created the authentic milieu of an Indian village Champaner in 1893. Those who inhabit it go by the names of Deva, Goli, Kachra, Lakha, Bhura, Ismail. They are peasants, blacksmiths, potters, wood cutters, temple dwellers and astrologers. The dialect they speak is a mix of three bolis - Awadhi, Bhojpuri and Brijbhashsa. Clad in a darned Dhoti and with hair drenched in oil, Aamir Khan gives a realistic portrayal of a simple village yokel. Bhuvan, the character he plays, is a man of self-respect no
Re: Re: Re: Re: query
I left Australia off the end of the address: www.theage.com.au Ian Murray wrote: Also, try the Melbourne daily: WWW.theage.com Andrew Hagen wrote: Utterly shameless plug: I keep a bunch of news links, including international ones, on http://clam.rutgers.edu/~ahagen/news.html Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:04:13 -0700, Jim Devine wrote: Can someone name some good English-language newspapers produced outside the US? (General newspapers, not business ones: for example, the Guardian Unlimited is pretty good, in terms of having a non-US perspective.) I download news story from www.Avantgo.com and I am looking for new sources. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine I try to start the day with: http://www.warnerbros.com/pages/madmagazine/index.jsp or http://www.nationallampoon.com/ Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: query on US dollar
this discussion is interesting, but it's between two admitted ignorami (Rob myself). Is there anyone on pen-l who knows -- or has some sort of journalism-based knowledge -- of why the U.S. has pursued a high dollar policy? At 04:57 PM 06/12/2001 +, you wrote: G'day Jim et al, that works, assuming that the U.S. can continue to accumulate external debt with no negative consequences (like a move away from the US$ as the main reserve currency). But was it the U.S. intent? From the administration's point of view, it may be that negative consequences are immaterial if they can reliably be delayed until after their eight years. It might have suited some foreign policy priorities, too, but more guesswork on that below. (2) it makes stuff denominated in greenbacks (like oil) cheaper; for whom? not for those of us with US$. Well, what if, say, the oil was to be denominated in a relatively strong Euro? A foreseeable circumstance, or not? (3) it makes foreign productive assets cheaper in a period of intense consolidation; it allows US-based capitalists to take over foreign assets on the cheap? that fits. (4) it helps the consumer keep the economy bubbling along; yeah. A high dollar is based on loaning to the U.S., which in turn involves lending to consumers. But was that its intent? For many, the consumption boom was a surprise. and (5) it keeps the Euro from looking like an alternative. but a high US$ involves massive loans to the U.S. while a low Euro helps Euroland's exports and restrains its imports. Might party-political short-termism be relevant here, too? Or the firm belief that America's advantage in high-tech offered the economy sustained productivity/profit advantages sufficient to cover a daily billion or two in foreign debt? Beyond PEN-L, it was pretty hard to find committed skeptics between '96 and '00, after all. Or, to get a bit Leninist about it ... Europe is a serious rival in the making. If Washington wants to cut it down to size a bit, perhaps the early days are when to poison it. The high dollar indirectly puts a lot of pressure on the rival Eurosuits. The Euro's fortunes are important PR during these early days - Duizenberg has to apologise for every droop.The lower the Euro, the cheaper its productive assets to American global-merger-magnates in particular and American political-economic sway in general. The lower the Euro, the better the potentially useful Euro-skeptics look. The lower the Euro, the less Europeans buy from the US's other rival, poor ol' underutilised Japan.Europe has to buy nearly all its oil, in greenbacks. Europe has to buy most of its IT hardware and software, in greenbacks. And, the lower the Euro, the less room there is for capital-investment-rejuvenating rate cuts rate cuts. Maybe, then, it was to do with a cost-benefit analysis - the idea that the hurt Washington could inflict in the decisive moment outweighed the benefits to Europe of a few reasonable export numbers. I could be wy too dark in these idle speculations (for that's certainly all they are), and have no idea as to the maths of this CBA, but if there's no obvious explanation for an obviously dangerous high-dollar policy, we might as well prompt it with a bit of provocative guesswork. Cheers, Rob. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query on US dollar
I suspect that the goal is not a high dollar per se, but the fear of the reaction to anticipation that the dollar will fall. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query on US dollar
It's possible that the simplest explanation is the correct one: the high dollar represents a flexing of US political and financial power. From the standpoint of US-based finance, the high dollar asserts the primacy of the US as the financial center. In international terms, US financial institutions have the greatest assets and its markets have the highest capitalization. Entities earning dollar profits are in a position to have their way with entities whose earnings are denominated in other currencies. From a government standpoint, the strong dollar bolsters the prestige of US political elites and amplifies the leverage of the US in international organizations. In a sense, it is the same constellation of interests that impelled England to strive for overvalued sterling after WWI. In the US case, there is little risk of a forex crisis for the time being, because the key currency status of the dollar appears secure, and gold is out of the question as potential constraint. As long as the US can borrow at will, with negative savings rates making up for current account leakage (or hemmorhage), why not keep going with it? PeterIt's possible that the simplest explanation is correct: the high dollar represents a flexing of US political and financial power. From the standpoint of US-based finance, the high dollar asserts the primacy of the US as the financial center. In international terms, US financial institutions have the greatest assets and its markets have the highest capitalization. Entities earning dollar profits are in a position to have their way with entities whose earnings are denominated in other currencies. From a government standpoint, the strong dollar bolsters the prestige of US political elites and amplifies the leverage of the US in international organizations. In a sense, it is the same constellation of interests that impelled England to strive for overvalued sterling after WWI. In the US case, there is little risk of a forex crisis for the time being, because the key currency status of the dollar appears secure, and gold is out of the question as potential constraint. As long as the US can borrow at will, with negative savings rates making up for current account leakage (or hemmorhage), why not keep going with it? PeterIt's possible that the simplest explanation is correct: the high dollar represents a flexing of US political and financial power. From the standpoint of US-based finance, the high dollar asserts the primacy of the US as the financial center. In international terms, US financial institutions have the greatest assets and its markets have the highest capitalization. Entities earning dollar profits are in a position to have their way with entities whose earnings are denominated in other currencies. From a government standpoint, the strong dollar bolsters the prestige of US political elites and amplifies the leverage of the US in international organizations. In a sense, it is the same constellation of interests that impelled England to strive for overvalued sterling after WWI. In the US case, there is little risk of a forex crisis for the time being, because the key currency status of the dollar appears secure, and gold is out of the question as potential constraint. As long as the US can borrow at will, with negative savings rates making up for current account leakage (or hemmorhage), why not keep going with it? Peter
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: query on US dollar
Jim Devine writes: - this discussion is interesting, but it's between two admitted ignorami (Rob myself). Is there anyone on pen-l who knows -- or has some sort of journalism-based knowledge -- of why the U.S. has pursued a high dollar policy? - I am not sure about the assumption contained within your question. Are you talking about the dollar's value relative to other currencies, or relative to a basket of commodities? It seems to be that the Fed has followed an anti-inflationary policy (to the point of deflating the currency) as opposed to a specific policy to strenghten the dollar relative to other currencies. David Shemano
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query on US dollar
Jim Devine wrote: this discussion is interesting, but it's between two admitted ignorami (Rob myself). Is there anyone on pen-l who knows -- or has some sort of journalism-based knowledge -- of why the U.S. has pursued a high dollar policy? 1) Wall Street likes it, because, among other things, it makes everyone else's assets cheaper, and 2) when you need to borrow $1b/day abroad, you better hope your currency stays strong. Doug
RE: Re: Re: Re: query
Yup. There's a new one out. Available in your hippest bookstores everywhere. If you don't have any hip bookstores, you can probably order it by phone or e-mail. http://www.kramers.com/ max Bill writes: Note to Jim Devine: see the Cautionary Note at the top of p. xvii where it says As a result, it may be difficult for readers to determine their own placement within the reported distributions. I like Steve Rose's great chart in which one can find one's household in the context of the graphical whole. Does he still produce it? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: query
Jim Devine wrote: I like Steve Rose's great chart in which one can find one's household in the context of the graphical whole. Does he still produce it? http://www.thenewpress.com/books/socstrat.htm. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Query on Terminology, was ... textbook
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Michael Perelman wrote: Michael, I have to disagree with you. The MBA approach is far more realistic than the MC approach. I don't disagree. I was referring to Jim Devine's implied non-standard model of MC that made up for the normal MC shortcomings and made it dynamic. So, are there are any good economics books that try to treat any of the macro implications of the MBA model? Where everyone in the market is assumed to be competing on market share and brand and customer loyalty rather than on price? Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: query: tree planting
Michael, I agree. That is correct. Therefore at the beginning of the new forest it will not take up as much CO2 as a mature forest, but will exceed it later. I don't know how long that takes, and I suspect it varies from type of forest to type of forest, also having to take into account local climate and soil differences as well. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, November 24, 2000 7:41 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4938] Re: Re: Re: query: tree planting Not quite. A newly planted forest takes up very little CO2. The trees are still tiny. The rate of increase increases up to a point, then decreases after the aggregate growth climaxes. On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 01:05:17PM -0500, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: The other is that indeed a new forest once planted generally will absorb more CO2 as it grows rapidly in contrast to a relatively stagnant old growth forest. I do not know what the details are on this particular issue in the Kyoto Protocols, however. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 23, 2000 2:46 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4882] Re: query: tree planting -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery
I didn't realize that neo-classicals assume that what exists is efficient. Do you have a reference? If what exists is efficient then no existing system could be ineffecient. Therefore neo-classicals could not complain about the ineffeciency of the former Soviet System or any other existing system. Cheers, Ken Hanly The basic ideological issue behind this efficiency is the neoclassical assumption that what exists is efficient. Slavery existed and, so, it must have been efficient (so say the neoclassicals). The concern of neoclassicals is, if slavery existed and was not efficient, when then what does this say about production within capitalism--it is not necessarily efficient? Eric
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery
Michael wrote, Eric, isn't your critique true of a good deal of econometric work? Yes. But some econometric work is more flawed (in obvious ways) than others. The NC work on slavery is more obviously flawed than other econometric work. Eric
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery
Ken wrote, I didn't realize that neo-classicals assume that what exists is efficient. Do you have a reference? If what exists is efficient then no existing system could be ineffecient. Therefore neo-classicals could not complain about the ineffeciency of the former Soviet System or any other existing system. A clarification: when the bulk of NC slavery research was done, the presumption was that when markets determined the survival of the production unit (that is, it excludes the soviet case) what survived in this envirnment was efficient. As slave production units were explosed to the market, the presumption is that they were efficient. Yes, they had the immoral market in people, but it was a market and, so, it was also efficient (but immoral). The NC "institutionalists" such as Williamson assume what exists within market systems is efficient. Certain since the rise of "path dependence" et al, many mainstream economists look at things a bit different. Eric
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery
At 10:20 AM 10/20/00 -0500, you wrote: I didn't realize that neo-classicals assume that what exists is efficient. Do you have a reference? I'd say that it's only the Chicago school that makes that assumption, but they assume that the state is an exception to that rule. The clearest example of this view is North Thomas's take on feudalism (serfdom), which they see as efficient. Of course, there are at least four different kinds of "efficiency," including technical efficiency, private economic efficiency, social economic efficiency, and Pareto Optimality. A capitalist competitive market encourages private economic efficiency (private cost minimization) but not social economic efficiency. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery
Ken, Friedman is especially clear on this. If it weren't efficient, competition would have eliminated it. Your note would require that they modify their assumption to "everything that [I like that] exists is efficient." Ken Hanly wrote: I didn't realize that neo-classicals assume that what exists is efficient. Do you have a reference? If what exists is efficient then no existing system could be ineffecient. Therefore neo-classicals could not complain about the ineffeciency of the former Soviet System or any other existing system. Cheers, Ken Hanly The basic ideological issue behind this efficiency is the neoclassical assumption that what exists is efficient. Slavery existed and, so, it must have been efficient (so say the neoclassicals). The concern of neoclassicals is, if slavery existed and was not efficient, when then what does this say about production within capitalism--it is not necessarily efficient? Eric -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery
This was the problem NC faced with Becker's original theory of discrimination. Markets should have "cleansed" the world of discrimination. So they had to either give up perfect competition or they had to give up the assumption that blacks and whites were equally productive. Some went the first route--so imperfect competition models were developed--but Becker himself and others decided to hold on to perfect competition and drop the assumption that blacks and whites were equally productive. Thus, "human capital" theory. Of course, HC theory has never been able to completely explain wage differentials--the "unexplained residual." That's where the revival of culture of poverty theory came in--the residual wasn't discrimination, it was "culture": culture as human capital. But as Darity and Williams and others have argued, neoclassical and Austrian notions of competition require that entrepreneurs would find a market opportunity in the "culture differentials" that should over the long run eliminate these differences, assuming culture is malleable. Why, these critics ask, are the competitive forces that were strong enough to cleanse the market of discrimination suddenly incapable of eliminating cultural differences that have market value? Either competition can eliminate both or it can eliminate neither. See Darity and Williams "Peddlers Forever: Culture, Competition, and Discrimination" American Economic Review, May 1985. The authors propose discarding neoclassical and Austrian conceptions of competition and employing a Marxist-classical conception instead. In the latter competition and discrimination are entirely compatible, even in the long run. -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:3317] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery Ken, Friedman is especially clear on this. If it weren't efficient, competition would have eliminated it. Your note would require that they modify their assumption to "everything that [I like that] exists is efficient." Ken Hanly wrote: I didn't realize that neo-classicals assume that what exists is efficient. Do you have a reference? If what exists is efficient then no existing system could be ineffecient. Therefore neo-classicals could not complain about the ineffeciency of the former Soviet System or any other existing system. Cheers, Ken Hanly The basic ideological issue behind this efficiency is the neoclassical assumption that what exists is efficient. Slavery existed and, so, it must have been efficient (so say the neoclassicals). The concern of neoclassicals is, if slavery existed and was not efficient, when then what does this say about production within capitalism--it is not necessarily efficient? Eric -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery
How come economists such as Milton Friedman are constantly criticizing existing economies throughout the world for over-regulation, rent controls, minimum wages, most welfare programs, etc.etc. if what exists is efficient? His criticism is often that present economies are not efficient and he has a whole kitbag of "reforms" to make economies more efficient. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:48 AM Subject: [PEN-L:3316] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery At 10:20 AM 10/20/00 -0500, you wrote: I didn't realize that neo-classicals assume that what exists is efficient. Do you have a reference? I'd say that it's only the Chicago school that makes that assumption, but they assume that the state is an exception to that rule. The clearest example of this view is North Thomas's take on feudalism (serfdom), which they see as efficient. Of course, there are at least four different kinds of "efficiency," including technical efficiency, private economic efficiency, social economic efficiency, and Pareto Optimality. A capitalist competitive market encourages private economic efficiency (private cost minimization) but not social economic efficiency. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery
At 02:39 PM 10/20/00 -0500, you wrote: How come economists such as Milton Friedman are constantly criticizing existing economies throughout the world for over-regulation, rent controls, minimum wages, most welfare programs, etc.etc. if what exists is efficient? His criticism is often that present economies are not efficient and he has a whole kitbag of "reforms" to make economies more efficient. The efficient existence is on a different plane than mere mortals such as ourselves can perceive directly. In the phenomenal world, there is the underlying reality -- the ideal forms in the mind of the prophets Smith and Walras, expressing the true nature of the Invisible Hand that works as a matter of Natural Law -- but that differs from the appearance, which is merely distorted shadows of the true reality that are projected on the cave wall. The efficiency that exists -- i.e., the existence that's efficient -- is hidden and corrupted by the unholy influence of the government and collective efforts to further their special interests outside or against the Market. We need the help of the philosopher-kings such as Milton Friedman and the Guardians at the International Monetary Fund to lead us to the Promised Land. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Query on slavery
Peter wrote, So you could say that the deeper question was whether slavery confined the South to a plantation-based economy, whether cotton or sugar or tobacco. Bateman, Fred and Thomas Weiss, A Deplorable Scarcity: The Failure of Industrialization Industrialization in the Slave South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981) argues for cultural forces restricting the growth of manufacturing in the south. In an article titled something like, "Empirical evidence that the social relations of production matter: the case of the US antebellum south" in the Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1989, I presented econometric evidence consistent with the claim that because the US south was part of a world system (e.g., linked to the US north and other manufacturing areas) the US South might have been locked into specializing in cotton and rice. And, the econometric evidence in this article also indirectly suggests that industrialization outside the US south might have been partially due to slavery in the south. Eric
Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery
At 08:30 PM 10/19/2000 +, you wrote: Michael wrote, ... claims that the large slave operations were efficient ... Field, Elizabeth B. 1988. "The Relative Efficiency of Slavery Revisited: A Translog Production Function Approach."... Hoffer, R.A. and S.T. Folland. 1991. "The Relative Efficiency of Slave Agriculture: . I look at this stuff many years ago. These claims are wrong. I recollect that the basic problem is measuring the amount of "labor input" in a slave system. It can't be properly measured and, so, very poor proxy measures have to be used. Any econometric study of efficiency in slavery is an example of garbage in, garbage out. there's also the problem (which Fogel and Engerman fell for) of comparing output/worker for different sectors. Unfortunately, you can't compare cotton/worker with corn/worker, just as you can't compare apples and oranges. You can aggregate such things, using prices, but if relative prices change (as they always do), it affects productivity measures. The basic ideological issue behind this efficiency is the neoclassical assumption that what exists is efficient. Slavery existed and, so, it must have been efficient (so say the neoclassicals). The concern of neoclassicals is, if slavery existed and was not efficient, when then what does this say about production within capitalism--it is not necessarily efficient? I think that this is unfair to the NCs, since there is a big part of their economics which concerns the way in which market failures -- which are inefficient -- persist over time and thus need government fixing. Of course, the problem is that they assume the government is neutral, or for James Buchanan, that it always f*cks things up. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: RE: Query on slavery
Eric, isn't your critique true of a good deal of econometric work? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael wrote, ... claims that the large slave operations were efficient ... Field, Elizabeth B. 1988. "The Relative Efficiency of Slavery Revisited: A Translog Production Function Approach."... Hoffer, R.A. and S.T. Folland. 1991. "The Relative Efficiency of Slave Agriculture: . I look at this stuff many years ago. These claims are wrong. I recollect that the basic problem is measuring the amount of "labor input" in a slave system. It can't be properly measured and, so, very poor proxy measures have to be used. Any econometric study of efficiency in slavery is an example of garbage in, garbage out. The basic ideological issue behind this efficiency is the neoclassical assumption that what exists is efficient. Slavery existed and, so, it must have been efficient (so say the neoclassicals). The concern of neoclassicals is, if slavery existed and was not efficient, when then what does this say about production within capitalism--it is not necessarily efficient? Eric -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Query on slavery
Does he tell how Irish workers were used when the work was too dangerous, since their lives were worth less than the slaves? Peter Dorman wrote: The whole point of the book, as I recall, was to rebut the claim (most famously voiced by the young Frederick Law Olmsted) that slavery was incompatible with the transition to mechanized production. Starobin pointed out that there were at least isolated instances of industrial production in the South employing slavery that were comparable to methods used in the North. He went into some detail to explain how the requisite labor flexibility was engineered. I can't remember if it was in this book that I first learned about the role of slave labor in building the rail links across the South. So you could say that the deeper question was whether slavery confined the South to a plantation-based economy, whether cotton or sugar or tobacco. Peter Louis Proyect wrote: At 04:44 PM 10/19/00 -0700, you wrote: I don't know what the contemporary take on it is, or even to what extent it can be considered Marxist, but when I was an undergrad eons ago, I read Industrial Slavery in the Old South, 1790-1861: A Study in Political Economy by Robin Starobin. It was quite an eye-opener to me at the time. Yeah, I noticed this today in the Barnard Library. It had two things going for it, the Starobin name which I assumed indicated that the author was the son or daughter of Joseph Starobin, the CP'er who left the party and wrote for American Socialist for awhile. The other thing was the title which promised to be what I was looking for at first blush. The only drawback--and I'll have to take a second look--is that it seemed to be focused on actual manufacturing such as tobacco mills using slavery as opposed to picking cotton on plantations. I have a sneaky suspicion, however, that the book I am looking for has never been written. It might be categorized as a Marxist/dependency theory study of American slavery. I'll probably post the query on the World Systems mailing list although they give me the heebie-jeebies over there. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Query on teminology, was Re: . .
Could you be more specific about what you mean by Keynes' later concern with inflation? In particular, do you think Keynes abandoned his view of monetary policy in the G.T. in order to assign it a role in fighting inflation? Edwin (Tom) Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This vision of the synthesis that you attribute to Samuelson is very clear in Keynes' General Theory, except of the concern about inflation, which is not in the General Theory, but does come later in Keynes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Query on teminology, was Re: . .
I just did a quick scan of my files. I cannot find it. I don't think that it was a major point for him, but it was of some concern. But then I would not trust my memory 100%. Edwin Dickens wrote: Could you be more specific about what you mean by Keynes' later concern with inflation? In particular, do you think Keynes abandoned his view of monetary policy in the G.T. in order to assign it a role in fighting inflation? Edwin (Tom) Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This vision of the synthesis that you attribute to Samuelson is very clear in Keynes' General Theory, except of the concern about inflation, which is not in the General Theory, but does come later in Keynes. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: query
Human Development Report? I recently came across HDR 1999, p. 67, that refers to global concentration ratios of the top 10 firms, 1998: commercial seed: 32% of $23b, 35% for pharma., vet medicine 60%, computers almost 70%, pesticides 85% and telecomm. more than 86%. Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462 Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5718 University of Washington Box Number: 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA xxx On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Doug Henwood wrote: Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:21:34 -0400 From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:22235] Re: Re: query Michael Perelman wrote: Interesting question. Wouldn't that be very difficult to track over time now with all the spin offs and strategic combinations? Rudy Fichtenbaum wrote: Can anyone point me in the direction of some data on the growing concentration of capital in the U.S.? I would also like some data on the number of mergers. What do you mean by "concentration of capital"? Of ownership? Share of product markets? On the latter, see an article in the current Harvard Business Review http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu/products/hbr/julaug00/R00405.html, which reports no increasing concentration of market share: The Dubious Logic of Global Megamergers by Pankaj Ghemawat and Fariborz Ghadar The almost universal belief among executives today is that bigger is better: companies are entering into huge, pricey cross-border mergers at an unprecedented rate. Common wisdom is that industries will become more concentrated as they become more global. This idea has persistently dominated business -- from Karl Marx's "one capitalist kills many" theory to the more recent "one, two, or three shall dominate" logic put forth by business practitioners. In this article, the authors debunk the myth of increased concentration; the perceived links between the globalization of an industry and the concentration of that industry are weak. Empirical research shows that global -- or globalizing -- industries have actually been marked by steady decreases in concentration since World War II. The authors present the biases that managers often have about consolidation and offer alternative strategies to pursuing the big MA deal. There are better, more profitable ways of dealing with globalization than relentless expansion, they say. Those strategies include buying up cast-off assets from merging rivals; focusing more on domestic or regional growth rather than on global expansion; taking advantage of merging rivals' weakened market position during integration and launching an aggressive marketing campaign; and building alliances with other companies rather than buying them up. In an era that is witnessing technological discontinuities, managers shouldn't focus on size as a goal; instead, they should focus on the development of new business models that help them compete. -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer Village Station - PO Box 953 New York NY 10014-0704 USA +1-212-741-9852 voice +1-212-807-9152 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
yes. Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462 Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5718 University of WashingtonBox Number: 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA xxx On Tue, 15 Aug 100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Tue, 15 Aug 100 13:01:07 -0700 (PDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:632] Re: Re: Re: Re: query Human Development Report? I recently came across HDR 1999, p. 67, that refers to global concentration ratios of the top 10 firms, 1998: commercial seed: 32% of $23b, 35% for pharma., vet medicine 60%, computers almost 70%, pesticides 85% and telecomm. more than 86%. Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462 Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5718 University of WashingtonBox Number: 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA xxx On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Doug Henwood wrote: Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:21:34 -0400 From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:22235] Re: Re: query Michael Perelman wrote: Interesting question. Wouldn't that be very difficult to track over time now with all the spin offs and strategic combinations? Rudy Fichtenbaum wrote: Can anyone point me in the direction of some data on the growing concentration of capital in the U.S.? I would also like some data on the number of mergers. What do you mean by "concentration of capital"? Of ownership? Share of product markets? On the latter, see an article in the current Harvard Business Review http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu/products/hbr/julaug00/R00405.html, which reports no increasing concentration of market share: The Dubious Logic of Global Megamergers by Pankaj Ghemawat and Fariborz Ghadar The almost universal belief among executives today is that bigger is better: companies are entering into huge, pricey cross-border mergers at an unprecedented rate. Common wisdom is that industries will become more concentrated as they become more global. This idea has persistently dominated business -- from Karl Marx's "one capitalist kills many" theory to the more recent "one, two, or three shall dominate" logic put forth by business practitioners. In this article, the authors debunk the myth of increased concentration; the perceived links between the globalization of an industry and the concentration of that industry are weak. Empirical research shows that global -- or globalizing -- industries have actually been marked by steady decreases in concentration since World War II. The authors present the biases that managers often have about consolidation and offer alternative strategies to pursuing the big MA deal. There are better, more profitable ways of dealing with globalization than relentless expansion, they say. Those strategies include buying up cast-off assets from merging rivals; focusing more on domestic or regional growth rather than on global expansion; taking advantage of merging rivals' weakened market position during integration and launching an aggressive marketing campaign; and building alliances with other companies rather than buying them up. In an era that is witnessing technological discontinuities, managers shouldn't focus on size as a goal; instead, they should focus on the development of new business models that help them compete. -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer Village Station - PO Box 953 New York NY 10014-0704 USA +1-212-741-9852 voice +1-212-807-9152 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
Brad DeLong, who *likes* his new dishwasher *a* *lot*... There's a good comment by Richard Powers in his novel, GAIN, where the protagonist wonders if the dishwasher is really worth it. After all, she has to clean the dishes _before_ she puts them in the washer. Then she has to scrape off the gunk that was hardened on the plates by the high temperatures. But that's why I like it. You don't have to pre-wash the plates, and it gets them *clean*. I also like my ceiling fan... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
At 09:01 PM 6/29/00 -0700, you wrote: Brad DeLong, who *likes* his new dishwasher *a* *lot*... There's a good comment by Richard Powers in his novel, GAIN, where the protagonist wonders if the dishwasher is really worth it. After all, she has to clean the dishes _before_ she puts them in the washer. Then she has to scrape off the gunk that was hardened on the plates by the high temperatures. Brad says: But that's why I like it. You don't have to pre-wash the plates, and it gets them *clean*. I heard an expert on this subject speaking on US National Public Radio (one of their consumer-oriented shows). She said unequivocally that the makers of dishwashers who claim that their products can clean dishes that haven't already been washed by hand are _lying_. That fits with my experience, though I don't have experience with many types of dishwashers. I also like my ceiling fan... I like ceiling fans too. But my preference for them has been intensified by global warming, which has encouraged El Niño and La Niña and led to unseasonably warm weather here in the City of the Angels... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
Brad De Long wrote: Even after watching 1900 House? Didn't most of the improvement happen in the first half of the century rather than the second? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
At 09:01 PM 6/29/00 -0700, you wrote: Brad DeLong, who *likes* his new dishwasher *a* *lot*... There's a good comment by Richard Powers in his novel, GAIN, where the protagonist wonders if the dishwasher is really worth it. After all, she has to clean the dishes _before_ she puts them in the washer. Then she has to scrape off the gunk that was hardened on the plates by the high temperatures. Brad says: But that's why I like it. You don't have to pre-wash the plates, and it gets them *clean*. I heard an expert on this subject speaking on US National Public Radio (one of their consumer-oriented shows). She said unequivocally that the makers of dishwashers who claim that their products can clean dishes that haven't already been washed by hand are _lying_. Brad DeLong looks down at dish newly taken from dishwasher: "It looks clean."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
Brad says: But that's why I like it. You don't have to pre-wash the plates, and it gets them *clean*. I heard an expert on this subject speaking on US National Public Radio (one of their consumer-oriented shows). She said unequivocally that the makers of dishwashers who claim that their products can clean dishes that haven't already been washed by hand are _lying_. Brad DeLong looks down at dish newly taken from dishwasher: "It looks clean." talk to your colleague Tom Rothenberg and see if he can do econometrics with your sample size. (Oh, I forgot that he never actually does econometrics even though -- or because -- he understands it so well.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
Brad De Long wrote: Even after watching 1900 House? Didn't most of the improvement happen in the first half of the century rather than the second? Doug For the American upper class, maybe. For the American working class (and for almost everyone outside the U.S.), certainly not... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
Brad says: But that's why I like it. You don't have to pre-wash the plates, and it gets them *clean*. I heard an expert on this subject speaking on US National Public Radio (one of their consumer-oriented shows). She said unequivocally that the makers of dishwashers who claim that their products can clean dishes that haven't already been washed by hand are _lying_. Brad DeLong looks down at dish newly taken from dishwasher: "It looks clean." talk to your colleague Tom Rothenberg and see if he can do econometrics with your sample size. (Oh, I forgot that he never actually does econometrics even though -- or because -- he understands it so well.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine We can do econometrics: the point estimate is that it gets the dishes clean; the standard error of that point estimate is infinite... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- "Now 'in the long run' this [way of summarizing the quantity theory of money] is probably true But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. **In the long run** we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again." --J.M. Keynes -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- J. Bradford De Long; Professor of Economics, U.C. Berkeley; Co-Editor, Journal of Economic Perspectives. Dept. of Economics, U.C. Berkeley, #3880 Berkeley, CA 94720-3880 (510) 643-4027; (925) 283-2709 phones (510) 642-6615; (925) 283-3897 faxes http://econ161.berkeley.edu/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
We can do econometrics: the point estimate is that it gets the dishes clean; the standard error of that point estimate is infinite... New data point in: I put in our dishes pretty dirty and they generally come out clean, as claimed by the manufacturer. You can't let the dishes sit very long however before you wash them. Eric
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
Brad writes: We can do econometrics: the point estimate is that it gets the dishes clean; the standard error of that point estimate is infinite... have you done a biological culture test to see if the dishes are _really_ clean? after all, germs are everywhere, threatening to poison our food I'm surprised we're not all dead already. ;-) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: query
At 07:06 PM 6/29/00 -0400, you wrote: Jim Devine wrote: I detect irony in the word "wondrous," indicating that you don't approve of the changes. As Dave Richardson pointed out, however, the lower inflation rates that came out of the CPI revision is not all bad. If St. Alan sees a smaller dragon, he's less likely to lance the economy to death. I care less about what the index does for St Alan's worldview than its accuracy. My key question was: accuracy for what purpose? I agree that for the purpose of measuring real living standards, the Boskin revisions lead to gross exaggeration of their rise. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
My key question was: accuracy for what purpose? I agree that for the purpose of measuring real living standards, the Boskin revisions lead to gross exaggeration of their rise. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Even after watching 1900 House? Brad DeLong, who *likes* his new dishwasher *a* *lot*...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: query
At 06:03 PM 06/29/2000 -0700, you wrote: My key question was: accuracy for what purpose? I agree that for the purpose of measuring real living standards, the Boskin revisions lead to gross exaggeration of their rise. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Even after watching 1900 House? I don't watch any TV except escapist TV. If it's the opiate of the masses, give me the real thing. So US Public Broadcasting is out. Give me "Dharma and Greg" any day -- or "Becker" (the only known TV character with Asperger's syndrome). Brad DeLong, who *likes* his new dishwasher *a* *lot*... There's a good comment by Richard Powers in his novel, GAIN, where the protagonist wonders if the dishwasher is really worth it. After all, she has to clean the dishes _before_ she puts them in the washer. Then she has to scrape off the gunk that was hardened on the plates by the high temperatures. It also involved higher monetary costs (and environmental costs, with an important impact on the plot) and disinfects the dishes much more than they need. (I've added to -- or subtracted from -- the actual comment, since I couldn't find it.) I think that _giving up_ a dishwasher is involves more cost than the benefit one gets from using it for the first time. This asymmetry makes it like an addictive drug. That's a problem with the whole idea of the "1900 House" as I understand it. These folks have been totally adapted to late 20th century living. Their experience is _totally different_ from those who were totally adapted to late 19th century living. The idea that sticking the 20th centurians in a 1900 house says something about differences in standard of living is nonsense. It's not like they're going to be given typhoid or dysentery, after all. Without the public health difference, the idea that we can learn something from their experience about "how it was back then" is silly. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: query: intro textbooks
Doug Dowd has written a RAVE review about this book. Not sure if Doug's thing is published yet but I have read it. Gene Coyle alfredo antonio saad filho wrote: One possibility is Hugh Stretton's new textbook 'Economics' (Pluto Press) - a good critical analysis, mainly from an institutionalist perspective. Well worth a look. alfredo saad filho.
[PEN-L:1094] Re: Re: Re: Re: query
On Mon, November 16, 1998 at 18:05:38 (-0600) joshua william mason writes: On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, William S. Lear wrote: Employment (thousands) by U.S. nonbank MNCS yeartotal parents affiliates majority-owned other affiliates ... 199626,392 18,775 7,617 6,158 1,459 Strange. Just over 25,000 people employed by nonbank MNCs (I assume MNCS is plural of Multi-National Corporation)? You mean all the Ford and GM maquiladoras in Mexico and elsewhere don't push this much, much higher? The numbers are in thousands, so that's 26 million. That's total for multinational corporations, though--18.7 million of those jobs are in the U.S., 6.2 million are with majority-owned foreign affiliates, and 1.5 million are with other affiliates. (Sorry if the chart was unclear.) Of course these numbers don't count employees of subcontractors or suppliers that the MNC itself doesn't have a stake in. Uh, yeah, I knew that... just testing to make sure you were awake... D'oh! Apologies: I think I'm coming down with a flu of some sort and just woke up and am still quite groggy. The table is quite clear for the non-reading impaired ... Bill
[PEN-L:476] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Query: Arjun Makijani exchange rates
Gar Lipow wrote: Actually socialism under Marxism (which is only one type of socialism) is each according to their work (with I presume exceptions for the disabled, the retired, children, those in ill health). I personally would interpret "To each according to their work" as "to each according to their effort or sacrifice". I always thought that during the transition (socialist) stage that "work" meant social contribution. It would be quite odd and certainly inefficient to reward people solely on effort or sacrifice if the latter is not socially necessary. In the Marxist tradition it is socially necessary labor time that is important. In any event rewarding people on the basis of effort or sacrifice would surely not result in equality of income or wealth. Some people put forth more effort and make more sacrifices than others. Income would not be equal but would vary with effort and sacrifice. Neither would wealth be equal. Some would consume income, others save and variations in wealth would result over time. Are you telling me that there are a large group on this list who would not like to see income and wealth more equally distributed than at present -- even if that is not their main object? Does anyone on this list really think that income and wealth distribution are unimportant, or that the current degree of income inequality is acceptable? But that was not your claim. Your claim as quoted below is that an important aim of socialism is income and wealth equality. Of course socialists and others think that the current degree of income inequality is unacceptable. However, income inequality cannot be separated from the mode of production. A mode of production also entails a mode of distribution. Capitalism in particular entails distribution of income on the basis of ownership of the means of production and capital. You cannot expect to solve the distribution inequality inherent within the capitalist mode of production without abolishing capitalism. I admit, that when I express curiourosityy about what wages would be if wealth and income were divided more or less equally worldwide per hour worked that I am taking it farther than many on this list are wont to. For the Marxists on this list, I will point out that even holy father Marx suggested a labor hour form of accounting for the early stages of socialism which provided each person an equal claim on collective stores per hour worked. The Holy Father's labor hour form of accounting would not result in equal incomes (or claims on collective stores) unless you forced everyone to work precisely the same amount of time. Ken Hanly wrote: Gar Lipow wrote: I know that equality of wealth and income is not the only point of socialism, but it is one of the points, and an important one. -- Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:473] Re: Re: Re: Re: Query: Arjun Makijani exchange rates
Actually socialism under Marxism (which is only one type of socialism) is each according to their work (with I presume exceptions for the disabled, the retired, children, those in ill health). I personally would interpret "To each according to their work" as "to each according to their effort or sacrifice". (Marxist) "Communism is each according to their needs". Either would be a hell of a lot more equal than capitalism -- and with the exception of people who require unusually large consumption due to disability or health needs -- would be pretty close to equal. I suppose you can be a socialist without being an egalitarian, but I can't see why you would. Equality of wealth and income to the degree possible -- with the main exceptions being special needs, and extraordinary sacrifices --strikes me as a major reason for being a socialist. I mean we have had posts on how income inequality creates health problems, causes crime. A great deal of the corruption of capitalist governments comes from the ability of the rich and powerful to buy polticians. I would guess that even the non-socialists on this lists (it feels very strange to be in a cyber-environment where socialists are a majority) would like to see wealth and income more equally distributed than at present. Are you telling me that there are a large group on this list who would not like to see income and wealth more equally distributed than at present -- even if that is not their main object? Does anyone on this list really think that income and wealth distribution are unimportant, or that the current degree of income inequality is acceptable? I admit, that when I express curiourosityy about what wages would be if wealth and income were divided more or less equally worldwide per hour worked that I am taking it farther than many on this list are wont to. For the Marxists on this list, I will point out that even holy father Marx suggested a labor hour form of accounting for the early stages of socialism which provided each person an equal claim on collective stores per hour worked. Ken Hanly wrote: Gar Lipow wrote: I know that equality of wealth and income is not the only point of socialism, but it is one of the points, and an important one. I wasn't aware the equality of wealth and income was something that socialism aimed at. The Marxist slogan, at least, is to each based upon their needs. This would not imply equality of income. Under socialism most wealth would not be individual but collective. During the transition stage reward or income would be according to social contribution. Certainly present disparities of income would not be sanctioned under any socialist system but the main point of socialism is the socialization of the major, means, of production, distribution and exchange. Production would fill social neeeds not the need for profit. Distribution would be on the basis of need not income. There seems to nothing in all of that which would imply that equality of wealth or income is even desirable let alone an aim of socialism. Cheers, Ken Hanly -- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/
