Re: Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
H..Dont be too sure. If any bioweapons scientists rat on Hussein or make up stories they can be assured of employment in US labs and that they will not be harassed by inspectors.. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 10:35 AM Subject: [PEN-L:34968] Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan > Part of the denazification was to bring Nazis to the US to help in the > Cold War. I doubt that we will bring too many of SH's people here. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
Bill Lear wrote: Krugman can be proud of his efforts to shed some truth on the mendacious and militant Bush regime, but he should remember that the roots of the current phase of our empire were firmly and consciously put in place beginning with our reconstruction of a postwar world order that would serve the needs of U.S. investors first, no matter the consequences for democracy. Yeah, but it's important to remember that Western Europe was being reconstructed so serve as the junior partners of empire, whereas Iraq is conceived of as a vassal state. And if they could, the Bush admin would probably prefer to treat Afghanistan like the burned-out reactor at Chernobyl, buried in concrete. But they can't quite do that. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
True. They might still have the receipts for U.S weaponry bought by the govt. of SH. Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan by Michael Perelman 22 February 2003 Part of the denazification was to bring Nazis to the US to help in the Cold War. I doubt that we will bring too many of SH's people here. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
Part of the denazification was to bring Nazis to the US to help in the Cold War. I doubt that we will bring too many of SH's people here. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
On Saturday, February 22, 2003 at 06:52:57 (-0500) Michael Hoover writes: >not much into paul krugman, don't necessarily agree >with some of his take on marshall plan, think title of >his 2/21 nyt column is great play on words... > >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21KRUG.html?ex=1046842592&ei=1&en=dce9f5e0c7040c64 Krugman has actually been doing a rather fine job of debunking the many lies of the Bush administration, unusual among mainstream commentators. His beliefs about the U.S. efforts at "fostering prosperity, stability and democracy" after World War II are typical fantasies, unfortunately. Reworking his sentence gives a much better picture of reality: "America's leaders understood that fostering wealth accumulation (greed), instability and corporate rule was as important as building military might in the struggle against Democracy." We wanted "stability" for *our* investors, didn't care one whit about what the people of the world wanted (to hell with the Vietnamese, to hell with the Italians, to hell with the Resistance) and worked frantically to return control of the defeated states to the hands of the discredited ruling class. For him to even use the phrase "America can also be proud of the way it built democratic institutions" shows how little he knows of the history and the meaning itself of the word democracy. Finally, he drives his Range Rover deep into the weeds with this one: " Meanwhile, outraged Iraqi exiles report that there won't be any equivalent of postwar de-Nazification, in which accomplices of the defeated regime were purged from public life." As if "very many very nasty people" did *not* remain in power, or were not returned to power with the generous assistance of U.S. taxpayers, in Germany and Italy (among others). Krugman can be proud of his efforts to shed some truth on the mendacious and militant Bush regime, but he should remember that the roots of the current phase of our empire were firmly and consciously put in place beginning with our reconstruction of a postwar world order that would serve the needs of U.S. investors first, no matter the consequences for democracy. Bill
Re: Marshall Plan for Third World?
At 19/05/02 11:46 -0400, Louis Proyect quoted: >Marshall Plan for Third World From >Full: http://www.dsp.org.au/links/index.htm (from Doug Lorimer's >"Imperialism in the 21st Century", current issue of Links Magazine) Quite an impressive thoughtful article. I understand Lorimer is a member of the Democratic Socialist Party of Australia. >Many liberal commentators have called for a similar Marshall Plan >to be applied to the Third World in the naive view that this would >have similar results there. However, imperialist domination of the >semicolonial countries prevents the development of a class structure >and value of labour power capable of supporting an internal market >that can either meet the profit needs of a broad developing local >bourgeoisie or absorb massive imports of capital and commodities from >the imperialist countries. Interesting specific argument. I accept that most of the countries of the third world could not have the privileged mass consumer economies of the USA and Europe. >These semicolonial class relations permit >the emergence of isolated pockets of prosperity: layers of wealthy >export and service- oriented capitalists and a narrow, relatively >prosperous, middle class. Nevertheless a mass market for mobile phones is developing in India and China. >But there neither is nor can be a >relatively well-off population of employed wage workers or prosperous >farmers able to purchase a wide range of consumer durables on a level >comparable to the imperialist countries. It is necessary to make a distinction between the marxist categories of exchange value and use value. The extraordinarily unequal flows of exchange value in the world can only be mitigated somewhat, prior to the abolition of capital on a world scale. Nevertheless it is possible for Keynesian policies in principle to produce an increase in the utilisation of the means of production that would lead to a boom in use values available to the masses of the people of the world. >Since the late 1960s imperialist governments, banks and international >finance agencies have foisted hundreds of billions of dollars in >loans on the semicolonial countries. The Marshall Plan has been >repeated. I do not accept this, because the capital flows have mainly over the decades gone from the poor countries to the rich countries. Since the Asian crisis the Marshall Aid went to the USA, as the magnanimous spender of last resort. >In small handful of semicolonial countriesSouth Korea, Taiwan, >Mexico, Brazil and Argentinaimperialist loans facilitated a process >of broader industrialisation in the 1980s. In the 1990s these >countries became the targets for a substantial shift of international >capital flows, as the bulk of imperialist capital flowing into the >Third World switched from loans into portfolio investmentsthat is, >into buying up stocks and bonds in the big private companies and >newly privatised state enterprises of what are known as the emerging >markets. As the experience of each of these countries has >demonstrated, this buying up of shares is simply a stepping-stone to >imperialist capital directly taking over and running the largest and >most profitable enterprises in these countries, which were formerly >in the hands of local capitaliststhat is, to reversing the limited >gains in independent industrialisation that were made by these >capitalists during the 1980s. It is true that any prospects for a national bourgeoisie in third world countries would be ver limited, even with a more generous Keynesian IMF under the influence of Europe rather than the USA. Nevertheless the processes of unequal exchange on a world scale could be mitigated by struggle. I would expect a left wing citizen of the USA to think twice before dismissing as unmarxist or impossible a Marshall Aid plan from Europe that is ten times bigger than a Marshall Aid plan from his or her own country. Sorry to press the point. Chris Burford
Re: Marshall plan for Africa?
In mid 2000, UNCTAD launched a paper calling for a big push approach to Africa (that was in the ft then). One where a package of 10 billion dollars is provided by donors to afford a boost to capacity and local demand simultaneously. ODA to Africa are at a third of what they used to be in the late eighties. And private flows failed to offset the gap needed to restore growth. The savings investment gap in the nineties grew and so did the trade deficit. Growth per capita in ssAfrica, excluding south Africa was in the red. private flows continued to target primary sectors and open trade and financial accounts coined with massive privatization reduced national manufacturing capacity, and hence the role of the state in development. Restoring aid and ODA to previous levels was not accepted by donors. there was a definite political agenda behind the discussion on aid (there is no such thing as a free lunch). The donors wanted more privatization, less corruption, and more lifting of price controls on primary agricultural commodities. recall, the latter of course resulted in massive poverty in Rwanda when in the early eighties Rwanda lifted price control on coffee, an event which later led to civil war. Alas, the only country that accepted to pump more money into Africa unconditionally was Norway with its Dutch disease syndrome from North sea oil. On paper the idea of pumping more money and allowing the macro identities to result in more growth looks good on paper. But this will never happen without conditionalities that foster the deterioration of the social structure. resulting in weak states that allow themselves to be pillaged by TNCs piecemeal. the main point however, is this: there is a definite struggle in Africa between ex colonial states for the distribution of territory and booty. the US and France are the main players. France is being displaced from most of Africa by the US. this tacit war fought in Africa is the source of the problem. One is hard pressed to recall the "primacy of politics." --- Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leaders back 'Marshall Plan for Africa' > > Chris McGreal in Johannesburg > Wednesday October 24, 2001 > The Guardian > > Leaders of African states formally launched an > ambitious plan to > rebuild their continent yesterday through a > partnership in which good > and accountable government and an end to conflict is > rewarded with > significantly increased western aid and other help. > > A dozen presidents met in the Nigerian capital, > Abuja, to hail the New > African Initiative (NAI) which has received strong > backing from Tony > Blair and broad promises of support from the EU and > the G8 group of > leading industrial nations. > > But so far there have been no concrete commitments > of money to what > some call the Marshall Plan for Africa, named after > the vast programme > of US assistance to western Europe at the end of the > second world war. > > Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria's president, told > delegates at the opening > of the summit that the initiative was intended to > "eradicate extreme > poverty in Africa, put the region on the path of > accelerated growth > and sustainable development, and reverse the > marginalisation of Africa > in the globalisation process". > > He added: "Within and outside Africa we must put the > Afro-pessimists > and other cynics to shame by coming together to work > for the success > of NAI." > > The Nigerian president said a priority should be > ending conflicts that > drag down entire regions. > > The South African president, Thabo Mbeki, drew the > blueprint for the > initiative, with adaptations from Senegal, Nigeria > and Algeria. > > At its heart lies a deal in which the west provides > the money, > expertise and economic opportunities, while Africa > gets its house in > order by curtailing wars, ending human rights abuses > and establishing > open, accountable governments. > > The crisis in Zimbabwe is providing an early test of > the willingness > of African governments to hold each other > accountable. > > The test for the developed nations will be their > willingness to write > off debt, lift trade barriers and provide much more > aid to build > infrastructure. Despite Mr Blair's declaration of > support at last > month's Labour party conference, African officials > fear that the war > against terrorism will distract western attention > from African > problems. Underlining the point, yesterday's summit > was due to have > been held at the United Nations in New York but the > attacks of > September 11 forced its transfer to Nigeria. > > The problems undermining African stability were > disturbingly close to > home for the meeting in Abuja. Ethnic and religious > violence continues > to shake Nigeria. In parts of the north, which is > mainly Muslim, there > is a clamour for sharia law; in the south there is > growing separatist > agitation. In recent days, thousands of people have > fled machete > attacks between
Re: Marshall Aid plan for Africa, plus more?
G'day Chris and Ellen, > Bush is quoted as reiterating that the dollar's value is a matter for > markets: "The dollar needs to float in the marketplace." "If the > market is allowed to function, the dollar will be at an appropriate > level." What the market decides is appropriate, so it's appropriate if the market decides it. And the definition of 'appropriate' is similarly defined. It'd be interesting to hear if Ellen thinks Ohmae's thesis of departing Yen (for domestic 'restructuring') has any potential to take the shine off the greenback (in its role as bullion to the world). > But perhaps as with Kyoto, Bush is in a minority, and there is a wider consensus >emerging among other states, that the world cannot put all its faith in the greenback >as being satisfactory world money.< Then they'd have to come up with something - right now the Euro's up against a lot of friction. Britain won't be in it until after the next election (giving rise to the possibility it won't happen); convergence criteria are still a worry (again, Britain is close to not qualifying, according to some readings of expenditure projections and the anti-privatisation campaign - and Greece is simply disqualified for the moment); and the majority of Germans, Brits, Spaniards and Italians are against the idea even now (look for that to get a bit more militant). And doubtless there is something to what they say. There are a lot of political risks involved in a policy that sells itself on diminishing business risk, and a projected 0.4%-of-GDP saving on transaction costs ain't the sort of number to set the everyday punter's mind reeling. And business is quite loudly and honestly saying they look forward to having policy made beyond the range of localised (ie. national) political slings and arrows (especially safely away from those troublemakers in the Latin climes). I mean, if the Euro 'works', what exactly will that mean? Stock markets more solid than Wall St (which is on the nose again today, btw)? A greenback-dissolving international currency? A rival economic/strategic bloc (in the Orwell/Lenin mode)? One-stop shopping for US foreign Affairs diplomats/stategists? I certainly haven't a clue ... Cheers, Rob.
Re: Marshall
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/08/00 02:41PM >>> a very interesting post! Ted Winslow writes: > These influences show up in a number of essential ways in Marshall's economics. For instance, Marshall takes a "dialectical" view of social interdependence. This underpins his conception of "caeteris paribus" and his use of the term "normal".< I don't get how concepts like "ceteris paribus" and "normal" jibe with dialectics, which involve a process in which ceteris is never paribus and today's "normal" is always different from yesterday's. How does equilibrium (which seems a central concept to Marshall) fit in with dialectics? _ CB: Equilibrium can be conceived of as "circular change" or quantitative change,which can transform into qualitative change when it breaks out of equilibrium. The transformation of quantitative change into qualitative change is a principle of dialectics. CB
Re: Re: Marshall
Jim asked > > I don't get how concepts like "ceteris paribus" and "normal" jibe with > dialectics, which involve a process in which ceteris is never paribus and > today's "normal" is always different from yesterday's. How does equilibrium > (which seems a central concept to Marshall) fit in with dialectics? Like Marx (e.g. in the sixth thesis on Feuerbach), Marshall treats the human "essence" as the outcome of internal relations. This is linked to his idea of *caeteris paribus* through the assumption (also found in Hegel and Marx) that these relations are so constituted that "abstraction" from some of them is possible for some purposes. This is so because relations have differing degrees of stability. The more stable a particular set of relations (e.g family and work relations) the more possible it is to "abstract" from the possibility of changes in them. This is reflected in Marshall's treatment of time. The shorter the distance into the future of the consequences with which the analysis is concerned the more possible it is to abstract in this way. Here is a statement of the central point made as a criticism of "Ricardo and his followers". Notice the reference to Goethe and Hegel. "For the sake of simplicity of argument, Ricardo and his followers often spoke as though they regarded man as a constant quantity, and they never gave themselves enough trouble to study his variations. The people whom they knew most intimately were city men; and they sometimes expressed themselves so carelessly as almost to imply that other Englishmen were very much like those whom they knew in the city. ... As the [19th] century wore on ... people were getting clearer ideas as to the nature of organic growth. They were learning that if the subject-matter of a science passes through different stages of development, the laws which apply to one stage will seldom apply without modification to others; the laws of the science must have a development corresponding to that of the things of which they treat. The influence of this new notion gradually spread to the sciences which relate to man; and showed itself in the works of Goethe, Hegel, Comte and others. ... Economics has shared in the general movement; and is getting to pay every year a greater attention to the pliability of human nature, and to the way in which the character of man affects and is affected by the prevalent methods of the production, distribution and consumption of wealth." Principles, Variorum ed., vol. 1, pp. 762-764) The "pliability of human nature" means that, as in Marx, what is "normal" in the way of economic motivation and behaviour is treated as changing with changes in "the prevalent methods of the production, distribution and consumption of wealth". Keynes makes this the key to understanding Marshall's approach to method. Notice Marshall's reference to "Socialists" in the passage Keynes quotes. "Marshall ... arrived very early at the point of view that the bare bones of economic theory are not worth much in themselves and do not carry one far in the direction of useful, practical conclusions. The whole point lies in applying them to the interpretation of current economic life. This requires a profound knowledge of the actual facts of industry and trade. But these and the relation of individual men to them are constantly and rapidly changing. Some extracts from his Inaugural Lecture at Cambridge will indicate his position: "The change that has been made in the point of view of Economics by the present generation is due to the discovery that man himself is in a great measure a creature of circumstances and changes with them. The chief fault in English economists at the beginning of the century was not that they ignored history and statistics, but that they regarded man as so to speak a constant quantity, and gave themselves little trouble to study his variations. They therefore attributed to the forces of supply and demand a much more mechanical and regular action than they actually have. Their most vital fault was that they did not see how liable to change are the habits and institutions of industry. But the Socialists were men who had felt intensely, and who knew something about the hidden springs of human action of which the economists took no account. Buried among their wild rhapsodies there were shrewd observations and pregnant suggestions from which philosophers and economists had much to learn. Among the bad results of the narrowness of the work of English economists early in the century, perhaps the most unfortunate was the opportunity which it gave to sciolists to quote and misapply economic dogmas. Ricardo and his chief followers did not make clear to others, it was not even quite clear to themselves, that what they were building up was not universal truth, but machinery of universal application in the discovery of a certain class of truths. While attributing high and transcendent universality to the central scheme of
Re: Re: Re: Re: Marshall
>As far as dialectics and Marshall are concerned. In a sense there is a >dialectic in Marshall. He is one of the few economists of his time who >took seriously the interaction of supply and demand. Most of his >contemporaries tried to reduce everything to subjective utility >evaluations. And if supply was considered it was a static given upon which >demand acted. Marshall's conceptions of S&D are better than what shows up in textbooks, in the sense that he distinguishes between the market period, the short run, etc. But as I understand him (as a total amateur in the histothought biz), S and D start being completely separate from each other and then interact. In a dialectical perspective, they would be seen as parts of a unified system, internally related. I guess that's the perspective of general equilibrium, but of course, GE rejects dynamics of any real-world sort. BTW, pen-l's Brad DeLong has an op-ed piece in the Opinion section of today's L.A. TIMES on anti-trust & Microsoft (at http://www.latimes.com/print/opinion/2409/t33200.html, a web-address that will expire soon). I don't know enough about those subjects to comment. The first two paragraphs follow: Is Big Bad? Antitrust law must constantly adapt to the changing nature of monopoly. But the economic effects of monopoly are shifting as well. Consider Microsoft. By J. BRADFORD DE LONG BERKELEY--Monday, Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found as a matter of law that Microsoft had violated the 110-year-old Sherman Antitrust Act. He will now begin the process of determining what remedy will be granted to repair the damage done by this illegal restraint of trade. It may be that this decision, shocking to the high-tech sector's stock-market valuation as it was, will wind up as a footnote. For, five years ago, Microsoft, with its dominance of desktop operating systems and productivity applications, was at the heart of America's high-tech economy. But today, because of the remarkable rate of change, the heart of the high-tech economy is the network. It is at least arguable that the key is now in the hands of physical-network companies like AT&T, data-delivery companies like Akamai Technologies, database companies like Oracle, Internet-access providers like America Online and the communities of open-source programmers who maintain and develop the Linux operating system and the Apache Web server. So what happens to Microsoft, specifically, is no longer as critical. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
Re: Re: Re: Re: Marshall
Michael has urged looking at the Greek meaning of economic to understand the meaning of political economy. We should also look at the Greek root of politics. It derives from polis. And doesn't necessarily carry the meanings inherent in the modern word political. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Marshall
As far as Marshall's politics are concerned. He was firmly in the British liberal tradition of charity towards his social inferiors. And resented it when workers spoke for themselves. As far as dialectics and Marshall are concerned. In a sense there is a dialectic in Marshall. He is one of the few economists of his time who took seriously the interaction of supply and demand. Most of his contemporaries tried to reduce everything to subjective utility evaluations. And if supply was considered it was a static given upon which demand acted. Rod Michael Perelman wrote: > Jim Devine understands what Marshall was about. Yes, he wanted labor to improve, > but improvement meant becoming more middle-class. Keynes, Marshall, and Smith > all had a similar vision of labor becoming assimilated into the middle-class. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Marshall
Jim Devine understands what Marshall was about. Yes, he wanted labor to improve, but improvement meant becoming more middle-class. Keynes, Marshall, and Smith all had a similar vision of labor becoming assimilated into the middle-class. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Marshall
Equilibrium might have been a central concept with Marshall but he was aware that there might not be one under certain cost conditions. Telser says of Marshall: "This conclusion, together with Marshall's well-known statement that a seller might not lower his price 'for fear of spoiling the market' is strong evidence of his sophisticated comprehension of the nature of a competitive equilibrium." (p. 53 of A Theory of efficient cooperation and competition) Jim Devine wrote: > a very interesting post! > > Ted Winslow writes: > These influences show up in a number of essential > ways in Marshall's economics. For instance, Marshall takes a "dialectical" > view of social interdependence. This underpins his conception of "caeteris > paribus" and his use of the term "normal".< > > I don't get how concepts like "ceteris paribus" and "normal" jibe with > dialectics, which involve a process in which ceteris is never paribus and > today's "normal" is always different from yesterday's. How does equilibrium > (which seems a central concept to Marshall) fit in with dialectics? > > later on: >In another essay, "The Future of the Working Classes" (Memorials > pp. 109-118), he sets out the conditions which would be required for all > persons to develop into "gentlemen" (his term for Marx's idea of the > "universally developed individual" - a term suggestive of the fact that, in > contrast to Marx, Marshall's version of the idea was not free of sexism).< > > also notice that Marshall implies that disalienation involves workers > becoming like a gentleperson, while Marx would see the gentry as themselves > alienated (in a different way than workers, natch). > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
Re: Marshall
a very interesting post! Ted Winslow writes: > These influences show up in a number of essential ways in Marshall's economics. For instance, Marshall takes a "dialectical" view of social interdependence. This underpins his conception of "caeteris paribus" and his use of the term "normal".< I don't get how concepts like "ceteris paribus" and "normal" jibe with dialectics, which involve a process in which ceteris is never paribus and today's "normal" is always different from yesterday's. How does equilibrium (which seems a central concept to Marshall) fit in with dialectics? later on: >In another essay, "The Future of the Working Classes" (Memorials pp. 109-118), he sets out the conditions which would be required for all persons to develop into "gentlemen" (his term for Marx's idea of the "universally developed individual" - a term suggestive of the fact that, in contrast to Marx, Marshall's version of the idea was not free of sexism).< also notice that Marshall implies that disalienation involves workers becoming like a gentleperson, while Marx would see the gentry as themselves alienated (in a different way than workers, natch). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
