Re: RE: Re: Wade vs Wolf
No, high wages came about as industries absorbed labor. So labor repression worked initially but it didn't later. If my memory serves me right Korean wages were growing at very high rates throughout the 70s and 80s. Further, Jim is right that it wasn't classic Lat Am style ISI, but Korea did have ISI, witness the Heavy Industry and Chemicals Industrialization beginning in 1973, though their steel industry was initiated in 1968. Park Chung Hee, the military man, believed in classic heavy industry for national development. The difference was Korea did not, in fact encouraged, shut out exports. Cheers, Anthony 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, 5 Mar 2002, Devine, James wrote: > you write: > > ...Isn´t "infant-industry promotion, buttressed by trade restrictions" the > only way any country has ever industrialised ,including all of Southeast > Asia and India, or am I way off here?< > > I don't think S. Korea, Taiwan, or Japan made it as far as they did based on > import substitution, which at least in Latin America meant a nation-centric > effort at development. It's more accurate to say that they used protection > in order to build up the basis for fighting and (at least temporarily) > winning the battle of exporting. (Nation-centric development involves, for > example, high domestic wages to provide a home market. This is much less > important to the East Asian "model.") > > > Also it seems to me that in many ways the import substitution regime in > Latin America, however flawed, seemed to progress at a faster pace than the > current neoliberal model.< > > maybe, but for better or for worse the genie is out of the bottle and it's > hard to reverse the neoliberal move away from import substitution. > > Jim Devine > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
I'd said: >It's awful, but I guess it beats slavery or feudalism. But it's also >a deeply contradictory system, producing wealth and possibility >alongside poverty and oppression. Doug Yes, you had but I still think you sometimes appear as appreciating the booms. Well, at least, this is my perception. On another note, Carl Remick says: "Location, sure, and let's not forget class!" And I said: I guess there is some kind of "struggle" going on here but I forgot what that "struggle" was. What do you think this was about? Sabri
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
Sabri Oncu wrote: >Don't forget that this is not just a temporal/historical but also >a spatial/geographical system. Even at times of capitalist booms, >although the boom lifts some boats in certain locations, other >boats sink in certain other locations. I would say whether you >appreciate or hate the fact that capitalism often produces >"greats booms" depends on your location. And it should have been >clear by now that I hate these booms whereas you sometimes appear >as appreciating them. I'd said: >It's awful, but I guess it beats slavery or feudalism. But it's also >a deeply contradictory system, producing wealth and possibility >alongside poverty and oppression. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
>From: Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Don't forget that this is not just a temporal/historical but also >a spatial/geographical system. Even at times of capitalist booms, >although the boom lifts some boats in certain locations, other >boats sink in certain other locations. I would say whether you >appreciate or hate the fact that capitalism often produces >"greats booms" depends on your location. [Location, sure, and let's not forget class! From today's NY Times:] For Executives, Nest Egg Is Wrapped in a Security Blanket By DAVID LEONHARDT General Electric allows its top executives to contribute money to a retirement fund on which the company recently guaranteed an annual return of at least 10 percent, far better than a typical G.E. worker saving money in the company's 401(k) plan can expect. Tenneco Automotive, which makes shock absorbers, permits its executives to receive a full pension at age 55, seven years before the company's other employees can. When Louis V. Gerstner retired as I.B.M.'s chief executive last week, he became eligible for an annual pension of at least $1.1 million, precisely what the company promised in his contract when he joined eight years ago. As part of a 1999 cost-cutting program, however, many I.B.M. employees are set to receive smaller pensions and retirement health insurance benefits than they were promised when they were hired. Such contrasts have become the norm over the last two decades, as the United States has increasingly developed a two-tier pension system. Companies seeking to increase profits have cut retirement benefits, leaving many members of the baby boom generation unprepared for life after age 65 despite the long bull market, economists say. [http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/05/business/05PENS.html] Carl _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
Doug, I don't think anyone here would argue that when faced with a choice between less misery and more misery, people would chose less misery. By the way, I am using the word misery in its daily form without any theoretical connotation and mention this so that I don't find myself in a long debate on what misery means. My only reminder to you is this: Don't forget that this is not just a temporal/historical but also a spatial/geographical system. Even at times of capitalist booms, although the boom lifts some boats in certain locations, other boats sink in certain other locations. I would say whether you appreciate or hate the fact that capitalism often produces "greats booms" depends on your location. And it should have been clear by now that I hate these booms whereas you sometimes appear as appreciating them. I guess there is some kind of "struggle" going on here but I forgot what that "struggle" was. Sabri + Sabri Oncu wrote: >Let me ask you a direct question: Is it your point that >capitalism is not as bad a system as some of us here think it is? It's awful, but I guess it beats slavery or feudalism. But it's also a deeply contradictory system, producing wealth and possibility alongside poverty and oppression. A friend of mine who spent a few years as a reporter in Vietnam interviewed Nike workers who told her that they prefer their sweatshop jobs to what they would have been doing otherwise - things like chasing rats in rice paddies (not much fun to be a woman on the farm). Anticapitalists - and I'm one - often overlook that sort of thing. And capitalism often produces great booms, though PEN-Lers seem to prefer talking about busts. Which kind of begs the question of just how capitalist China is, and what lessons it might hold for other poor countries. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
- Original Message - From: "Doug Henwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >A friend of mine who spent a few > years as a reporter in Vietnam interviewed Nike workers who told her > that they prefer their sweatshop jobs to what they would have been > doing otherwise - things like chasing rats in rice paddies (not much > fun to be a woman on the farm). == This of course raises, again, the issue of Marx' vs. Roemer's views on exploitation. Ian
RE: Re: Wade vs Wolf
you write: > ...Isn´t "infant-industry promotion, buttressed by trade restrictions" the only way any country has ever industrialised ,including all of Southeast Asia and India, or am I way off here?< I don't think S. Korea, Taiwan, or Japan made it as far as they did based on import substitution, which at least in Latin America meant a nation-centric effort at development. It's more accurate to say that they used protection in order to build up the basis for fighting and (at least temporarily) winning the battle of exporting. (Nation-centric development involves, for example, high domestic wages to provide a home market. This is much less important to the East Asian "model.") > Also it seems to me that in many ways the import substitution regime in Latin America, however flawed, seemed to progress at a faster pace than the current neoliberal model.< maybe, but for better or for worse the genie is out of the bottle and it's hard to reverse the neoliberal move away from import substitution. Jim Devine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
Sabri Oncu wrote: >Let me ask you a direct question: Is it your point that >capitalism is not as bad a system as some of us here think it is? It's awful, but I guess it beats slavery or feudalism. But it's also a deeply contradictory system, producing wealth and possibility alongside poverty and oppression. A friend of mine who spent a few years as a reporter in Vietnam interviewed Nike workers who told her that they prefer their sweatshop jobs to what they would have been doing otherwise - things like chasing rats in rice paddies (not much fun to be a woman on the farm). Anticapitalists - and I'm one - often overlook that sort of thing. And capitalism often produces great booms, though PEN-Lers seem to prefer talking about busts. Which kind of begs the question of just how capitalist China is, and what lessons it might hold for other poor countries. Doug
RE: Re: Wade vs Wolf
Charles J. writes: > the US cheap dollar/strong yen policy has pushed China into the fore as huge exporter to both the US and Japan< huh? the US$ has been soaring since the mid-1990s. How could it be "cheap"? Are you saying that the Yen is even stronger? JDevine
Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
On Monday, March 4, 2002 at 18:56:42 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes: >Michael Perelman wrote: > >>Wasn't Wade's point that much of the increase in inequality was within >>countries rather than between them? > >Well yeah, but there's a tendency in left discourse to bracket out >China, except to talk about sweatshops and political repression. The >U.S. recession has gotten far more PEN-L traffic than growth in >China, which has grown almost 10% a year over the last two decades. >How'd it happen? What'd it mean? What's happened to incomes across >the spectrum? Even if ineq increased, are the poor better off than >they were 10 or 20 years ago? India shows growth rates of almost 6% - >the same questions apply. I know growth is so much less fun than >crisis, but maybe a few words... I think Sen points out that though China has grown, mortality rates have gone up markedly since market reforms were instituted (in late '70s?). So average income goes up, while length of average life goes down. Bill
Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
On Monday, March 4, 2002 at 18:57:45 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes: >Devine, James wrote: > >>In all of these income numbers, are non-market sources of subsistence >>measured? Is it possible that measured and reported gains in market income >>are cancelled out if one subtracts the effects of the abolition of the >>availability of non-capitalist means of subsistence (the end of the iron >>rice bowl policy in China, the end of non-commodity-producing traditional >>ways of life, etc.)? > >More excellent questions. Is anyone studying this now? Has Sen? Bill
Re: Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
> the same questions apply. I know growth is > so much less fun than crisis, but maybe a few words... > > Doug Hi Doug, Let me ask you a direct question: Is it your point that capitalism is not as bad a system as some of us here think it is? Sabri
Re: Re: RE: Wade vs Wolf
- Original Message - From: "Doug Henwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 3:57 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23500] Re: RE: Wade vs Wolf > Devine, James wrote: > > >In all of these income numbers, are non-market sources of subsistence > >measured? Is it possible that measured and reported gains in market income > >are cancelled out if one subtracts the effects of the abolition of the > >availability of non-capitalist means of subsistence (the end of the iron > >rice bowl policy in China, the end of non-commodity-producing traditional > >ways of life, etc.)? > > More excellent questions. Is anyone studying this now? > > Doug Has digging potential http://www.chinaonline.com http://www.chinaonline.com/features/chinaonline2/research.htm Ian
Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
See UNU/WIDER paper by Cornia and Court (2001) "Inequality, Growth and Poverty in the Era of Liberalization and Globalization) on these issues. Cheers, Anthony 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 Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Doug Henwood wrote: > Ian Murray wrote: > > >However, this result comes from fast growth > >in China and India. If they are excluded this measure of > >inequality shows no obvious trend since 1980. > > Well yeah, but China and India together account for 44% of the > "developing" world's population. I can see the point of excluding > them, but still, they're not exactly footnotes to the real story. > > Doug > >
Re: RE: Wade vs Wolf
Devine, James wrote: >In all of these income numbers, are non-market sources of subsistence >measured? Is it possible that measured and reported gains in market income >are cancelled out if one subtracts the effects of the abolition of the >availability of non-capitalist means of subsistence (the end of the iron >rice bowl policy in China, the end of non-commodity-producing traditional >ways of life, etc.)? More excellent questions. Is anyone studying this now? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
Michael Perelman wrote: >Wasn't Wade's point that much of the increase in inequality was within >countries rather than between them? Well yeah, but there's a tendency in left discourse to bracket out China, except to talk about sweatshops and political repression. The U.S. recession has gotten far more PEN-L traffic than growth in China, which has grown almost 10% a year over the last two decades. How'd it happen? What'd it mean? What's happened to incomes across the spectrum? Even if ineq increased, are the poor better off than they were 10 or 20 years ago? India shows growth rates of almost 6% - the same questions apply. I know growth is so much less fun than crisis, but maybe a few words... Doug
Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf
Wasn't Wade's point that much of the increase in inequality was within countries rather than between them? On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:28:13PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: > Ian Murray wrote: > > >However, this result comes from fast growth > >in China and India. If they are excluded this measure of > >inequality shows no obvious trend since 1980. > > Well yeah, but China and India together account for 44% of the > "developing" world's population. I can see the point of excluding > them, but still, they're not exactly footnotes to the real story. > > Doug > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
