. . .
As we have had most graphically demonstrated over the past two decades,
economic growth is not a means to enable the nations to afford better
housing, social programs and a more equitable distribution of income.
Economic growth is an ideological program offered as a substitute for
Truly digmatic poetic. It's going on my wall,
next to my Allan Ginsburg postcard.
mbs
...eyes sexy in their dark skin passing out incom-
prehensible leaflets,
who burned cigarette holes in their arms protesting
the narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism,
who distributed Supercommunist
Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
by Tom Walker
20 July 2001 00:57
Tom Walker wrote regarding the false hope of re-starting economic growth:
Difficult to sell to the mainstream?
Tom, do you mean selling the growth is the problem, not the solution to
what ails us message to the
Seth Sandronsky asked,
Tom, do you mean selling the growth is the problem, not the solution to
what ails us message to the news media or to the general population?
I mean the general public, the media, academics and policy elites (including
progressive intellectuals). But the difficulties are
G'day Seth, Tom and Mark,
Tom Walker wrote regarding the false hope of re-starting economic
growth:
Difficult to sell to the mainstream?
Tom, do you mean selling the growth is the problem, not the solution
to what ails us message to the news media or to the general
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/01 08:57PM
I agree that this is extremely important. Extremely is not sufficiently
superlative. It is a matter of life or death on an unimaginable scale. If
not now, then 10 years from now or 20. What difference does it make? Getting
growth back on track is
If you're one of those you don't identify
w/the bourgeois class. Just because you're
in a class doesn't mean you serve its interests.
mbs
But don't you have a conflict of interest and loyalties between the working
class and the bourgeois class ?
Charles
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/01 04:34PM
recently citing that famous line about the most reactionary sectors of
finance capital being the origin of fascism...
such a line was intended to justify the popular front. if only the most
reactionary parts of the ruling class support fascism then why not ally with
other parts of it.
pete
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/20/01 02:10PM
recently citing that famous line about the most reactionary sectors of
finance capital being the origin of fascism...
such a line was intended to justify the popular front. if only the most
reactionary parts of the ruling class support fascism then why not
Mark writes:
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote,
When the ruling class is global, rather than national, an imperial
state (= the state whose politico-military powers guarantee the
reproduction of capitalism) doesn't have to be a mercantilist
success.
The idea that the ruling class is global rather
Tom writes:
Talking in the abstract about socialism and hegemony and the dollar while
the recession runs its course is like talking about not-rearranging the deck
chairs. How many times does the shit have to hit the fan before the
fan-gazers notice there are feces all over their faces?
What is
Lind is not a nativist. He is a liberal
nationalist. He may be a Listian, but
to me that is not necessarily a Bad Thing.
The idea that he is a right-wing plant is
hallucinatory.
mbs
While what Pugliese downloaded includes reasonable criticisms of a
neo bracero program, it soon became an
Max:
Lind's position re: immigration is strictly of a
piece with the basic idea of labor defense, a
concept our free-trade marxists have great difficulty
with. It is that the obligation of a trade union is
to fight efforts to undercut its wages with other
workers. It does not matter where they
Rakesh (here and gone again...) On top of it, Lind seems to have written a
book in defense of
genocidal US policies in Vietnam--did I understand you, right,
Pugliese?
Yes, indeed. A review by Eric Alterman (who raises hackles of alot of
folks but, the URL is handy, said this in (Social
Under this form of class solidarity, there would be
no trade unions worthy of the name.
Real class solidarity means you protect union jobs.
If you aren't in a union, you protect them towards
the day when you can be in one, which protecting
furthers.
In a strike situation, calling for all to be
At 1:46 PM -0400 7/19/01, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
The defense of labor is best executed by class solidarity, regardless
of nationality, immigration status, etc., not by nativist attempts to
monopolize jobs by excluding aliens, which are in the end futile.
When nativists scab by breaking class
Jim Devine says:
Michael wrote:
It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form
of protectionism devised so far.
except that it's not the kind of thing that's called
protectionism. It protects individual corporations or other
property-holders, not the domestic markets
If protecting union jobs is the only point, anti-immigrant
pro-protectionist nativism is patently pointless. New immigrant workers
are more pro-union than native-born workers -- hence the AFL-CIO's new
stance. To survive, organized labor has to sign up as many as it can,
native or
At 02:05 PM 7/19/01 -0400, you wrote:
Jim Devine says:
Michael wrote:
It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form
of protectionism devised so far.
except that it's not the kind of thing that's called protectionism. It
protects individual corporations or other
If protecting union jobs is the only point, anti-immigrant
pro-protectionist nativism is patently pointless. New immigrant
workers are more pro-union than native-born workers -- hence the
AFL-CIO's new stance. To survive, organized labor has to sign up as
many as it can, native or
I'm thinking about how to get from here to there,
and Yoshie is talking about getting from there
to here.
mbs
Yoshie is thinking long-term, while it seems that Max is thinking
short-term . . .
Oy vey indeed. Reading Rakesh makes me forget
what I actually said about Lind. I'm sure I
didn't say he was my leader.
I'm about 2/3rds thru The Next American Nation.
I've said the analysis of race and class history
in the book is very persuasive. It's good
populism. I'm on his elaboration
If protecting union jobs is the only point, anti-immigrant
pro-protectionist nativism is patently pointless. New immigrant
workers are more pro-union than native-born workers -- hence the
AFL-CIO's new stance. To survive, organized labor has to sign up as
many as it can, native or immigrant,
Jim Devine says:
If protecting union jobs is the only point, anti-immigrant
pro-protectionist nativism is patently pointless. New immigrant
workers are more pro-union than native-born workers -- hence the
AFL-CIO's new stance. To survive, organized labor has to sign up
as many as it can,
At 02:05 PM 7/19/01 -0400, you wrote:
Jim Devine says:
Michael wrote:
It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form
of protectionism devised so far.
except that it's not the kind of thing that's called
protectionism. It protects individual corporations or other
Plenty, if you're a smart trade unionist,
social-democrat, or even a labor-friendly liberal.
mbs
CB: Speaking of (working) class solidarity, isn't that a socialist concept ?
What use do non-socialists have for working class solidarity ?
I doubt that the majority of Mexican residents Mexican-Americans in
the USA are against trade with, investment in, immigration from
Mexico. . . . Yoshie
Neither am I.
mbs
Yoshie writes:
There's nothing on the political horizon to replace US hegemony --
therefore Ellen's dissertation on dollarization holds up, I think, despite
the alarms sounded by Wynne Godley who writes as if the USA had already
entered into the same twilight of the empire that the UK had
The premise only supports the conclusion on the condition that hegemony is a
zero-sum game. US drops ball; someone else picks it up. Uh-uh. Much more
dangerous possibilities have presented in the past, such as during roughly
the first half of the last century. In the hegemony sweepstakes nothing
At 02:24 PM 7/19/01 -0700, you wrote:
The premise only supports the conclusion on the condition that hegemony is a
zero-sum game. US drops ball; someone else picks it up. Uh-uh. Much more
dangerous possibilities have presented in the past, such as during roughly
the first half of the last
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sounds like a great diss. Did you ever publish an article summarizing it?
If not, what school did you do it at?
Thanks, Michael. Unfortunately I did not.
The official dollar role has been over since 1973. The US has run
current account deficit in every single
Tom says:
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote,
There's nothing on the political horizon to replace US hegemony --
therefore Ellen's dissertation on dollarization holds up, I think,
despite the alarms sounded by Wynne Godley who writes as if the USA
had already entered into the same twilight of the empire
Jim Devine asked,
you really think that we're could be moving toward a period such as
1910-45, in which nation-state contention among the rich capitalist powers
led to trade wars and hot wars? do you have evidence?
First question: No, that's not what I said and not also what I think. I said
Mark Jones wrote,
Discussions about how to get growth back on track (seemingly an objective
shared by many on pen-l) is actually discussion about how to turn the gas
even higher.
I agree that this is extremely important. Extremely is not sufficiently
superlative. It is a matter of life or
Ellen is partly right but she overlooks the circular nature of her case. The
wealthy count their wealth in dollars because of the historical role that
the US dollar achieved over many decades. A US current account deficit
doesn't change that historical role overnight. A few decades of current
Actually, I don't overlook this. In fact I wrote my
dissertation on this and looked into the role of
historical inertia quite closely and it doesn't
hold up. The official dollar role has been over
since 1973. The US has run current account
deficitd in every single year since then, deficits
that
Actually, I don't overlook this. In fact I wrote my dissertation on
this and looked into the role of historical inertia quite closely
and it doesn't hold up.
Sounds like a great diss. Did you ever publish an article summarizing it?
If not, what school did you do it at?
The official dollar
Actually, I don't overlook this. In fact I wrote my dissertation on
this and looked into the role of historical inertia quite closely
and it doesn't hold up.
Sounds like a great diss. Did you ever publish an article summarizing it?
If not, what school did you do it at?
The official
It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form
of protectionism devised so far.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Lind (The Next American Nation) makes the point
that patents, IP, and professional licensure (i.e.,
tenure!) are the upper-class (white overclass) variant
of protectionism.
Consistent free-traders should be willing to do away
with those barriers to trade as well. How do laissez
faire
Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote,
And the size of the CAD (and trade deficit) is not correlated with
the value of the dollar; if it were there would be some reason to
expect Tom W's scenario of an imminent mass dumping of dollars. Why
does there seem to be no correlation? Ellen's analysis seems
Are you saying, then, that the absence of evidence is the same as evidence
of absence? I guess I missed what the this refers to that you wrote your
dissertation on.
Ellen Frank wrote,
Actually, I don't overlook this. In fact I wrote my
dissertation on this and looked into the role of
Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote,
And the size of the CAD (and trade deficit) is not correlated with
the value of the dollar; if it were there would be some reason to
expect Tom W's scenario of an imminent mass dumping of dollars. Why
does there seem to be no correlation? Ellen's analysis seems to
Michael wrote:
It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form
of protectionism devised so far.
except that it's not the kind of thing that's called protectionism. It
protects individual corporations or other property-holders, not the
domestic markets of countries.
Lind is not a nativist. He is a liberal
nationalist. He may be a Listian, but
to me that is not necessarily a Bad Thing.
The idea that he is a right-wing plant is
hallucinatory.
mbs
. . . Michael told me not to insult anyone, so I will hold back my comments
on the neo-nativist and
45 matches
Mail list logo
