Seems to me that the capitalist ruling class is more transnational united AMONG AND
WITHIN THE IMPERIALIST NATIONS . So that Ellen, Yoshie and Mark may be speaking past
each other a bit. I am not sure that Ellen and Yoshie are claiming that there are
more members of the transnational ruling
. . .
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
: Monday, July 23, 2001 9:23 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:15466] RE: Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
. . .
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
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
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
Plenty, if you're a smart trade unionist,
social-democrat, or even a labor-friendly liberal.
mbs
CB: Speaking of (working) class
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
No, I didn't mean you are in the bourgeois class. ( I'm in the petit bourgeoisie
myself , whether I like it or not )
I'm thinking a socialist is someone who supports working class interests and opposes
bourgeois class interests, and aims to end capitalism. This is why a socialist aims to
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 10:26 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:15420] The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
No, I didn't mean you are in the bourgeois class. ( I'm in the petit
bourgeoisie myself , whether I like
crimes.
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 10:26 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:15420] The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
No, I didn't mean you are in the bourgeois class. ( I'm in the petit
bourgeoisie myself
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
I understand the sentiment, but non-protectionism can be just as bad as (or
worse than) protectionism. Why dilute conceptual clarity to make a
rhetorical point?
Michael Perelman writes:
It is not protectionism, like the violence instigated by the US is not
terrorism. Protectionism (terrorism)
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
Lind is not a nativist. . . .
Check what he says about the need to control immigration in one of
his books. Maybe I am hallucinating his nativist sentiment; I didn't
buy the book, just glanced through it at a bookstore. If I am wrong,
I will apologize profusely. Rakesh
Hmm. You glance
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
.
DISSENT /WINTER 2000 /VOLUME 47, NUMBER 1
- Original Message -
From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 8:57 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:15343] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend it
fast as you can)
Lind
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/01 01:39PM
Under this form of class solidarity, there would be
no trade unions worthy of the name.
Real class solidarity means you protect union jobs.
-clip-
CB: Speaking of (working) class solidarity, isn't that a socialist concept ? What use
do
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
. There is ample reason for
this -- dollar-denominated financial markets are
broad, deep and fully international; dollar-based
multinationals represent the bulk of all MNC assets in
which the rich hold their wealth; most of the developing
world is starved for dollars, so extra-US dollar lending
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
Ellen wrote:
I have to disagree with the proposition that the US
current account deficit might presage flight from
the greenback, capital outflows and financial collapse.
Though the scenario is plausible on the surface, it
overlooks one thing. Increasingly, the world's 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
account deficits, though, create the conditions where that historical role
could abruptly change. Things continue
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
I was impressed by Ellen's statement this morning, but I wonder how much
of the money invested in U.S. stocks and bonds is at risk from flight back
to its original source in say, Europe or Japan? How much flight would be
required to spook the financial markets? Couldn't a relatively small
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
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 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
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
Check what he says about the need to control immigration in one of
his books. Maybe I am hallucinating his
: RE: Re: Re: The US Dollar (spend it fast as
you can)
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
It is not protectionism, like the violence instigated by the US is not
terrorism. Protectionism (terrorism) is what the other guy does.
Jim Devine wrote:
Michael wrote:
It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form
of protectionism devised so far.
except that
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 fromthe 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
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
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]
Jim Devine asks:
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?
=
Make that three ignorami. However, I'm
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
Jim Devine wrote:
(2) it makes stuff denominated in greenbacks (like oil) cheaper;
for whom? not for those of us with US$.
Come again? Should we prefer to be using yen to buy gasoline?
Christian
Jim Devine writes:
-
this discussion is interesting, but it's between two admitted ignorami (Rob
myself). Is there anyone on pen-l who knows -- or has some sort of
journalism-based knowledge -- of why the U.S. has pursued a high dollar
policy?
-
I am not sure about
Jim Devine wrote:
this discussion is interesting, but it's between two admitted
ignorami (Rob myself). Is there anyone on pen-l who knows -- or
has some sort of journalism-based knowledge -- of why the U.S. has
pursued a high dollar policy?
1) Wall Street likes it, because, among other
in his ECONOMIC REPORTING REVIEW, Dean Baker writes:
It is worth noting that the dollar has risen in value by 20-30 percent
against other major currencies since 1996. This increase in the dollar's
value was in part a result of a deliberate high dollar policy of the
Clinton administration. The
Jim Devine wrote:
in his ECONOMIC REPORTING REVIEW, Dean Baker writes:
It is worth noting that the dollar has risen in value by 20-30
percent
against other major currencies since 1996. This increase in the
dollar's
value was in part a result of a deliberate high dollar policy of
the
I asked:
does anyone know _why_ the U.S. -- which must refer not only to the
administration but to the Fed -- was pursuing a high dollar policy?
Rob writes:
... (1) it helped keep [non-US$] economies on the brink from folding, by
offering a market (we're talking international crisis for
Krugman's always interesting, if nothing else:
A DOLLAR CRISIS? [from Paul Krugman's web site.]
Time does fly. A year ago Asian currencies were plunging, hedge funds were
attacking, and the world seemed on the brink of crisis. Now Asian
currencies are if anything too strong, it's the dollar
70 matches
Mail list logo
