Alan Blinder has broken ranks with the economics orthodoxy and sees potentially huge job losses from trade. Page 1 in today's Wall St. Journal. (3/28/07)JOB PROSPECTS Pain From Free Trade Spurs Second ThoughtsMr. Blinder's ShiftSpotlights WarningsOf Deeper DownsideBy DAVID WESSEL and BOB DAVISMar
Nowadays, though, many Marxists who still insist on Marxist rhetoric
have in effect embraced capitalist development as good in and of
itself, as they have practically given up on any transition to a
socialist future. China and India are good examples of that change.
The difficulty is that probably a number of people in India still feel
that the neoliberal combo of the Congress, parliamentary Marxists, et
al. is the lesser evil compared to the BJP-led right-wing coalition
and that a lot of people in China, while wishing to defend positive
legacies of Chinese so
Marx was big on the innovative power of capitalism - both its penchant for
creating new technologies and new wants. It's not hard to relate that to a
theory of job creation, even though many Marxists seem temperamentally
inclined to emphasize destruction.
For a system of thought that thinks of its
CB: On Marxists having a theory of job creation, there's variable capital
and constant capital. Variable capital is "jobs". For Marxists, the
capitalists wouldn't have a stitch of profit if they didn't create jobs,
because labor is the source of all exchange-value, and surplus-value is
exchange-v
But now he is saying loudly that a new industrial revolution
-- communication technology that allows services to be delivered
electronically from afar -- will put as many as 40 million American
jobs at risk of being shipped out of the country in the next decade or
two.
That warning is justified.
Gernot Koehler wrote:
>
> there is a weakness in Marx(ian)(ist)
> literature with respect to the theory of job creation in capitalist
> economies, as opposed to theory of job destruction. (Or, which pieces of
> literature did I miss?)
> GK
You expect too much of theory. Is it a weakness in quantum
>But now he is saying loudly that a new industrial revolution
>-- communication technology that allows services to be delivered
>electronically from afar -- will put as many as 40 million American
>jobs at risk of being shipped out of the country in the next decade or
two.
Gernot Koehler wrote:
Jim is correct that Marx talks a lot about job destruction rather than job
creation,
but he does speak about the need to replenish the reserve army of the
unemployed,
which presumes that a rhythm of job destruction and job creation exists. Even
so,
the weight seems to fall on job destruction.
one of the things is that job destruction (re)creates the reserve army
(as MP says). That in turn is the basis for new accumulation and new
hiring.
On 3/29/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim is correct that Marx talks a lot about job destruction rather than job
creation,
but he
Jim,
My point in making the original post was not about the prediction
but about who was making it. Alan Blinder is a Princeton economist,
was on the Federal Reserve Board, and is the personification of a
mainstream economist. When he says that trade is going to cost jobs,
that is news.
right. I wasn't responding to your original message but to GK. I too
was amazed at the source.
On 3/29/07, Eugene Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim,
My point in making the original post was not about the prediction
but about who was making it. Alan Blinder is a Princeton economist,
w
On Mar 29, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
Back when the NAFTA (and similar trade bills)
were passed, people warned of job loss. The trouble with this
prediction is that it misses the point. The _real_ issue is labor
wages (relative to labor productivity).
Which is complicated by the fact
I though we discussed his Foreign Affairs paper here a few months ago.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:40:33AM -0700, Eugene Coyle wrote:
> Jim,
> My point in making the original post was not about the prediction
> but about who was making it. Alan Blinder is a Princeton economist,
> was on th
At 11:36 29/03/2007, jim devine wrote:
Marx's theory in CAPITAL (volume 1) is mostly about job destruction.
This focuses on a representative industry, i.e., one that represents
the abstract general laws of accumulation. But there are also
processes of job creation in Marx: if aggregate accumulat
I wrote:
> Back when the NAFTA (and similar trade bills)
> were passed, people warned of job loss. The trouble with this
> prediction is that it misses the point. The _real_ issue is labor
> wages (relative to labor productivity).
Doug Henwood wrote:
Which is complicated by the fact that the 5
On 3/29/07, michael a. lebowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Remember that Marx assumes that the standard of necessity is given
for a given country, era, etc. Thus, by that assumption, increased
productivity cannot lead to rising real wages. If we relax that
assumption (all other things equal), pro
Carrol wrote:
"You expect too much of theory."
I grant that theory is not practice. However, leftist theory has
traditionally attempted to assist the practice of workers and other
underdogs. Job creation and job destruction are both important to workers.
Thus, if it is important for workers to ha
Jim wrote:
"Marx's theory in CAPITAL (volume 1) is mostly about job destruction.
This focuses on a representative industry, i.e., one that represents
the abstract general laws of accumulation. But there are also
processes of job creation in Marx: if aggregate accumulation is fast
enough, that inc
Marx was big on the innovative power of capitalism - both its
penchant for creating new technologies and new wants. It's not hard
to relate that to a theory of job creation, even though many Marxists
seem temperamentally inclined to emphasize destruction.
For a system of thought that thinks
Doug Henwood wrote:
Marx was big on the innovative power of capitalism - both its
penchant for creating new technologies and new wants. It's not hard
to relate that to a theory of job creation, even though many Marxists
seem temperamentally inclined to emphasize destruction.
For a system of tho
On 3/30/07, Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marx was big on the innovative power of capitalism - both its
penchant for creating new technologies and new wants. It's not hard
to relate that to a theory of job creation, even though many Marxists
seem temperamentally inclined to emphasize de
On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Michael Hoover wrote:
while you, doug, seem temperamentally inclined to emphasize
capitalism's progressive tendencies
Not really. I just have to do it on PEN-L because no one else will.
It's also a very destructive and alienating system.
Doug
On 3/30/07, Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Michael Hoover wrote:
> while you, doug, seem temperamentally inclined to emphasize
> capitalism's progressive tendencies
Not really. I just have to do it on PEN-L because no one else will.
It's also a very destru
Michael Hoover wrote:
> > while you, doug, seem temperamentally inclined to emphasize
> > capitalism's progressive tendencies
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Not really. I just have to do it on PEN-L because no one else will.
> It's also a very destructive and alienating system.
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote
On 3/30/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Hoover wrote:
> > > while you, doug, seem temperamentally inclined to emphasize
> > > capitalism's progressive tendencies
Doug Henwood wrote:
> > Not really. I just have to do it on PEN-L because no one else will.
> > It's also a very des
The big positive of capitalism -- Marx wrote of its "historic mission" was to
prepare
the way for communism. Slavery and fuedalism also helped to promote this
progress,
but like capitalism, they became an outmoded form.
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 11:32:30AM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> Marx's "pos
Michael's summary of the positive side of capitalism (according to Marx)
seems fairly complete. A few observations.
As to the _present_ (1650 -- 1750 -- 1850 -- 1900): i.e, the present _at
any time_ during the growth and development of capitalism.
Capital ALWAYS, without exception, destroyed more
One additional point. In his list of 'positives' Marx made an implicit
assumption, that these 'positives' (e.g. development of technology)
would NOT have occurred except for capitalism. Perhaps, but it is not a
certainty.
Carrol
On 3/30/07, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Every sentence in Michael's summary (and in this he is quite true to
Marx) points towards THE FUTURE. "Progressive" means ONLY that
possibilities (only possibilities, not certainties) for the future have
opened up. It never means that the present
On 3/30/07, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nowadays, though, many Marxists who still insist on Marxist rhetoric
have in effect embraced capitalist development as good in and of
itself, as they have practically given up on any transition to a
socialist future. China and India are go
On 3/30/07, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/30/07, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nowadays, though, many Marxists who still insist on Marxist rhetoric
> have in effect embraced capitalist development as good in and of
> itself, as they have practically given up on any transit
On 3/30/07, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's up to the Chinese and the Indians to decide what their countries
should be like. But it would be better for them as well as for others
if their party leaders didn't pursue capitalist development in the
name of socialism.
--
Yoshie
On 3/30/07, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/30/07, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's up to the Chinese and the Indians to decide what their countries
> should be like. But it would be better for them as well as for others
> if their party leaders didn't pursue capitalist d
The majority of Chinese and Indians are indeed exploited as Yoshie
notes. Even in China urban unemployment rates are high, formal sector
job creation is almost non-existent, and wages and working conditions
remain poor for the great majority. But isnt the question what
relationship we want to h
On 3/30/07, Martin Hart-Landsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
remain poor for the great majority. But isnt the question what
relationship we want to have with these exploited workers. Should we
encourage their growing resistance or should we tell them that we, on
the left, celebrate the growth
On 3/30/07, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/30/07, Martin Hart-Landsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> remain poor for the great majority. But isnt the question what
> relationship we want to have with these exploited workers. Should we
> encourage their growing resistance or should we te
On 3/30/07, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Capitalist globalization, more often than not, comes as a package
deal, not as an a la carte menu (unless your country has already made
it capitalistically, in which case you have more power to set your own
terms than those who have weaker
On 3/30/07, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is not that simple. The Chinese/Indian governments are hardly as
powerless as you seem to think. The global capital needs China/India just as
much as they need global capital. Theoretically there is no reason why a
sufficiently enlightened governmen
The Indian growth model is NOT FDI-driven, far from it. A paltry $10
billion (with a good chunk of it in portfolio investment) is no real
driver. In fact the FDI in selected sectors (auto, IT) have been pretty
good in terms of India's technological spillovers and firm capabilities.
The Chinese s
On 3/31/07, Anthony D'Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Indian growth model is NOT FDI-driven, far from it. A paltry $10
billion (with a good chunk of it in portfolio investment) is no real
driver. In fact the FDI in selected sectors (auto, IT) have been pretty
good in terms of India's techn
A quick answer is that representative politics does work except some
interests are overrepresented and some underrepresented (read class and
caste politics). So when the underrepresented interests are in power,
which they are in several states and can easily bring the neoliberals in
Delhi does (c
Correction:
Should be: bring the neoliberals in Delhi DOWN
Anthony P. D'Costa, Professor
Comparative International Development
University of Washington
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
Phone: (253) 692-4462
Fax :
CB: On Marxists having a theory of job creation, there's variable capital
and constant capital. Variable capital is "jobs". For Marxists, the
capitalists wouldn't have a stitch of profit if they didn't create jobs,
because labor is the source of all exchange-value, and surplus-value is
exchange-
44 matches
Mail list logo
