Beyond tax cuts and stimulus
Marty Hart-Landsberg in Monthly Review states the issue of trade policy has a larger context than national economies. Reader juan adds his commentary to Marty Hart-Landsberg quotes (lifted from comments and slightly editied for readability):
Most importantly, foreign capital now plays a leading role in the Chinese economy, especially in manufacturing.7 Its activity has transformed China into an export-driven economy: the ratio of exports to GDP climbed from 16 percent in 1990 to over 40 percent in 2006, with the share of foreign produced exports growing from 2 percent in 1985 to 58 percent in 2005 (and 88 percent for high-tech exports).8 Equally noteworthy, the share of total exports being produced by 100 percent foreign-owned firms has also soared.
This restructuring cannot be understood simply through a nation-state lens. Rather, as China’s reforms proceeded over the 1990s, Chinese accumulation dynamics became increasingly dependent on transnational corporate investment and export activity. As a consequence, the Chinese economy became more and more enmeshed in a broader process of East Asian restructuring—one that was driven by the establishment and intensification of transnational, corporate controlled, cross-border production networks, which linked and collectively reshaped all the economies involved. In other words, the Chinese experience, and in particular, its export drive, can only be understood in the context of broader capitalist dynamics.
Chinese exports are really Chinese only in the sense that they were assembled in China. This point is reinforced by the fact that China’s increased share of the U.S. deficit was matched by a decline in the share accounted for by the rest of East Asia.
Juan re-states: It is not so much a question of the US. v China but government that are in dependent partnerships with ‘no-longer-national’ capital — which ultimately boils down to labor v capital, and this capital must control or be the state.
Given decades of class war from above, it is at least slightly more obvious what must be done.
rll said: “Consequently, without the ‘outsourcing of jobs’ the developed nations have little to offer the developing nations in regards to investment and so shifting production back to the advanced nations will almost certainly lead to developing nations putting further restrictions on foreign capital inflows. In the long run this will improve global development because the global net flows will increasingly favor the nations with lower labor costs and this will lead to poor nations catching up, as opposed to sharing a percentage of their financial progress with wealthier nations.”
I had to rewrote it in my mind to simplify, so: “Consequently, without the ‘outsourcing of jobs’ the developed nations have little to offer the developing nations in regards to investment.
So shifting production back to the advanced nations will almost certainly lead to developing nations putting further restrictions on foreign capital inflows.
In the long run this will improve global development because the global net flows will increasingly favor the nations with lower labor costs and this will lead to poor nations catching up, as opposed to sharing a percentage of their financial progress with wealthier nations.”
My first thought was: HuH!? Why would the “have not/less” nations restrict investment from the “haves?” To this novice this flies in the face of common sense and history. Are you sure you want to stay with this conclusion?
rll said: “Consequently, without the ‘outsourcing of jobs’ the developed nations have little to offer the developing nations in regards to investment and so shifting production back to the advanced nations will almost certainly lead to developing nations putting further restrictions on foreign capital inflows.”
I had to rewrite it in my mind to simplify, so: “Consequently, without the ‘outsourcing of jobs’ the developed nations have little to offer the developing nations in regards to investment.
So shifting production back to the advanced nations will almost certainly lead to developing nations putting further restrictions on foreign capital inflows.
In the long run this will improve global development because the global net flows will increasingly favor the nations with lower labor costs and this will lead to poor nations catching up, as opposed to sharing a percentage of their financial progress with wealthier nations.”
My first thought was: HuH!? Why would the “have not/less” nations restrict investment from the “haves?” To this novice this flies in the face of common sense and history. Are you sure you want to stay with this conclusion?
CoRev,
Yep. What began in the late 1990s was a slow decline in the demand for capital investment. In the US for example, before LIAR loans picked up some the demand slack, lenders were out knocking on doors selling 2nd mortgages. Then of course came a push on financial innovations and risk re-pricing has taken on new forms. Greece for example being allowed into the EU on false pretenses is just a subtle way increasing the demand for loans. But that demand is also in decline (see: PIIGS).
The crux of this is, that a fiat currency system allows any nation with a bank to create capital on a keyboard with nothing more than risk pricing as a constraint. This is driving down the demand for exogenous capital as nations expand their in banking systems. The reason is simple, why share the gains with outsiders if that is unnecessary.
In the past though the IMF, and the WTO have frowned on capital controls and etc., and the US has expressly denied capital market restrictions in its bilateral and regional trade agreements… but those efforts have lost traction. Those efforts too provided a type of artificial support for the supply of capital and as nations now have been given the freedom to limit foreign inflows (G-20), the demand for capital must wane further.
Stiglitz has been saying for more than a decade how ludicrous it is for poor nations to lend cheap money to rich nations so that the rich nations could lend the same money back at higher rates. It does make little sense when poor nations have banks that need business, but there has always been an ‘arrangement’ that was based on backed currencies, ex nihilo changed all of that.
The demand for loans has been falling for about 30 quarters now.
Dan
well, my comment required more editing but I was falling asleep
the paragraph following “Juan adds” is also from the linked article.
RIL
yes, china has long had difficulties controlling hot money and yes, it’s develpment strategy has been fdi-dependent which i think was one of the article’s points — i was emphasizing transnationality. In general people still take political and economic borders as identities so miss the contradiction between nation state system and a mode of organization of production and finance which became increasingly anational yet, in the search for subsidies, still finds it profitable to play state against state. This contradiction generates greater global uneveness which can [has] intensify sociopolitical temperatures at national, subnational, ethnic and class levels.
Marty did not bring this out but imo it remains of high importance.
I agree, but in Marty’s defense it is incessantly difficult to draw those lines, it is multi-dimensional-complicated and forever sensitive, I struggle with how far to take it, every day. This week I was accused of being a righty-troll on GRIST, a ‘communist’ on more than one site (common), and on BASELINE a pretending-revolutionary accused me of being a ‘conformist-democrat’, “apologetic” he said, and he found me disappointing because I use terms like ‘plutocrats’ instead of “criminals” and the like. He preferred hyperbole to substance, basically. It’s tough.
Here is some Stiglitz from 2006 to help with context:
“The most hotly contested policy issue of the 1990s was capital market liberalization, opening up markets to the free flow of short-term, hot, speculative money. The IMF even tried to change its charter at its annual meeting in 1997, held in Hong Kong, to enable it to push countries to liberalize.”
And now the capital control issue is treated as a minor issue.
juan,
You made these statements on a previous thread which Dan included in the main post here:
“It is not so much a question of the US. v China but government that are in dependent partnerships with ‘no-longer-national’ capital — which ultimately boils down to labor v capital, and this capital must control or be the state. Given decades of class war from above, it is at least slightly more obvious what must be done.”
What are saying must be done? Please be specific.
Ray, you didn’t answer my question past the, Yep. I understand it is a hyopothetical, but it flies on the face of decades/centuries of history. Wiki makes this point: “Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is a measure of foreign ownership of productive assets, such as factories, mines and land.” That’s what I was thinking when you made your original statement: “Consequently, without the ‘outsourcing of jobs’ the developed nations have little to offer the developing nations in regards to investment.” Obviously, that is not historically one of the initial levels of DFI to under-developed countries.
So, when you made this statment: “developing nations putting further restrictions on foreign capital inflows.” I was thinking of the above efforts of initial DFI. There may be a handful of more developed of the developing countries that may restrict investment to further some internal economic goals, but on the lower scale of developing countries it is not a normal approach. Ofcourse on the lowest level of developing countries there is little foreign investment above charities because they are so corrupt and/or unstable (war torn.) There is always a market for weapons in mpst those countries. Dunno if you can call that a DFI since the cold war ended where it was a common way to develop proxies.
I believe you have made a blanket statement that probably applies in only a very limited subset of developing countries.
Ray, you didn’t answer my question past the, Yep. I understand it is a hypothetical, but it flies on the face of decades/centuries of history. Wiki makes this point: “Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is a measure of foreign ownership of productive assets, such as factories, mines and land.” That’s what I was thinking when you made your original statement: “Consequently, without the ‘outsourcing of jobs’ the developed nations have little to offer the developing nations in regards to investment.” Obviously, that is not historically one of the initial levels of FDI to under-developed countries.
So, when you made this statment: “developing nations putting further restrictions on foreign capital inflows.” I was thinking of the above efforts of initial FDI. There may be a handful of more developed of the developing countries that may restrict investment to further some internal economic goals, but on the lower scale of developing countries it is not a normal approach. Ofcourse on the lowest level of developing countries there is little foreign investment above charities because they are so corrupt and/or unstable (war torn.) There is always a market for weapons in mpst those countries. Dunno if you can call that a FDI since the cold war ended where it was a common way to develop proxies.
I believe you have made a blanket statement that probably applies in only a very limited subset of developing countries.
juan,
You made these statements on a previous thread which Dan included in the main post here:
“It is not so much a question of the US. v China but government that are in dependent partnerships with ‘no-longer-national’ capital — which ultimately boils down to labor v capital, and this capital must control or be the state. Given decades of class war from above, it is at least slightly more obvious what must be done.”
What are you saying must be done? Please be specific.
Here are some more of the “subset” from the FT:
“The latest moves by South Korea and China — not to mention India, Malaysia, Thailand and a swag of other countries — to impose capital or price controls show that the hype over ‘currency wars’ is mutating into a low-intensity battle being waged by countries through a series of unilateral, ‘micro-management’ measures.
In the same week that China announced it would impose price controls to curb inflation comes news that South Korea will reimpose a 14 per cent withholding tax on foreign investors’ earnings from government bonds.
The move, as the FT reports, is just the first of a possible wave of measures aimed at controlling surging capital inflows.”
And then of course Brazil and South Africa are worthy of mention since the WSJ excerpt above only mentioned “Latin America” and “Africa”. So, yea, its a “subset” if that is defined by most of the nations that matter, those with the highest demand for capital (carry trades), and those with the highest growth rates (equities) or both.
Then too of course there are 7 nations in Latin America that are considering a common currency; and the ASEAN+3 group has its own emergency fund arangement. And many of these nations along with Russia and Turkey are setting-up trade deals that exclude the dollar. Lotta subsetting going on.
Blog readers may be interested to know:
The AB main post article by Martin Hart-Landsberg, an anti-capitalist, was published in a socialist publication, ‘Monthly Review’, which has been in existence since 1947.
The Monthly Review takes great pride in opposing capitalism and playing a major role in such opposition as evidenced in its publication description whereby it states, “From the first Monthly Review spoke for socialism and against U.S. imperialism, and is still doing so today. In the subsequent global upsurge against capitalism, imperialism and the commodification of life (in shorthand “1968”) Monthly Review played a global role.”
A subscriber or reviewer states, “Monthly Review can show an impressive record of committed left publishing. Through the thick and thin of American politics it has continued to carry the standard of thoughtful and critical radicalism. International in scope, it has combined the best of the old left with creative insights of new social movements.” — SHEILA ROWBOTHAM.
Hart-Landsberg, the author of the article cited in the Angry Bear main post, is anti-capitalist who is a supporter of what he calls the “worker-community-centered economy.” Hart-Landsberg is at best a utopic-socialist, Marxist, new communist thinker along the lines of the Communist Party USA, anarcho-populist, or whatever hybrid model of such ideologies as he may represent.
The International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) stated, “Despite their professed Marxism, Hart-Landsberg and Burkett’s outlook amounts to a form of anarcho-populism. Their notion of a “worker-community-centered economy” has an affinity with the classic program of a federation of politically autonomous and economically largely self-sufficient communes associated with the 19th-century anarchist adventurer Mikhail Bakunin.”
In one published article, Hart-Landsberg and a co-author wrote, “Not only do we disagree with those progressives who view China as a development model (whether socialist or not), we think the process by which they arrived at this position highlights an even more serious problem: the progressive community’s general rejection of Marxism.”
And Hart-Lansberg and his co-author also wrote, “Human development in the Marxist view does not simply get floated up on a sea of productive forces and consumer goods produced by capital, but rather occurs largely in and through the class struggle—understood (even while capitalism still rules, as well as after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat) as a long struggle for the de-alienation of all the conditions of production.”
The International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) also remarked on the Monthly Review, stating, “It is, as they say, no accident that “China and Socialism” was first published in Monthly Review. This has long been the main journal of American left-wing intellectuals of Maoist persuasion or sympathies going back to the 1960s when its leading figure was Paul Sweezy. Sweezy asserted that “the experience of the Chinese Revolution…has shown that a low level of development of productive forces is not an insuperable obstacle to the socialist transformation of social relations” (Monthly Review, November 1974).”
The International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) further explained that “Socialism, the lower stage of communism, presumes a classless, egalitarian society based on material abundance. The notion that socialism can be achieved in one country is profoundly anti-Marxist. Socialism demands an internationally planned economy in order to direct productive resources on a global scale. In reality, “socialism in […]
Blog readers may be interested to know:
The AB main post article by Martin Hart-Landsberg, an anti-capitalist, was published in a socialist publication, ‘Monthly Review’, which has been in existence since 1947.
The Monthly Review takes great pride in opposing capitalism and playing a major role in such opposition as evidenced in its publication description whereby it states, “From the first Monthly Review spoke for socialism and against U.S. imperialism, and is still doing so today. In the subsequent global upsurge against capitalism, imperialism and the commodification of life (in shorthand “1968”) Monthly Review played a global role.”
A subscriber or reviewer states, “Monthly Review can show an impressive record of committed left publishing. Through the thick and thin of American politics it has continued to carry the standard of thoughtful and critical radicalism. International in scope, it has combined the best of the old left with creative insights of new social movements.” — SHEILA ROWBOTHAM.
Hart-Landsberg, the author of the article cited in the Angry Bear main post, is anti-capitalist who is a supporter of what he calls the “worker-community-centered economy.” Hart-Landsberg is at best a utopic-socialist, Marxist, new communist thinker along the lines of the Communist Party USA, anarcho-populist, or whatever hybrid model of such ideologies as he may represent.
The International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) stated, “Despite their professed Marxism, Hart-Landsberg and Burkett’s outlook amounts to a form of anarcho-populism. Their notion of a “worker-community-centered economy” has an affinity with the classic program of a federation of politically autonomous and economically largely self-sufficient communes associated with the 19th-century anarchist adventurer Mikhail Bakunin.”
In one published article, Hart-Landsberg and a co-author wrote, “Not only do we disagree with those progressives who view China as a development model (whether socialist or not), we think the process by which they arrived at this position highlights an even more serious problem: the progressive community’s general rejection of Marxism.”
And Hart-Lansberg and his co-author also wrote, “Human development in the Marxist view does not simply get floated up on a sea of productive forces and consumer goods produced by capital, but rather occurs largely in and through the class struggle—understood (even while capitalism still rules, as well as after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat) as a long struggle for the de-alienation of all the conditions of production.”
The International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) also remarked on the Monthly Review, stating, “It is, as they say, no accident that “China and Socialism” was first published in Monthly Review. This has long been the main journal of American left-wing intellectuals of Maoist persuasion or sympathies going back to the 1960s when its leading figure was Paul Sweezy. Sweezy asserted that “the experience of the Chinese Revolution…has shown that a low level of development of productive forces is not an insuperable obstacle to the socialist transformation of social relations” (Monthly Review, November 1974).”
The International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) further explained that “Socialism, the lower stage of communism, presumes a classless, egalitarian society based on material abundance. The notion that socialism can be achieved in one country is profoundly anti-Marxist. Socialism demands an internationally planned economy in order to direct productive resources on a global […]
Ray, so you have no real response. Ciao.
Dan, MG has a point. There appears to be a recent leftward shift in the articles selected. Wazzup?
Hart-Landsberg’s so-called nation-state argument is significantly flawed. Hart-Landsberg fails to mention any of the changes in trade policy that resulted in the massive global shift of production to China. His explanation skips right over those facts as if they didn’t exist and have any bearing on what unfolded. This is an absurd oversight, and it’s one that appears to be intentional.
GATT transitioned into the WTO model and President Clinton signed off on the WTO agreement as well as the most favored nation trading status bill for China, the accords of which have led to the record trade deficits experienced throughout this decade. China was subsequently granted membership in the WTO and it was off to the race to the bottom. The outcomes were predictable though the economics field has a significant number of denialists, many of whom have since gone into silent mode.
Hart-Landsberg, in essence, pretends that the lowering of the trade barrier gates played no major role in the global production shift. Nothing could be further from the truth. But highlighting or detailing the role of the changes in trade policy would have undermined his primary and substantial attack on corporate interests.
so mg
you do not favor economic democracy, lets say a system in which workers are managers or, more simply, worker management [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers’_self-management] ? Or do you not see that, as a political economic system, capitalism has limits beyond which it transforms from progressive to barbaric and more than policy changes are required to overcome this ?
ruling classes become unfit to rule, esp after having been captured by a class existing on/for the exploitation of others no matter that their struggle to maximize profit forces the composition of capital up and avg rate of profit down…no matter they are unable to see past the micro and committ endless fallacy of composition founded in neoclassical econ’s own axioms.
If you in fact understood the capital system, you would as well understand its dependence on labor on one hand and need to eliminate just that which it depends on on the other,,,a fairly central contradiction which brings about progressively more difficult overaccumulation crises and negation of policy options, which is especially the case given the greater incongruence between national states and anational capital during this latest phase of ‘globalization’.
having such seeming fascination with the fourth international, you may have noticed this organization called the 70s crises in advance even as mainstream economists remained trapped in their myths of having conquered the cycle.
– ‘by means of appropriately reinforcing monetary and fiscal policies, our mixed-enterprise system can avoid the excesses of boom and slump and look forward to healthy progressive growth’. [samuelson]
– ‘full employment should now be regarded as an institutional feature of the British economy’. [harrod]
– ‘It has often been said that a crisis such as the Great Depression could no longer take place today, given the progress made in techniques of state countercyclical intervention. These claims, presumptuous as they may seem, are not without foundation.’[stoleru]
–
‘[R]evolutionary Marxists … have provided an overall analysis of the causes of the long period of imperialist expansion consistent with general Marxist theory….
This Marxist analysis reached three conclusions: first, that the essential motor forces of this long-term expansion would progressively exhaust themselves, in this way setting off a more and more marked intensification of interimperialist competition; secondly, that the deliberate application of Keynesian antirecessionary techniques would step up the worldwide inflation and constant erosion of the buying power of currencies, finally producing a very grave crisis in the international monetary system; thirdly, that these two factors in conjunction wuld give rise to increasing limited recessions, inclining the course of economic development toward a general recession of the imperialist economy. This general recession would certainly differ from the great depression of 1929-32 both in extent and duration. Nonetheless, it would strike all the imperialist countries and considerably exceed the recessions of the last twenty years. Two of these predictions have come true. The third promises to do so in the seventies.’ [World Congress of the Fourth International: Documents, Intercontinental Press vol. 7 no. 26, 14 July 1969]
and not just the 70s but also the rise of global finanance capitals + serial social and monetary crises ===== but then why pay attention to methods […]
well mg
given that i mentioned the fourth international, i should let you know this was/ is not
the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist).
oh yeah sweezy had nothing to do with maoism but emphasied monopoly and stagnation – seems he was also an analyst for the oss
Ray, you made a blanket statement that is patently untrue. No amount of rationalization changes that fact.
Your statements: “ “Consequently, without the ‘outsourcing of jobs’ the developed nations have little to offer the developing nations in regards to investment.”
My respnse after showing the Wiki definition of Foreign Direct Iinvestment (FDI): “Obviously, that is not historically one of the initial levels of FDI to under-developed countries.” Which typically take the forms of “foreign ownership of productive assets, such as factories, mines and land.”
YOu then concluded from that first statement: “So shifting production back to the advanced nations will almost certainly lead to developing nations putting further restrictions on foreign capital inflows.” When challenged you listed a subset of G20 and little G20 nations. The “advanced” to “developing well” nations in which you dmitted: “So, yea, its a “subset” if that is defined by most of the nations that matter, those with the highest demand for capital (carry trades), and those with the highest growth rates (equities) or both.”
To summarize, I made a point that your “blanket statment” did not hold with history and definitions of Foreign Direct Investment. You finally made the admission that you were talking about a subset of nations. You finally make claims that I am disrespectful, (for challenging you obviously untrue blanket statement), then make these actually disrespectful remarks: “…you seem to have chosen to hate environmentalists the most, and so I suppose that explains a great deal. Mental no doubt. But you and the other cheap-shot ass-talkers here are really hurting this site.”
All of this anger because I challenged one of your exaggerated points.
Sheesh!!!!
Sigh!
Yes, of course, when the distortions have been outed, and the only recourse is to redefine your actual “challenge”, but when that can only be done by admitting that most everything that you have said was disingenuous from the start, what is left but the lowest form of unsupported claims, the “Sigh!”
Cowardly. But predictable. You had nothing to say in the first place. The fact that the demand for cross-border capital is waning is widely known and the 2 articles that I provided made the increase of capital controls undeniable. And of course you made a confused reference to history but I also provided more than ample evidence that the rules have changed, which is strenghened by each of the provided articles.
So you were caught talking out of your lower-hole and now you pretend that you still have a “challenge” but, by implication, I am too stupid to understand it. Well, I’m calling you a liar, and an idiot, and a coward, so if you have a “challenge”, either try to explain what that is, in terms that are axiomatic, or the aforementioned insults stand by default.
And I repeat, with so much injustice in the world, and with so many evil groups to despise, what sort of sick puke puts so much effort and energy into the undermining of environmentalists ? A certain type of coward perhaps? Interesting stuff. Show me some “challenge”!!!
juan,
I am a American capitalist who is very familiar with and supportive of the capitalism economic system of free enterprise.
I assume that you are not a capitalist based on your words. If you don’t mind my question, what are your beliefs? Are you a socialist, Marxist, communist, or a hybrid of such ideologies?
juan,
The Paul Sweezy quote cited by the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) is taken directly from the November 1974 issue of Monthly Review.
A simple Google of ‘Paul Sweezy and Maoism’ does not support your opinion that Paul Sweezy “had nothing to do with maoism”. Your claim appears to be without merit.
juan,
As I asked upthread:
It is not so much a question of the US. v China but government that are in dependent partnerships with ‘no-longer-national’ capital — which ultimately boils down to labor v capital, and this capital must control or be the state. Given decades of class war from above, it is at least slightly more obvious what must be done.”
What are you saying must be done? Please be specific.
—–
After reading follow up remarks at December 13, 2010, 3:18:24 AM, I ask:
Can you be more specific considering that believe that it is “slightly more obvious what must be done”?
Are you recommending an abandonment of the capitalism system in the United States and elsewhere? If so, what is your recommended sustitute economic system?
MG – What are you saying must be done? Please be specific.
As I posted: at bare minimum in the u.s., something on the order of what was done at semco — http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Expert-Voices/Ricardo-Semler-Set-Them-Free/ — and then read ricardo semler’s first book, ‘maverick…’, recognizing that workplace democracy does not stay in the workplace but carries into and improves everyday life. very moderate, much less so if we become still more like where i was in central america . – Read the article, read the book ,, hell, at least read the post and try to consider it from other than a one sided perpective
Am I recommending the abandonment of capitalism in the U.S.?
As I posted: Capitalism has limits beyond which it transforms from progressive to barbaric and more than policy changes are required to overcome this. Yes, systems end even those taken as infinite, or do you not think anything better is possible ? Have you not noticed the last 40 years.
oh yeah [the late paul] sweezy had nothing to do with maoism but emphasied monopoly and stagnation
– by which is meant that he was not Maoist even though hr did “champion 3’rd world revolutions” and did not think the u.s. working class competent to bring about socialism. He is better known for writtings on monopoly and stagnation, a fair amount of which seems to have derived from post-keynsians like josef steindl, not marxists.
Are you a socialist, Marxist, communist, or a hybrid of such ideologies?
I would say marxist if i knew what that was, so best say hybrid or eclectic but founded in personal experience and thereafter marx;s writtings.
There was nothing to be learned by your repeating previous statements. I was seeking more detail, not a repetition.
juan – “As I posted: at bare minimum in the u.s., …”
What about beyond the “bare minimum”?
If you believe that capitalism is not the economic system to use, what is your recommended sustitute economic system?” Socialism? Marxism whatever? Communism? What?
I think it’s safe to say that you’re a Marxist.
I was seeking more detail, not a repetition of youre previous statements.
juan – “As I posted: at bare minimum in the u.s., …”
What about beyond the “bare minimum”?
If you believe that capitalism is not the economic system to use, what is your recommended substitute economic system?” Socialism? Marxism whatever? Communism? What?
I think it’s safe to say that you’re a Marxist.
I was seeking more detail, not a repetition of your previous statements.
juan – “As I posted: at bare minimum in the u.s., …”
What about beyond the “bare minimum”?
If you believe that capitalism is not the economic system to use, what is your recommended substitute economic system?” Socialism? Marxism whatever? Communism? What?
I think it’s safe to say that you’re a Marxist.
Not me. He doesn’t mention guillotines.
Not, me I prefer the rope.
The defense of capital these days requires trillions in newly printed money lent at zero interest, and further six tenths of a trillion lent by treasury with a slight interest payment touted as profit to the taxpayers so that the light poles in mid town Manhattan are not all gibbets adorned with the decomposing carcasses of wall street con artists.
He don’t recoomned firing squads either.
He don’t recommend firing squads either.
sweezy did support third world revolutions, which was far from being a maoist. he remains best known for his work on monopoly and stagnation.
– What are you saying must be done? Please be specific.
that was answered in my post — at bare minimum in the u.s., something on the order of what was done at semco — http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Expert-Voices/Ricardo-Semler-Set-Them-Free/ — and then read ricardo semler’s first book, ‘maverick…’, recognizing that workplace democracy does not stay in the workplace but carries into and modifies everyday life. This very moderate, not quick, not entirely sufficient step would work against bureaucratic centralism and development of state capitalism.
If you don’t mind my question, what are your beliefs? Are you a socialist, Marxist, communist, or a hybrid of such ideologies?
some combination of ‘marxist’ and council communist.
MG
I am a American capitalist who is very familiar with and supportive of the capitalism economic system of free enterprise.
being a capitalist, even one with the best of company planning, can interfere with a grasp of the system as a whole.
Aside from that, What do you mean by ‘free enterprise’? Have you not noticed this ‘free enterprise’ increased dependence upon state mediated subsidies, and not only the last few years and not only in the u.s. — without tax credits, direct and indirect subsidies, accounting gimmicks based on options, etc., a large number of these free enterprises would in fact be freely failed; they are superficial examples of the capital system’s inability to perpetuate itself on its own basis.
The whole neoliberal project begun moreless mid 1970s has been an attempt to lower costs, liberalize trade, appropriate publicly funded industries at fractions of their value,,,,,,,privatization, rationalization, greater rates of exploitation of labor, magnificently large M&A waves indicative of greater concentration/centralization, greater debt service, weakened social infrastructure, expanded rural unemployment and urban migration, have provided decade by decade slowing gdp at national and global levels [this last based on work done for oecd by Angus McFadden] — what, for capital, should have overcome the long slowing merely perpetuated it,,,
maggy thatcher’s dictum “there is no alternative’ [to the free market] has by now been proven wrong while marxists’ analysis of overaccumulation crisis, weak avg rate of profit, credit dependency, sectoral disproportionality [think production of means of destruction which, after a few turnovers, disrupts the relation between production of means of production and production of means of consumption] has been proven correct.
emphasis on trade [ much of which has become no more than internal transfer] neglects the centrality of the direct process of production, without which what would be traded?. Trade as such creates no value but can play a role in unequal echange [at base, the exchage of more labor for less] between different corners of the world == areas can drained even as they grow, from which a form of immiserizing growth.
We hear that China is the future but look closely at its real levels of unemployment, that can’t be solved through a partnering of state and transnational capital.
You request a detailed plan yet i have only a portion of such and even that must be subject to democratic decision — the plan you request is no single persons but must develop out of the revolutionary process.
MG,
I won’t go into Teddy Roosevelt’s famous reply to a dogmatic heckler from the caboose of his campaign train………………………
MG,
Deomcratic process. Oligarchy, rising.
You confuse capitalism with the caste system, easy for us pampered members of the warrior caste.
That is why you fear the “revolutionary process.”
MG,
Deomcratic process. Oligarchy, rising.
You confuse capitalism with the caste system, easy for us pampered members of the warrior caste.
That is why you fear the “revolutionary process.”
You could read some Marx, a Heilbroner history.
ILSM, not you too! Are you admitting you are a Marxist?
And to put it out there, discussion of economic theory is quite American. Even unpopular ones.
Dan, unpopular? How about discredited, marxism and socialism? It appears those who believe in either/both feel capitalism is also discredited? History shows otherwise.
Dan, unpopular? How about discredited, marxism and socialism? It appears those who believe in either/both feel capitalism is also discredited? History shows otherwise.
BTW, OT, but Js-Kit seems especially hosed today.
Like Gandhi I change my mind when I get new ‘facts’.
It is easier to not be some label. Labels make one beholden to old ideas and sticking up for fallacious facts.
Not a marxists (interesting you capitalize marxist), I have too much money in the bank.
I lost no money in the melt down, got a hint and moved out of mutuals [too?] early.
I am certain I am not a fascist.
Lefties tend to multiply every time Wall St con artists types need hanging.
“How about discredited, marxism and socialism?”
Waiting for Peoples’ Republic to collapse.
How about Sweden? How about Germany? How about Canada?
Wall St is discredited. See above how many trillions for ‘life support’
BTW where are the tea partiers on tax cuts for the rich? Mc Connell Obama compromise?
All quiet among the tea partiers, what no direction from FOX talking heads?
I don’t watch TV except for football.
Ah well…when I posted Gavin Kennedy’s revisionist essays on Adam Smith no one objected. (On the ubiqutous invisible hand idea, among others, and local national economies) Adam Smith by slogan isn’t especially useful either in this day and age.
I still can’t see how the notions of capital flows and dependent nation status isn’t relevant. We talk about such all the time in other language. There are of course some issues less amenable to corporate control that nations provide. A lot of moving parts.
China may or may not succeed in its transformation to something, and in ten years we might see big changes again in how they do business. I fail to see how they can absorb a relatively large middle class without letting go of such tight state control. They may or may not do so…some predict increased state nationalization.
ILSM, that was a long way around the barn to answer a Y/N question. I inadvertently capitalized Marx. Y’ano the man’s name from which it is called.
ILSM said: “Waiting for Peoples’ Republic to collapse.
How about Sweden? How about Germany? How about Canada? “
How far does it need to move toward demand markets/capitalism before you admit it has collapsed or taken on the bvenefits of capitalism? Kind of a significant move for a Marxist country.
Sweden: “Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits.
…
Despite strong finances and underlying fundamentals, the Swedish economy slid into recession in the third quarter of 2008 and growth continued downward in the first half of 2009 as deteriorating global conditions reduced export demand and consumption.”
From the CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html
BTW, Sweden is NOT part of the EU.
Germany: Germans, some of the most driven peopole in the world. Nuff siad.
Canada: Little US with a modicum of europe (UK & France). “The 1989 US-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (which includes Mexico) touched off a dramatic increase in trade and economic integration with the US, its principal trading partner. Canada enjoys a substantial trade surplus with the US, which absorbs nearly 80% of Canadian exports each year. Canada is the US’s largest foreign supplier of energy, including oil, gas, uranium, and electric power.”
Also from the CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html
Regretably, every other country is compared against the number 1 economy of the world. You do know who that is?
ilsm,
I am a capitalist and I haven’t confused capitalism with anything. Period.
I have no idea whether you’re really a capitalist or whatever else based on your anti-this and anti-that writings.
Dan – “And to put it out there, discussion of economic theory is quite American. Even unpopular ones.”
Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 7:53:56 AM
Dan – “Ah well…when I posted Gavin Kennedy’s revisionist essays on Adam Smith no one objected. (On the ubiqutous invisible hand idea, among others, and local national economies) Adam Smith by slogan isn’t especially useful either in this day and age.”
Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 12:16:08 PM
The two posts reflecting the views of Michael Hudson and Martin Hart-Landsberg were posted without any disclosure. From appearances, the two main posts weren’t exercises in economic theory discussions. Rather, the authors’ viewpoints were posted on the Angry Bear blog as if they are mainstream presentations. That is hardly the case with either author’s viewpoint.
Martin Hart-Landsberg is a Marxist and anti-capitalist which many readers may not know. Hart-Landsberg’s conclusions were anti-capitalist, certainly off the mainstream American map in that regard. Meanwhile, Hudson pretends that the United States doesn’t allow interests in China to invest in the United States when, in fact, it’s the Chinese communist government that clings to its state-owned company model which has caused problems with attempting acquisitions in the USA.
It’s unfortunate any time a reader has to give pause in the absence of a blog disclaimer and determine whether the authors being cited in main posts are capitalists or supporters of other economic systems and beliefs.
There is one more point. There is the issue of capitalism vs other forms of economic systems and readership following. At present, it appears that Angry Bear is attracting participants not only dissatisfied with current economic conditions, but capitalism in general. These include people who seek capitalism’s replacement as an economic system. It appears that Angry Bear is becoming a place where a standoff will occur between capitalists and others supporting different economic models and ideologies. Yet the blog’s slogan is ‘Slightly left of center economic commentary on news, politics, and the economy’.
Jack posted the following comment on the Open thread Dec. 11, 2010. I am reposting here as Jack has made statements that I believe are not longer correct. I have so advised Jack on the Open Thread.
Jack said:
“MG,
I’m sorry to disillusion you, but there are no marxists that are getting any air time here or else where in America. Some commenters may identify themselves as left of center, as liberal, as socialist, etc, but none of their comments has even the slightest odor of socialism. What you’re reading as marxist is simply other people’s view of what good and responsible government in a democracy should look like. Holding businesses and individuals accountable for the consequences of their actions on the lives of others is not socialism, but good government of any kind. It is no different from those actions of our government that are taken inorder to assure the success of various sectors of our economy. The Too Big to Fail Bank bailout was a huge government investment in saving the fraudulent asses of the financial industry. Was that an indication of a socialist government? I don’t think so. The only indications of any socialist behavior in the good old USofA is when our government or its elected officials is looking out for the financial interests of its high society citizens. I’m rather surprised that a Federal judge has decided that the government can’t force individuals to buy health insurance from private health insurance companies. That provision was a perfect example of socialist medling in the free market, but it only advantaged the private marketeers.”
Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 2:49:23 PM
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/12/open-thread-dec-11-2010.html#comments
Dan – “I still can’t see how the notions of capital flows and dependent nation status isn’t relevant. We talk about such all the time in other language.”
I didn’t notice that anyone said that those issues weren’t relevant.
The recommendations by Hart-Landsberg aren’t in the ballpark of reality if you and others believe in capitalism, and the presentation by Michael Hudson is equally misleading.
The United States isn’t dependent on China out of necessity, rather by choice. No one forced President Clinton to sign off on WTO and China’s most favored nation trading status. And under Bush II, the United States could have objected to China’s membership application to join the WTO.
The U.S. could have balanced trade with China if a few issues were forced to conclusion. Similarly, no one made U.S. corporations shift production and R&D facilities to China, rather the Congress and WTO set up rules that made such transitions that much easier and more profitable.
I don’t see the USA-China relationship as being mandatory or fully dependent in any sense from the U.S. perspective. A few changes in the trade rules and currency movement by China would cause a likely shift in production sourcing to other countries. Moreover, China is snapping up market share elsewhere in the world. The dependent argument may not hold water over the long term. Things can change.
juan,
I have had the good fortune to live and work in a number of nations. I never say an economic system that I preferred over capitalism. Not even close.
I would like to see capitalism as practicied in the United States further improved with better trade policy and stronger management ethics.
There is no realistic expectation in my opinion that capitalism will be displaced by another economic system in the U.S. during the remainder of my lifetime.
I thank you for your honesty in your discussions. Appreciated.
juan,
I have had the good fortune to live and work in a number of nations. I never observed an economic system that I preferred over capitalism. Not even close.
I would like to see capitalism as practicied in the United States further improved with better trade policy and stronger management ethics.
There is no realistic expectation in my opinion that capitalism will be displaced by another economic system in the U.S. during the remainder of my lifetime.
I thank you for your honesty in your discussions. Appreciated
MG,
Why do you label a person?
I am a cogitating being.
You do know who that is?
You mean the declining one, trending toward banana republic status, owned by oligarchs, saddled with huge debt, crumbling infrastructure and beholden to a huge leech of a war machine which has no use, other than plunder its homeland.
What is there left to defend? The beltway crowd and the billionaires? The flow of oil to creditors, the hide of royals funding terrists,
Billionaires who threaten to leave if the tax rates rise.
I think you suggest the Honduras wannabe.
CoRev,
“You do know who that is? ”
You mean the declining one, trending toward banana republic status, owned by oligarchs, saddled with huge debt, trillions printed to bail out the gamblers who run the money system, crumbling infrastructure and beholden to a huge leech of a war machine which has no use, other than plunder its own homeland.
What is there left to defend? The beltway crowd and the billionaires? The flow of oil to creditors, the hides of Muslim royals funding terrists?
Billionaires who threaten to leave if the tax rates rise.
I think you suggest the Honduras wannabe.
Hey MG,
Are you a [John] Bircher?
Running a witch hunt on Angry Bear?
This is not the US Senate and I doubt you are from Wisconsin.
Declining? What i see is the other nations rising and we stable. Wasn’t that the overall goal of the globalization effort? What would it look like with success of the left’s goal, one world-government?
With the success of our policies starting with the Marshall Plan, there has been a great leveling and sharing of the overall world’s economic outputs. That’s bad?
We have a strangle hold on several world products, even today. One is that which you forever denigrate. Maybe it’s time we start to charge/charge more for that policing we provide gratis today.
MG
I am glad that you’ve re-posted my comment on this more recent thread. That very long list of links to commie pinko ideologues is only a long list and tells us nothing of the traffic those sites attract. Frankly I’ve never heard of any of them. Anyone can create a blog. Even I have one, but I can’t recall name and so I can’t even log to the blog, so to speak. I’d guess no one else ever did. Who has a public voice that can be widely heard and that espouses socialism? Even Chomsky doesn’t spend time preaching alternative economic ideologies, but instead critiques the rapacious behavior of governments. Most just happen to be corporatist. And that’s really the problem. It isn’t a battle against capitalism which, given a reasonable degree of legislative control, could be satisfactory as an economic structure. The problem is rapacious greed on the part of corporatist flacks and the avaricious greed of the One Percent club members.
All of this is opinion, yours mine and the others. Open your eyes and understand that if your not in the club then you’re just one of the serfs playing into the schemes of those in control of our economy for their own benefit, not yours. You serve a function and you’ll be tossed aside when that function is no longer beneficial to the vassal.
“Declining?” Yes, in our life time, especially the past 30 years when we should have been leading growth. Rate of GDP growth declining is one example. I have been introduced to the writings of Fredric Bastiat, through Mises and see the follie of military Keynesianism. Empire that bleeds the mother country, US is going toward bankrupt empire like Great Britain in 1945.
“Wasn’t that the overall goal of the globalization effort?” I am not sure the goal, it (NAFTA) was initiated under Clinton and bumbled under Bush, two diverse policies implementing differing world views (maybe). US has always split on “protectionsim” goes back to 1812, was a cause among agrarian secessionists 150 years ago.
“What would it look like with success of the left’s goal, one world-government?” I am not a fan of ‘one world-government’ I suppose I am not thinking like the left on that.
We agree on this: “Maybe it’s time we start to charge/charge more for that policing we provide gratis today.”
The war machine needs to stop pillaging the US tax payer and bring in some spoils from abroad.
Maybe set up a toll booth in the Straits of Hormuz. Maybe tariff finished goods from Persian Gulf oil importers like Korea, Singapore, Japan and China? Maybe put a special surcharge on gasoline and diesel motor fuels in the US and EU to pay for the next generation aircraft carriers and F-35, as well as operating the US military.
Just how does the US ween its war machine from pillaging its declining economy?
MG,
Thank you as well.
I also have lived in a few other nations though only Latin America after having worked for what at the time was called a multinational corp.
Experience with a wide variety of ‘actors’ in one of these nations provided questions which , I, a moderate conservative, could not satisfactorily answer and which most people at state wanted to ignore [or were ignorant of]. So began the turn — some formal, some not but encompassing a fair number of 20th century marxists as well as Walras, Fisher, Keynes, Robinson, even von Mises and Hayek…
Anyway, and as you’ve noticed, there is such wide variety of marxist tendencies that asking whether someone is ‘a marxist’ is a questionable question.
I have no idea what either you or CoRev mean by the term but suspect it to be something closer to USSR style state capitalism even though it has more to do with analytic method, definitions, philosophy of internal relations, is not strictly economic or political but social.
State capitalism; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
which is very distinct from the ‘society of free and associated producers’ which Marx seemed to envision.
AJ
Juan was at least honest enough to acknowledge that he is Marxist and colonial communist and I respect him for that.
Not ‘colonial communist’ but council communist. The Wiki entry contains a few errors yet suffices –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism
True.
Not ‘colonial communist’ but council communist.
True. My error.
ilsm,
Obviously you didn’t read the entire thread.
Jack,
Your main claim wasn’t accurate. You should know that at this point. This main post and thread dismiss your assertion. And the small sample of websites provided above shouldn’t be simply dismissed. You can watch some of the demonstrations at colleges and communities, and it doesn’t take long to know that there are, on occasion, individuals who are anti-capitalists among other anti-whatever causes they may support. I expect the number of dissenters will increase over the next few years.
There are situations in which you have no idea what ideology a person is supporting when you meet a stranger whether in your community or on a blog. All you can do is observe what the individual says. If the individual is willing to state his ideology, then you can have a conversation based on that level of awareness.
That’s pretty much the bottom line.
MG,
Dismiss what you please. Again, it’s little more than your opinion which is shaped by your ideological prejudice. I’m unconcerned about any individual’s stated economic ideology. I’m only concerned about the means by which a government, our government, shapes and controls the economic activities that take place under its auspicies. Our laws allow for a capitalist econonomic structure. That doesn’t equal an unbridaled laissez-faire free for all. The business world is a pit, a turbulent sea within which the sharks are most likely to survive. That’s not human social order as befits a free and democratic society. Corporate America and its wealthiest owners control our elected officals to an obscene degree and we are reading of the economic results on a daily basis for the past three decades and more. The circumstances are getting worse for the vast majority of our workers who form the majority of the adult population. Our economy can do nothing but follow that trend into greater and greater deficiency. If that pleases you I assure you that it does not please those who are seeing their ability to earn a living wage crumble and the services of their government deminish. That’s capitalism without control. No, the alterantive need not be socialsim. It need only be a responsible government providing limitations on the greed and misbehavior of our titans of industry and their sychophants in the government, the media and the courts.
“Capitalism isn’t perfect, but neither is U.S. trade policy.”
Is that a serious statement? Are you suggesting that one is separate from another, that our trade policy is determined independently of major corporate political donors? If so, I’d suggest that you come out of the drunken stupor you must be in. There is no distinction between US capitalist ideology and US trade policy. One is determined by the other. Corporate America wasn’t playing catch up in China. Our corporate driven government leaders were leading the charge to cheap labor. Nixon and Kissinger were in China for just that reason. Peter Peterson and I think Donald Rumsfeld were at their elbows.
Here’s an interesting link to a description of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Look at the several lists of members. See if you can find any name not intimately attached to US corporatism and capitalism. Sell out is the name of the game.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cYgM45DRkNsJ:www.scribd.com/doc/29338152/Council-on-Foreign-Relations-Brochure+p+peterson+d+rumsfeld+kissinger+in+china&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Jack,
You really miss the point.
All nations have some form of trade policy regardless of their economic system.
There is a major difference between U.S. capitalism as an economic system operating in the USA and the underlying trade policy that governs enterprise in the nation. U.S. trade policy is broken down into its primary elements, domestic and international. U.S. trade policy is governed by mandates in law. Those laws are passed by the U.S. Congress, all representatives of which are elected by citizens, not corporations and companies, of the United States of America.
U.S. trade policy is supposed to be undertaken in such fashion as to improve the standards of living of its citizens as well as improve business operating conditions.
Now, do you want to complain about U.S. domestic trade policy? If so, lay it out.
If you want to complaint about U.S. international trade policy, lay it out. This is where my focus has been for years.
You said that “Corporate America wasn’t playing catch up in China”. While I didn’t specificallly address that issue, I doubt that you can build a sound case to support your contention.
Look at my example in my previous comment. You didn’t touch that situation which is central to one of my arguments.
There were many U.S.-based companies and corporations that had no interest in moving production offshore as far back as the 1980s. The difficulties in operating offshore were well known and the model wasn’t a good fit for many companies and corporations. But once U.S. trade policy was changed significantly during the mid ’90s, avoiding offshore moves was increasingly difficult. The handwriting was on the wall. Those companies and corporations that didn’t shift much of their production offshore, particularly to China and subsequently India were at a major production cost disadvantage. These are simple facts.
So, no, I don’t view the U.S. capitalism system and U.S. trade policy as one and the same. If people aren’t willing to make the distinction, then the howling is directed solely at U.S. companies and corporations. Well, that doesn’t change a thing. The dissatisfaction with U.S. trade policy should be directed at the Administration and U.S. Congress. The Congress is the body that can change U.S. trade policy.
So, you can complain about the corporations, but that doesn’t change U.S. trade policy. You’re directing energy at the wrong end of the stick.