Re: [A-List] Re: Return to an old standard

["Gary Santos" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Melvin,

I shall, of course, defer to your history. Mine was obviously drawn partly
from emotion and the thought that no system today offers the equity we all
seek. We might start off with a revolution, in thought and in deed, but, so
far, it has always led to that level of inequity that leads all of us to
start
asking "Why" just as all of us have done.

The starting line is always bent just as there are those who are smarter
than others or stronger than others or who are more industrious than others.
And, Melvin, I think we speak of wealth in the same sense. I spoke in the
micro while the wealth you speak of it in a much larger sense.

Wealth tends to accumulate to those who know how to accumulate it. The
Chinese, out of centuries of experience have a saying, that wealth does not
stay in a family for more than three generations. And, because of these
premises, I tend to think that the discussion here, if we are again to look
for that magic economic general theory, lacks one dimension -- a discussion
of the philosophical basis for the economics. It was not always so that
ethics was a discipline separate from economics. Indeed, economics was "the
attendant and handmaiden" of ethics prior to the advent of Humanism.
Perhaps, if the past ten generations were not so afflicted with being
centered on itself, the present market system of entrpreneurs would have
done a job towards wealth distribution far exceeding any system before it.

Which bring us to hegemony. It seems to me that the exploitative aspect of
using the dollar as the world currency is not inherent. And, we can go back
to Bretton Woods as, yes, that is the history of using the dollar as the
"swing" currency. What makes the hegemony and trade exploitative to the
working man is the "value for value" exchange when exports are exchanged for
US dollars. It is exploitative because the value of foreign labor is small
compared to the value of US labor -- manifested in the exchange rate. Not
that this is entirely the US's machinations for, after all, Japan, Korea,
China, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, etc. all competed amongst
each other for investment and trade. And, certainly, not that this hegemony
and globalization has had no ill effects
on the US given all the complaints on a weakened US manufacturing sector and
loss of IT jobs to India and the like. There is a strategic weakness being
created here if prolonged for decades.

No, the hegemony did not start out exploitative. It is presently
exploitative but the exploitation, I submit, was due to a confluence of
events rather than the result of some cunning, sinister design. Certainly,
the complicity of all these exporting countries' central banks mitigate the
guilt of the exploiter, don't you think? I figure, it started sometime in
the late 1970's when the export development strategy came into being. Before
that there was protectionism, import substitution and government
industrialization as the paradigm for development -- with the attendant
accumulation of debt of the era.

On debt, I still can not accept the unlimited borrowing capacity of the
hegemony. There appears to be a good case for an indefinite accumulation, I
have to admit. But, my sense tells me that deficits are planting the seeds
of its destruction. The accumulation of debt is a reckoning that will have
to be
paid. By the nature of its use, money represents an accumulated saving of
prior work. To create it out of thin air only serves to debase its value.

On labor and technology, I would think that the labor eliminating technology
started not with robotics, etc. but with the Industrial Revolution. That
point marked the change from craftsman to wage earner, from barter to a
pre-fiat environment. The capital that technological change demanded
fostered an environment that led to fiat. I think monetary history will
support this thesis.

Gary



----- Original Message -----
From: <Waistline2@xxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [A-List] Re: Return to an old standard


> In a message dated 2/10/03 8:27:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
evs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> writes:
>
> >No, the source of prosperity of America has been its openness to
immigrants
> who bring with them their capital and strong motivation to succeed where
in
> their home countries they found only oppression by an exploitative and
> discriminatory system. The source of prosperity has been the technology
> developed by these immigrants, motivated by what a market based,
> entrepreneurial system had to offer. The source of prosperity has been the
> export of American culture, which leads to owners of US assets eventually
> becoming US citizens. The source of prosperity has been the renewal of
> morality that each wave of immigrants brings with it, reminding the jaded,
> now American immigrant what it was like a generation or two ago. Where
else
> in the world can you find such things?
>
> Gary Santos<
>
> Reply
>
> You are mistaken Gary for obvious reasons, although you describe certain
> valid components of that, which led to American prosperity. It is correct
to
> locate the evolution of America's dollar hegemony in the post Second World
> Imperialist War period. Prior to this period it was simply the immense
> productivity capacity of America that shattered the national barriers of
her
> competitors. Reasonable quality goods at a low price penetrate barriers
that
> military force cannot.
>
> The early immigrants and the vast majority of immigrant to our country did
> not bring any capital but their labor power. Our country is blessed so to
> speak because it was never afflicted with the lingering feudal social and
> economic structures and culture - customs, that to this day afflict many
> countries in the Middle East ands Africa. These "Middle Age" customs and
> traditions attend to act as a brake on economic expansion based on
industrial
> production and market exchange - the market relations.
>
> The genesis of American wealth and actually the wealth of the modern world
is
> slavery. As a historical period slavery was the basis of the development
of
> the capitalist system as it evolved on earth. Better yet, slavery was the
> basis of the development of the industrial system as it evolved on earth.
> American cannot be singled out as "a historic slave power," based on
Southern
> slavery.
>
> We forget out history, world history and problems handed to us by history.
> Basically, the United States, up until the Civil War was a Southern
Country.
> All the centers of gravity were in the South and they were connected to
the
> industrial market of England. This was shown at the Continental Congress.
> While debating the question of slavery, two slaves absolutely held out
saying
> they would not join the Confederation if slavery were abolished. One was
> South Carolina, which had the greatest numbers of slaves; the other was
> Massachusetts, whose prosperity was based on the slave trade.
Massachusetts
> built and manned the ships that not only brought the slaves from Africa
but
> just as importantly, carried the commerce created by the slaves. The whole
> economy was organized around the core Southern states. The industrial
> revolution in England and later New England or rather the Northern States
> relied on slavery.
>
> We are so distinct from slavery that we do not understand its elementary
> economics, social impact and how this sets the basis for the evolution of
> industrial society. Further the color factor blinds us and hurt feelings
> cloud our judgment.
>
> The Northern states evolved as absolute appendage to the South. The slave
> trade was more a foundation of America and the genesis of its wealth than
the
> actual physical act of slavery. Modern students of economics have not
> understood this and end up pointing an accusing finger at each other. We
have
> to deal with some elementary economic logic and facts.
>
> Manufacturing and industry grew faster than agriculture because
agriculture
> in the era of manufacture is ultra labor intensive. Manufacture demand the
> creation of more machines and conglomerations of people under one roof
> producing goods. As this conglomerate expands, their needs and demands act
as
> an impetus for further development and machine society slowly beings to
> replace old agrarian relations. In the South it was more profitable to
> purchase a slave and work him to death because the value that could be
> extracted from his was greater than his cost. This logic kills the
incentive
> for machine development and rivets economics to intensive labor process.
The
> whole economy was based on this terrible expenditure of slave labor. There
is
> an old saying in America to describe betrayal that goes, "you sold me down
> the river." Being sold down the river meant being sold to a Mississippi
> cotton planter, where the toil made the life expectancy of the slave 7
years.
> Today Bush Jr. is selling the American people down the river . . . back to
> our story.
>
> If you rationalized slavery - agricultural production, with the whole
> introduction of machine production, you were interfering with the ship
> building industry, which was at the heart of the Northern industrial
> development. If you interfered with the ship building industry you were
> interfering with the Universities set up to study astronomy - or other
> sciences, to guild those ships. This in turn meant you were interfering
with
> engineering and the science of building better ships. Because America is a
> North to South country - Allegheny Mountains separates East and West, you
> were also messing with road building and transportation or the railway
> system, until the construction of the Erie Canal.  If you messed with
slavery
> and the slave trade you were messing with the basis of the industrial
system
> as it was evolving in the North.
>
> The "good things" of life - the luxuries, came from England, but all the
> necessaries of life came from the North. Northern industrial development
> began by supplying George Washington and Thomas Jefferson - I mean the
South
> in a later period of time, the manufacturing and foodstuff need by the
South
> as an economic unit.
>
> The contradiction or absurdity was that it was actually cheaper to have
the
> immigrant worker of the North provide these things - necessities, than use
a
> good slave.
>
> My point is not to argue you, but debate you and welcome you into an
> exceptionally broad and informed point of view.
>
> Thus when you state:
>
> >The source of prosperity has been the renewal of
> morality that each wave of immigrants brings with it, reminding the jaded,
> now American immigrant what it was like a generation or two ago. Where
else
> in the world can you find such things? <
>
> this is not accurate because one can state the same - to a degree, about
> Germany.
>
> I for one will never deny the impact of the immigrant on economic
development
> in our country; after all we are a nation of immigrants - in the main. But
> what you state is wrong as historical fact. Slavery and the slave trade
set
> the basis for American prosperity and industrial development. Slavery was
an
> indispensable economic category in history.
>
> Do you deny this?
>
> I ask because just as the labor of the slave was important to the societal
> advance, modern technology is important to the societal advance. How this
> labor replacing technology impact our society is what we are experiencing.
> Advance robotics, computerization and digitalized production process
renders
> ever-greater quantities of labor superfluous to the production process and
> cheapens the value of labor - what it can fetch in the market through the
> medium of exchange based on possessing money.
>
> Why cannot 47 million people in our country get medical care and the
number
> is growing by 2-3 million a year? What is the limit of the free market
> system? Let's be clear. This growth of people unable to access medical
care
> under the free market system are working people, many in management who
> cannot afford the cost. Why is this? Why are people getting poorer?
>
> Why?
>
> Melvin P.
>
>
>
>
>