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

["Gary Santos" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Anne,

My kindest regards.

It would appear that we have different interpretations of history. My
problem in accepting a conspiratory view is to give it credibility one would
have to identify the conspirators. And, not just that, we must identify an
organization of conspirators since the span of time in which the hegemony
developed is beyond the lifetime of one man. And, still, are we also to
believe that the victims' capitalists and bankers are part of this
conspiracy? The victim being the working class whose savings erode in value.
I can only think of one organization that is said to have this capability
but then the mention of their name would certainly raise some eyebrows.
Keynes may have been a member. Many prominent politicians and bankers are
said to be members. Is this discussion headed in this direction?

Gary



----- Original Message -----
From: "annewilliamson" <annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: [A-List] Re: Return to an old standard


> The exploitation inherent in the gold exchange standard established at
> Bretton Woods was the work of John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White.
> It was a specific scheme.....Keynes hoped to favour Britain, but he
realized
> the UK didn't then have the "heft" to counter White's plan which naturally
> favored the US.  Everybody thought the US would retain dollar/gold
> conversion, so in that sense they were "suckered" - the progression to
1971
> internationally (when Nixon slammed shut the gold window) mirrors
perfectly
> the progression historically to fiat money in national economies:  First
the
> govt obtains issuance, then it issues commodity-backed paper money along
> with legal tender laws, and then, in the fullness of time, renegs on the
> commodity backing.  This progression is repeated throughout history.  (You
> might profitably study the Genoa Conference of 1922, and the late 19th
> century establishment of the Lombard League for historical precursors to
> Bretton Woods and the euro.  (DeGaulle's Finance Minister) Jacques Rueff's
> "The Monetary Sin of the West" is an excellent resource, discussing the
how
> and whyfore of the US's "deficit without tears")  There was nothing,
> absolutely nothing, benign about Bretton Woods - the US knew exactly what
it
> was doing, and it was intentionally doing it. (Congress actually wrote the
> laws to take the dollar off gold in the 1960s - by then, even the dumb
cluck
> congressmen had figured out the game - or possibly had it explained to
> them - and prepared legislatively.  In this sense, Nixon was just the
> unlucky one sitting in the hot seat when the time came, and the US had
only
> 2 weeks' worth of gold reserves left to honor it's dollar committments.)
> You are being influenced by very old propaganda, utter bullshit.  Bretton
> Woods was nothing more or less than the internationalization of the
Federal
> Reserve System swindle.  Pick up a copy of "The Creature from Jekyll
Island"
> (G. Edward Griffin) and/or Ferdinand Lips's "Gold Wars," Dr. Franz Pick's
> "The US Dollar - An Advance Obituary," and to really learn something about
> the Fed, Edwin Vierra's "Pieces of Eight" is the ultimate resource.  Do
not
> neglect an investigation into the London Gold Pool, BTW.  Again, I highly
> recommend the work of Murray Rothbard for an understanding of money and
> banking. -A.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Santos" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [A-List] Re: Return to an old standard
>
>
> > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>