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

[Andre Gunder Frank <franka@xxxxxxx>]

There is an interesting book
THE BRETTON WOODS-GATT SYSTEM. RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT AFTER FIFTY YEARS		
edited by Orin Kirshner, M.E.Sharpe 1996.
ihave two copies. it is the conference p[roceedings of a con held at
Bretton Woods 50 years after the first one, with all its surviving
participants.
As i recall, they now tell it as it really was 50 yeas ago, showing how
each delegate was defending his state's capital i''natinal'' interests, and
they spoke/wrote without any longer  the need for the ideological bullshit
that is usually used to legitimate naked interest.

cheers
gunder

 On
Tue, 11 Feb 2003, annewilliamson wrote:

> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:21:34 -0500
> From: annewilliamson <annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>




    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

               ANDRE    GUNDER      FRANK

Senior Fellow                                      Residence
World History Center                    One Longfellow Place
Northeastern University                            Apt. 3411
270 Holmes Hall                         Boston, MA 02114 USA
Boston, MA 02115 USA                    Tel:    617-948 2315
Tel: 617 - 373 4060                     Fax:    617-948 2316
Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/     e-mail:franka@xxxxxxx

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~