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

["annewilliamson" <annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

Gary,

Don't get silly on me.  It is a collusion of
interests - not conspiracy.  O-r-g-a-n-i-c
as we used to say in my old Second City
days.

Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Santos" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [A-List] Re: Return to an old standard


> 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>