[A-List] Re: Scapegoating China/money and value as politics

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 9/19/03 8:38:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, evs@xxxxxxxxxxxx
writes:


>But, I'm not here to bash China, Melvin. To cite a need to adjust the Yuan
is one thing. To say it will solve poverty is quite another. The causes of
poverty are legion and even if the Yuan was made to appreciate, a point you make
also, the poverty situation would nevertheless continue. But, I submit that
there is a connection between the US cost of living and China's exchange rate.<

Reply

Perhaps it was too harsh to state there is no connection between rising
poverty in America and China's currency. How one understands the connection is more
important.  I have no interest - zero, in defending policy, including
monetary policy of any government or state and this most certainly includes China. I
am not defending my own government's monetary policy because it is wrong.

America of course has the ability - along with the other imperial centers of
the world, to produce any items cheaper than China. To enact such a policy
would accelerate the unraveling of the value system. The means to produce any
commodities at a cheaper rate than China would not mean lowering the price of
labor power to . 50 an hour, but eliminating an enormous section of workers from
the production process. Utilizing less labor is in fact lowering the cost of
labor below that in China.  America today can produced one billion cups cheaper
than China if it so desired, but this would lead to "the collapse" of value
and then price.

It is not in the interest of the American government or the dominant
financial sector of capital to fully revolutionize production because this would
further erode the framework of investing - gambling (speculation), for profits. The
point is that trade is not development in the sense of the less fettered
expansion and development - progressive accumulation, of productive forces, which
alone is the condition for creating expanding real wealth in society. Money
accumulation in itself is not wealth accumulation although it appears as such.

It is not so much a question of the cause of poverty but the enforcement of
poverty on the people of the world. I am compelled to look at America, given
its position in world events. A political act could qualitatively solve the root
of poverty on earth in as little as 24 months or wipe out world hunger.
Countries are most certainly driven by self-interest and this self-interest -
decisions made, occurring within a framework of events, political and economic
logic. China's interest is to modernize and effect a rapid technological transfer
as a survival means and military strategy. Without question China's economy is
geared to and conforms to the principle of production on the basis of the
bourgeois property relation - capital in the hands of private individuals,
although its government - like the government in America, retrain rights of
sovereignty. The right of sovereignty means the right to change ones mind and do
whatever is deemed necessary to ensure ones survival. For my money China will
retain a "strong" state sector or control over areas of its economy because the
government perceives its material survival at stake.

The world today is really very different from the world fifty years ago. I am
prohibited by my morality and then politics from citing why any government on
earth needs to adjust its currency rates and monetary policy except my own
government, because of the role of America in the world. My morality and
politics demand that the position I take is as follows: our government needs to give
people what they need to improve their daily lives and the lives of their
family and loved ones. Here, it is not a refusal to understand economic theory and
monetary policy, but a refusal to accept the assumptions implicit in monetary
policy.

Monetary policy is a zero sum game, meaning that no matter how policy is
adjusted the net impact on the worlds people will not change, until policy is
enacted that change long held economic assumptions. I cannot cite a need for any
government on earth to adjust its monetary policy in relationship to the
American dollar, because it is the American dollar as "abstract capital" that need
adjusting. The issue is this: it is the attitude of the bully that needs
adjusting and not the person who is being bullied and beat up.

A billion American dollars - greenbacks, retain a social power not because it
convey material value represented in say gold as a universally accepted
medium of wealth, but because of force and the military ability to enforce meaning
on the world. Without this military force and threat of force, the need China
has openly displayed towards securing a technological transfer would not be
urgent. The strength of the US dollar is not this "abstract form of universally
recognized wealth," in the hearts of men and women - even when dollars were
exchangeable for gold during the Bretton Woods era. One should say, that "in
theory" dollars were exchangeable for gold during the Bretton Wood era, because
at the point Japan demanded to implement this exchangeability and receive gold
for its accumulated American dollars - during the Nixon years, the policy was
changed.

Force has defined "monetary policy" which appears as economic logic to the
imperial peoples. The role of the American dollars is tied to the political
results of the Second World Imperial War. Yes, monetary policy impacts the world
because it is enforced by military means. China's neighbors are affected by
monetary policy because they are forced to accept the rules of commerce,
dominated by America, while on the other hand sectors of their people are enriched by
such policies.

I was a Black Jack dealer in a Casino - MGM to be exact, and the reason it is
a house game is because of the rules of the game. The rule that gives the
"house" an edge is that the player always has to "go first."  Why cannot the
Casino dealer play first 50% of the time and make the game more interesting?
Instead the player has to adopt a minimum strategy - based on chance, to minimize
their loss and hope for a run of events unfavorable to the house. Monetary and
trade policy is no different. When another country achieves a run of events
favorable to it the house - America, changes the rule of the game by demanding
that the player - in this case China, changes its play.

When Japan demanded gold for its American dollars the backing of gold for
dollars was removed by Nixon and a deal was cut - probably with the Saudis, to
make oil purchasable not with gold but American dollars. The Saudis in harmony
with the oil producing nations raised the price of oil and funneled these
American dollars back in the US for infrastructure development, military hardware,
government bonds and other investments allowing them to secure more of this
fiat money acting as a social power. This rule changes reaped havoc on Japan and
in Europe.

My point of entry was that jobs are not lost . . . and then discovered
(found) in China although I understand why this is what the eye see. The lost of
jobs in the world is absolute and yes, relative (found in China). What is taking
place is the universal degrading of the cost - value, of labor power due to
the revolution in technology and one of the means by which this irresistible law
is handled in the political arena, is technological transfer to less
developed areas of the world, with the imperial centers retaining the latest advances
in technology.

In America's industrial Midwest the "job loss" first went South in the 1940s
and then throughout the world, as policy. Sure American workers want their
jobs back or rather income and means to live decent lives. Blaming the Southern
states - which some did, is morally objectionable because the fault reside with
Yankee imperialism.

First it was you stupid Southerners work for nothing - liitle wages and took
my job, then it was you stupid Mexicans and your monetay and trade policy;
then it was you stupid Japanese auto workers and today it is the government of
China exploits its people and will not devalue its currency.  I have no reason
to accept economic assumptions and monetary theory of my bourgeoisie, nor its
political policies.

Changes in monetary policy - devaluation for instance, is at last, political
and a zero sum game that does not result in decreasing the spread of poverty.
The spread of poverty is absolute and relative. Being poor exist in
relationship to material wealth and means of consumption allowing one to accumulate. I
am not poor in relationship to the average wage earner in China, but why on
earth would I not compare myself to what is available in America in the form of
the wealth of the bourgeoisie?

Monetary policy cannot halt the law of value and its operation and in the
last instance even the bourgeoisie is powerless over this law. The law of value
can be witnessed in the price of coffee. As a desired commodity the more
countries produced coffee and lowered the cost of its production the less value was
embodied in coffee and its price had to collapse. The more countries rush to
produce the same of similar commodities the further behind they are going to
fall in relations to the imperial center. This is not uneven or combined
development but the operation of the law of value as it takes shape on the basis of
bourgeois property relations.

The connection we see between monetary policy and consumption is based on the
rules of the "house," while the law of value is absolute by experienced as
relative. The connection is really like the connection of the hangmen noose to
ones neck. Yes, there is a "connection" and it becomes painfuly clear to the
ear as the trap door opens. Unlike a Casino where most of us can choose not to
enter, development of wealth for a country is based on material production and
one cannot - not, enter the framework of commerce. Lots of politics involved
and lots of moral questions involved.  Monetary policy is a political act, not
economic law, although it appears as a law of wealth creation.

The real question is at what point in the curve of development will China
achieve "sustainability" or rather the capacity for continuous intensive and
extensive development to secure itself against military overpowering? That is to
say a rate of development and technological utilization that roughly matches
America and becomes a fundamental military deterrent. Whenever this nodal point
is achieved or perceived by the Chinese government and the governments of the
world, there is going to be some very real questions of monetary policy based
on another set of house rules. China is not going to be bullied for long and
her history of subjugation at the hands of imperialism and the deep feelings of
her people is not understood properly in the imperial centers. We tend to
error on the side of our imperialist in the advanced imperial centers.

Does the government of China exploit the labor of her people and oppress
them? I maintain that the question and issue is that the government of China does
not exploit and oppress the people of earth. Economic theory is important but
political awareness is higher. There is the rest of the world out there.

Peace

Melvin P.