Global Keynsianism and value

["Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rakesh posted a piece by Galbraith, and invited comments
on its relevance for the Marxian theory of value.

I read the piece as saying that with major increases in efficiency
arising from information technology, there is a major increase
in the total use values available in society. Galbraith alleges that
this has raised everyone's living standards, though there is no
logical reason why everyone should benefit.

However once the new technology becomes the norm, and the pioneers
have reaped their extra-surplus value, this does not mean there
is any total increase in the amount of exchange value in the society.

Indeed if more people have been thrown out of work than have
gained new jobs, the total exchange value could be less, whatever
prices say.

Both Marxism and Keynsianism are economic models that envisage the
capitalist economy often working at significantly less than full
capacity. In the passage quoted, it is not clear how Galbraith thinks
a Global Keynsianism is the answer except to assert that we all
ought to be enjoying the benefits of the increase in use values.
This however fails to address the inexorable dynamics of the
law of value, and the present world disaster where 30% of the workforce
are either unemployed or underemployed. What are his reformist answers to
this?

Chris, London



______________________________________________________________
From: djones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (rakesh bhandari)
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 13:29:27 -0800
Subject: capital-savings

I thought perhaps one of the value theorists may want to comment on this:

>From GLOBAL KEYNESIANISM IN THE WINGS by James K. Galbraith

"The information technologies do not require enormous amounts
of capital (their prices have been falling at 15 per cent per year
for several decades), and have greatly increased our reach and
efficiency, improving everyone's living standards. Transportation,
materials science and many manufacturing processes are also all
improving rapidly. Indeed, the extraordinary cheapness of new
productive technology is perhaps the single defining feature of our
age. Since few have grasped this point, let me try to explain what
it means.

It means that we do not need as much saving, or as much
financial investment, as we once did. It means we can afford to
spend more, not less, on public amenities for the middle class and
minimum living standards for the poor. We can also afford to pay
more in wages, especially minimum wages. It means we can invest and
lend more abroad, to help and benefit from development in poor
countries, with more dramatic results than ever before. We can do
more to maintain and improve the environment, both at home and
abroad,  taking advantage of the fact that new technologies are not
only cheap, but often comparatively more energy-efficient and clean
than the old technologies"

This essay was published in the World Policy Journal, Vol XII, No
3, Fall 1995, PP 65-70, and is copyright 1995 by the World Policy
Institute. Permission is granted to make copies and to circulate
electronically for non-commercial purposes, provided a copy of
this notice accompanies all copies made. Comments are welcome to
the author at <Galbraith.James@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> or to the World
Policy Journal at <Pera@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>.




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------