Re: International Keynesian Possibilities

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

James,
     Iceland is also not a member of the EU and
Sweden and Finland only joined in 1995.
     They have all been traditionally very open
in terms of free trade and the percentage of their
economies being involved in trade.  The one big
exception to that has been agriculture, regarding
which their protectionism predated accession to
the EU.  But then, many countries engage in ag
protectionism, even those that claim that they
don't such as the US.
      I would agree that Denmark in particular has
benefited from the EU's CAP.  But, except for fisheries
(especially in Iceland), agriculture has not been a
major part of the GDP in the others for a long time.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "schulte-baeuminghaus" <cresscourt@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>; "John Gelles"
<johng@xxxxxxxxxx>; "pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mailto:pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: International Keynesian Possibilities


> Barkley,
>
> >> The Scandinavian countries and Austria and the
> >> Netherlands are those that come to mind.  All of
> >> these are very open, with almost zero protectionism
> >> and high percentages of their GDP exported.
>
>
> How do you define "open" and "with almost zero protectionism"?
> As I understand it, all (except Norway among the Scandinavian
> countries) are members of the EU with one of the most intensive
> systems of national and EU agricultural protectionism ever devised.
> Denmark in particular has enjoyed a golden age since 1973 when its
> enjoyment of the blessings of the CAP began. Like Ireland, the
> benefits of that CAP stimulus have flowed through, like a great and
> glorious irrigating river, to other industries - indeed, to the rest
> of its economy.
> As I've pointed out in other messages, we should also not overdo our
> admiration for the openness of the EU economies even in sectors other
> than agriculture. The EU has done a great job of pointing the finger
> at other economies' failure to be "open" while embracing "openness"
> with a decent degree of modesty themselves.
> One of the advantages of membership of the EU is that it confers
> insider status for investment, domestic or foreign, and therefore
> production and distribution within the 15-state, 300 million
> population of an EU that, as that implies, is not "open" - or at
> least, is sufficiently distinct from the outside world as to confer
> membership benefits.
> None of this is intended as any special criticism of, for example, The
> Netherlands and Austria in both of which I have lived happily for long
> periods.
> The outstanding achievement of both has been to maintain relatively
> high levels of investment and growth, at full or near full employment,
> over long periods. Their pragmatic management of capitalism - or is it
> a pragmatic management of socialism? - has been, in many ways, what
> Keynes might have envisaged and what post-Keynesians, even if we're
> not incomes-policies addicts, might well be disposed to applaud.
>
>
> James Cumes
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> >From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>
> >To: "John Gelles" <johng@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Re: International Keynesian Possibilities
> >Date: Thu, Apr 26, 2001, 7:15 pm
> >
>
> >      This depends on what one is talking about.  Is
> > one referring to more generalized "Keynesian"
> > fiscal or monetary policies, or is one talking
> > about the more direct kinds of intervention
> > such as incomes policies that have been more
> > specifically associated with Post Keynesian thought?
> >      I would submit that we are more likely to see
> > the latter in highly globally exposed economies.
> > The Scandinavian countries and Austria and the
> > Netherlands are those that come to mind.  All of
> > these are very open, with almost zero protectionism
> > and high percentages of their GDP exported.  They
> > are also at the high end on measures of "corporatism"
> > economy-wide wage bargaining, one form of
> > incomes policy.
> >       Of course there is another variable entering in
> > here.  It is easier to carry out such policies in somewhat
> > smaller and more homogeneous countries, which these
> > all are.  That correlates with being highly open.  Thus,
> > although it may be harder to carry out Keynesian
> > fiscal or monetary policies in a highly open context
> > (especially when your trading partners are not doing so),
> > it is not at all the case that other PK policies are unlikely.
> > Indeed, in the case of Sweden the motivation for such
> > bargaining was very much driven by the perceived need
> > to keep inflation under control and to not have wage
> > increases exceed labor productivity increases in the
> > all important export sector.  So, openness may actually
> > stimulate incomes policies.
> > Barkley Rosser
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Gelles" <johng@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Post Keynesian Thought" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Gernot Kohler" <gkohler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "1944" <1944@xxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:09 AM
> > Subject: International Keynesian Possibilities
> >
> >
> >> "Keynesian ideas should be injected into international
> >> economic policies, international financial architecture,
> >> etc.  ..."
> >>     -- Gernot Kohler, reflecting on the difficulty of
> >>          popularizing PKT in nations with substantial
> >>          exposure to globalization
> >>
> >>
> >>         Keynesian-Lerner money, which many of us hope can
> >>         be used to stimulate full employment and production to
> >>         raise minimum living standards (via a living wage that gets
> >>         better every year), is a national legal thing -- related to
> >>         national laws of contract and debt enforcement.
> >>
> >>         Gernot shows that hard money has power across
> >>         borders. He wonders if Keynesian money can be
> >>         effective in meeting some of the challenges of today's
> >>         hard-money based global trade. The challenges are:
> >>         exploitation of labor and ruin of the environment.
> >>
> >>         Gernot wonders how treaties might take advantage
> >>         of Keynesian principles. It seems to me IF we had
> >>         a national Keynesian program that worked -- in any
> >>         prosperous place -- ANY treaty that place made
> >>         would disclose the techniques Gernot seeks.
> >>
> >>         Without any nation committed to a Keynesian program,
> >>         it is hard for me to see how several nations could find
> >>         a regional or global approach to our, so called, "non-
> >>         neutral" money.
> >>
> >>         What we call Keynesian or Keynesian-Lerner money
> >>         is also called "non-neutral" money.  By non-neutral,
> >>         we mean that money is not just a means of exchange
> >>         for goods and services. It is also a catalytic agent that
> >>         can facilitate production which will later justify the use
> >>         of money that starts as a promise to be "good as gold"
> >>         -- when it is really only paper or an account with no
> >>         commodity or collateral value at all.
> >>
> >>         In all events, I believe Gernot is right to observe how
> >>         hard it is to use K. money ideas in nations tied to global
> >>         trade.
> >>
> >>         Especially hard it is BECAUSE no one is really using
> >>         K. money for full employment -- anywhere.
> >>
> >>         Nations like the US use fiscal and monetary policy in
> >>         ways that resemble Keynesian principles. But they also
> >>         use mostly hard money backed by existing collateral.
> >>
> >>         And in actual banking and trading practice the details
> >>         of the law are so formidable there may be nobody able
> >>         to explain to academics, politicians or the voters, of any
> >>         nation, just what we need to do to return to the way we
> >>         financed wartime needs without losing our freedom
> >>         from 1939 to 1945.
> >>
> >>             John G.
> >>
> >> ====== Gernor's comment above prompted by: =====
> >>
> >>         Message  To: PKT 23 April:
> >>             From:   John Gelles
> >>         Subject:    Keynesian thought -- what is it for?
> >>
> >>         Why Keynesian thought?  Why not "admit" the
> >>         American economy works just fine as it is?  We
> >>         Keynesians wanted less than five percent
> >>         unemployment. We have it. We wanted less
> >>         disparity. Now that dot.com guys are poor, we
> >>         have it. What is it that Keynesian thought offers
> >>         that other economic thought does not?
> >>
> >>         ... <snip> ... [original message in PKT
> >>         proceedings for April 2001
> >>
> >>
> >
>