Re: The French 'NO'

Many thanks to all for posting on this topic! All of
this is absent from the US mainstream commentary.

By the way, it all only strengthens my bent that a
JG/elr type program offers the means to many of your
concerns, without any 'drawbacks' or real costs.

Also by the way, much of what has happened has been
stirred up by rising energy prices, which can be
traced directly to counterproductive institutional
structure. 'Long only' funds (public and private
pension funds, etc.) are moving to passive commodity
funds as an asset class. This has result in massive
hoarding of primary commodities by our own pension
funds, driving up prices even as inventories build to
record levels. In the case of crude oil, with limited
storage, pension fund (indirect) demand for hoarding
is driving up storage costs to absurd levels. Last
week the cost to carry just one barrel of crude oil
for just that month was about $1.85! This madness
will continue until there is a political response.

Warren Mosler

--- arturo hermann <a.hermann_at_isae.it> wrote:

> Dear Joseph, in your answer you lists a number of
> drawbacks of the EU and of
> politics of member Countries; I partly agree with
> you but I would say:
>
> (i) The four liberties at the basis of the
> constitution of the EC did not
> "per se" create neither capitalism nor
> corporations, as they registered a
> pre-existing situation; accordingly, I do not think
> that these liberties
> would stop "per se" socialistic movements in member
> Countries as we could
> also move towards a market socialism (hopefully in
> the next future).
>
> (ii) In the many "backward Souths" you have
> distinguished below Norway
> "petty bourgeoisy" is not as European oriented as
> you might think; petty
> bourgeoisy often tends to be, in Europe as elsewhere
> and especially in
> period of economic troubles, xenophobe and
> localistic; the reason why many
> Italians attach importance to European institutions
> does not lie in any
> mystic about Europe but in a reaction against the
> fascist era, which was not
> so friendly oriented toward Europe.
>
> (iii) You said you spent some time in Argentina; in
> Latin America the
> "Mercosul" has not had so widespread influence as
> the EU but I do not think
> this helped neither to reduce the influence of
> corporations in Latin
> American Countries nor to relieve their economic and
> social problems.
>
> In concluding, my point is that we need
> supranational institutions in order
> to face with the supranational problems and
> supranational capital; The EU is
> not perfect, I agree with you; in this regard I
> would ask you, in light of
> your experience on the subject, what could be a
> suitable pattern for
> building such new institutional framework, in Europe
> as elsewhere.
>
> Best Regards
> Arturo Hermann
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Halevi" <J.Halevi_at_econ.usyd.edu.au>
> To: "trond andresen" <trond.andresen_at_itk.ntnu.no>;
> "Marc Lavoie"
> <marc.lavoie_at_uottawa.ca>; <she_forum_at_itk.ntnu.no>
> Cc: <shaun310_at_coombs.anu.edu.au>; "Political
> Economy"
> <polecon_at_econ.usyd.edu.au>
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:52 AM
> Subject: RE: [HE] The French 'NO'
>
>
> >
> > What is IMO?
> >
> > I agree fully with Trond also on this point. The
> formation of the Common
> > Market, the EEC to end with the EU, is just a set
> of strategies to
> > build a European wide system of monopoly capital
> which has no chances of
> > succeeding even in its own terms. It cannot
> succeed because modern
> > capitalism is crucially conditioned by its
> specific historical roots
> > which differ from country to country and the
> Common Market worked well
> > mostly because it was sustained by a set of
> external circumstances. When
> > these ended in 1971 the EEC did rather poorly
> afterwards and, indeed, a
> > country like Norway - but also Iceland that in the
> 1970s and 1980s had
> > no hesitation of accepting high inflation in favor
> of high employment -
> > did much better. Yes, Trond is right: all the
> elements of neoliberalism
> > were enshrined in the Treaty of Rome. Perfectly
> true. However, the
> > Treaty of Rome did not have the norms (laws)
> needed to implement it and
> > they started to be formulated with the Delors
> programme in the 1980s.
> > But you cannot say these things anywhere South of
> Norway especially to
> > the Left, except in few cases to communists. Not
> always though because
> > in Italy the Partito dei Comunisti Italiani,
> perhaps the most orthodox
> > of the 3 groups that came out of the former
> communist party, supported
> > the OUI side in the French referendum. I think
> that Southern Europe,
> > viewed from Norway it includes Danemark and
> Germany, or EU Europe,
> > should fully run its course. This is what the
> Southern (of Norway)
> > Post-Keynesians do not understand: they do not
> analyze the constituent
> > forms of European capitalism, neither economically
> nor politically and
> > certainly never both instances jointly. They
> think that by constructing
> > nice schemes (with which I do not have major
> theoretical qualms), like
> > Sawyer has been doing ad nauseam, and then by
> convincing policy makers,
> > or becoming themselves policy makers/advisors, etc
> they can change the
> > structural economic and political forces that
> shaped Southern (of
> > Norway) Europe!! What is unbearable chez les
> Post-K is that they assume
> > the realm of policy to be infinitely large whereas
> it is extremely
> > narrow. Its width is always determined by
> contingent short run economic
> > perceptions and existing power relations
> established by
> > (monopoly)capital. Even when Eurocrats and
> corporate executives speak of
> > long run in reality they mean only long run
> permanent domination over
> > labor, the rest are short run contingencies,
> something that Garegnani
> > and his children will never understand in a
> million years.
> >
> > (I still do no know what is IMO)
> >
> > I would also like to call your attention to the
> enormous attraction that
> > the whole mystical term EUROPE exercizes upon many
> people and especially
> > on certain social groups. In Southern Europe, this
> time South of the
> > Alps and of the Pirenees, it acquires a
> metaphysical meaning. For
> > Italy's petty bourgeoisie it meant to enter
> civilization and a formal
> > recognition of belonging to the center and not to
> the underdeveloped
> > periphery. Lenin correctly called the Italian
> bourgeoisie a rat-bag
> > bourgeosie which is exactly what that class
> thought of itself in Italy.
> > After 1948, with the Popular Front (Communists and
> Socialits) safely
> > defeated and the movement of landless peasants in
> the South physically
> > massacred with the crucial help from the Mafia,
> Europe could become,
> > ideologically as well, the ticket out of the
> peripheral status. Later
> > this view has been fully accepted by the Italian
> left as a sign of
> > 'modernity', that is by the Communist Party,
> already in the late 1960s,
> > while the Socialist Party accepted it from the
> start in 1957. Mutadis
> > mutandis this story applies to Spain and Portugal
> although not so much
> > to the very traditional communist party of
> Portugal, now shrunken to a
> > mere 7% of the electorate, and perhaps less to
> the regionalist Left of
> > Spain. In Greece you have exactly the Italian
> attitude multiplied by
> > 1000 times, firstly because the socio-economic
> transformation of Greece
> > occurred after the fall of the military junta and
> especially with the
> > Christian Democratic like clientele policies of
> Papandreu (Socialist)
> > and also because Europe is seen not just as a way
> out of the periphery
> > but as a guarantee in relation to Turkey. Moreover
> since Greece has a
> > large polyglot professional stratum, where many
> were educated and lived
> > in Germany, USA, UK, France, such a stratum stands
> to gain from staying
> > strictly with the EU. This is also the stratum
> from which come
> > parliamentarians, policy advisors, diplomats,
> academics, etc etc. Indeed
> > they acquire from the EU greater leeway and
> economic advantges than they
> > could obtain directly from the Greek State and the
> Greek economy.
> >
> > Internationally Brussels magnifies the mystical
> vision about EUROPE to
> > the point where in Latin America (I spent 2 months
> in Argentina in 2004
> > and 5 weeks in 2003)it is virtually impossible to
> speak of European
> > imperialism whereas it is de rigueur to speak of
> US imperialism. And
> > YET!!!! The greatest obstacles to the 'quita' ,
> debt rescheduling and
> > cancellations, came from European countries which
> just acted in the
> > interests of the respective corporations (Spain
> for Telefonica, Italy
> > for the syndicate of bondholders, etc). But to the
> most leftwing daily
> > of Argentina, Pagina 12, Europe is untouchable.
> >
> > joseph halevi
> >
> >
> > joseph halevi
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: trond andresen
> [mailto:trond.andresen_at_itk.ntnu.no]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2005 8:59 PM
> > To: Marc Lavoie; she_forum_at_itk.ntnu.no
> > Cc: shaun310_at_coombs.anu.edu.au; Political Economy
> > Subject: RE: [HE] The French 'NO'
> >
> >
> > At 14:47 31.05.2005, Marc Lavoie wrote:
> > >Hi!
> > >
> > >I can confirm what Joseph Halevi just said.
> > >..........................(snip).............
> > >what really
> > >struck me was the depth of the debates among
> ordinary French citizens.
> > Last
> > >Saturday, on the eve of the vote, I had supper
> with friends that were
> > >neither intellectuals nor politically involved,
> and I was amazed at the
> >
> > >depth of their knowledge of the constitution.
> > >.....
> >
> > I agree with Marc and Joseph: The discussion in
> France has been an
> > unusually
> > informed one. As opposed to in Spain. And the more
> knowledgeable the
> > more a
> > population tends towards rejecting the proposed
> "constitution". This
> > really
> > says it all, but will not have much impact on the
> autistic so-called
> > European elite.
> >
> > But I write this to make another point: While the
> French have updated
> > themselves very thoroughly on the character of EU
> during the campaign,
> > they
> > seem to have illusions about there being a
> fundamental difference
> > between
> > the "neoliberal constitution", and the EU as such:
> "I am against the
> > proposed constitution, but for the EU".
> >
> > I cannot see the important difference.
> Neoliberalism was set in stone in
> > the
> > original Treaty of Rome, with the four "freedoms":
> Unfettered movement
> > of
> > goods, services, labour and capital. National
> control of a macroeconomy
> > is
> > through this impossible. The Euro and the further
> removal of national
> > autonomy in all sorts of areas are in my opinion
> logical extensions of
> > the
> > principles in the Treaty of Rome. This has also,
> quite correctly, been
> > pointed out by some of the supporters of the
> "constitution": they say
> > that
> > there is nothing new in the neoliberal principles
> formulated in that
> > document, so why all the fuss?
> >
> > This is the reason that a majority in Norway has
> voted no to mebership,
> > both
> > in 1972 and 1994. This quite well-informed
> majority has the same
> > political
> > composition as that of the today's French NO
> majority -- it is not and
> > has
> > not been a right-wing, xenophobic movement.
> >
> > The race to the bottom now happening because of
> poorer Eastern European
> > countries having joined, has been the intention
> all along. To some
> > degree it
> > has been taking place for many years, by
> industries being moved to more
> > exploitation-favourable countries like Spain and
> Portugal.
> >
> > The French has IMO now -- through the debate about
> the "constitution" --
> >
> > started to discover what the EU really is. Good.
> >
> > Trond Andresen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SHE_Forum mailing list
> > SHE_Forum_at_mail.itk.ntnu.no
> > http://mail.itk.ntnu.no/mailman/listinfo/she_forum
>
> _______________________________________________
> SHE_Forum mailing list
> SHE_Forum_at_mail.itk.ntnu.no
> http://mail.itk.ntnu.no/mailman/listinfo/she_forum
>

Warren Mosler
Valance Co. Inc.
5000 Estate Southgate
Christiansted, USVI 00820
340-692-7710 office phone, 7715 fax
Primary email contact: wmosler_at_valance.us
www.mosler.org

Associate Fellow
Cambridge Centre for Economic and Public Policy
Downing College, Cambridge, UK
_______________________________________________
SHE_Forum mailing list
SHE_Forum_at_mail.itk.ntnu.no
http://mail.itk.ntnu.no/mailman/listinfo/she_forum
Received on 03-06-05