Re(2): RE: 'Democratic Money' & the Tragedy of Anti-Marxism

[Ellen Frank]

Doug writes:
>
>I'm all for that. But I think Friedman has a point when he argues 
>that monetary policy is limited in its ability to change real values. 
Well it might be limited but there's just no question that monetary policy
effects
real values.  Look at the tight money of the late 1800s or early 1930s and 
see how real values changed!  Or of the 1980s and 1990s for that matter.
>Obviously tight money can create a depression, if it's tight enough 
>for long enough, but I wonder how much difference loose money really 
>makes beyond a certain point. I'd rather focus on other things, like 
>unionization, public health insurance, income support, etc.
I once gave a series of workshops for Jobs with Justice.  They were
really into activism around the Fed and I told them that if I were going to
do battle with Capital, the Fed is about the last place I'd start.  Like 
storming the Winter Palace.  However, given our current institutional
arrangements,  tight labor markets probably can't be sustained without
an accomodating central bank, so if the working class in the US is ever
strong enough to get universal health care and income support, we'll
have to take on the Fed at some point as well.  You can't weaken 
capital's grip and leave the monetary system completely intact.  
>

			Ellen