>3. If you want those institutions reformed, it seems to me you got to begin
>with the political cultures in the G-7--and especially the U. S. and Great
>Britain. Until their political representatives feel themselves beholden to
>something other than Anglo-American neoliberalism, nothing like IMF reform
>is gonna happen.
Chris:
I think that is probably the unimaginative block in your thinking. You assume that because US politics is hegemonic nothing can happen that does not confirm to its restrictive processes, and you cannot see a progressive way ahead in the US.
>4. No, by the way, I'm not necessarily in favor of "world government,"
>whatever that means.
Whyever not?
That is rather a fundamental difference of perspective.
Doug:
>That capitalist class has little interest in what you're talking
>about - capital loves mobility and liquidity.
Of course the capitalist class has little interest in it. Of course once the crisis of 1998 abated ranks closed to resist change. But that is different from failing to notice contradictions within the bourgeoisie that exist, and which can be exploited.
>People claim all kinds of real sector damage from "5% shifts in the
>relative value of the yen, euro, and dollar," but these do not seem
>to have hampered trade growth.
Why the secular trend to larger markets? They are in general terms in the interests of capitalism. They stabilise some of the uncertainties of production. They permit productionon a larger scale.
>Typically, capital has evolved a
>profitable, individualized solution to the social problem of currency
>volatility - forwards and futures.
Sure. But they have a cost.
>are you really trying to
>encourge more trade?
No. Capitalism would like more trade and more profit.
>Your Tobin Tax
[It ain't my tax. It is a tax that is possible.]
may hamper trading,
It would slow the volatility of transfer of finance. That role is well rehearsed and is not controversial.
>but it won't do much about net
>capital flows.
It would also generate a fund of the order of $200 billion a year, which is a different argument in favour of it.
>metropolitan capital
>will continue to extract wealth from subordinated regions, in
>partnership with local ruling classes, who can get very rich on their
>own.
True. This is the part of the law of the uneven accumulation of capital.
> This is the heart of the
>capitalist process, as Schumpeter said. You want to drive a
>"reformist" stake through it.
It will be no stake through the heart of capitalism. In one sense it will allow it to continue on a smooter basis.
>I don't get the mechanism. It require a
>massive revolutionary upsurge to attack capital mobility right now.
>How do you think it could be mobilized? Will people risk their lives
>for a Tobin Tax?
You are not very interested in the process of campaigning for reforms. Others are.
Chris Burford
London