Charles Brown wrote:
> Frankly there are a lot of posters on the lists I have seen you on who say things that would raise similar questions, but I haven't seen you calling them out. I looked at Chang's homepage about a year ago when s/he first posted to a list I was on. I don't agree with everything there , but I am not willing to just dismiss it as lack of serious or rigorous thinking, especially given the likely language barrier.
>
> Without insulting anybody (specifically anyway) , I have seen a lot of posts from credentialled economists that are pro-free market, self-contradictory and illogical, even as they know a lot of facts, but I haven't seen a bunch of people buzzing around those posts and posters the way they are Chang. That is very interesting.
>
> I don't have to agree with everything Chang says, to agree with the basic point on GDP. It is used to rah-rah the economy. ( Of course it wouldn't work as good for that in a recession). I had heard the criticisms that Chang has made about GDP and other criticisms of it and GNP long before Chang raised them. Marshall Sahlins mocked GNP in a book in 1973. I mean what is the big deal about critiquing the concept of GDP ? Post-modernists question "scientific epistemology" all the time on this list, pointing to the power struggles in the institutions of knowledge. All of a sudden GDP is an absolutely objective and scientific measure with no role in the power struggle of knowledge. Why is GDP so special compared to other "scientific" concepts ?
>
> Charles Brown
>
> >>> Stephen E Philion <philion at hawaii.edu> 09/06/99 01:32PM >>>
> Charles,
> My research topic is China centered, hence my heighted interest...
>
> Ju-Chang can post whatever silly stuff he wants to from a free markets
> are great perspective...just let's be clear, as clear about where he
> stands ideologically...let's not assume him to be a serious or rigorous
> thinker just because he is from China...There are many serious Marxists
> in China (Li Minqi, Raymond Lau...) who have ltos that is interesting to
> say...read Ju-chang's home page and tell me what you have learned from it.
> He tells us to read his home page seriously. I did.
>
> steve
>
> On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Charles Brown wrote:
>
> > Gee, is everybody on LBO a Marxist ? Coulda fooled me. I thought non-Marxist economics was discussable on this list.
> >
> > I'm not even sure that Doug Henwood terms himself a Marxist economist. He certainly seems to discuss economics from the standpoint of Keynes sometimes.
> >
> > Then Hayek is discussed all the time.
> >
> > Maybe your Eurocentrism that you are unusally hostile to a non-European who deviates from Marxism, but not so to Europeans who deviate from Marxism.
> >
> > Charles Brown
> >
> > >>> Stephen E Philion <philion at hawaii.edu> 09/03/99 08:51PM >>>
> > Here is comments from Ju-chang on the effect of the Asian financial crisis
> > on CHina and ways South East Asian countries can solve their problems. In
> > a nutshell, more free market ideology is Ju-Chang's solution.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > >From Ju-chang's homepage:
> >
> > 3. China was not affected by this crisis, because it adopted strict
> > control over its currency. Mr. Soros had got no way to borrow
> > Renminbi yuan from the international banks. Without Renminbi yuan
> > in hand, he is not able to speculate in Renminbi yuan.
> > 4. In order to prevent the occurrence of similar financial crisis in
> > Southeast Asia, countries the world over should give up fixed
> > exchange rate as soon as possible and continue carrying out free
> > market economic policy.
> >
> > Charles, help me out with this, I'm just too damned Eurocentric to figure
> > out what he means I guess and how this meshes with a Marxist critique of
> > political economy....despite my fluency in Chinese and friendship with
> > serious Marxists in China....Unfortunately, Ju-chang aint one of em...
> >
> > Compare this crap with the rich analysis of a Raymond Lau in *Capital and
> > Class* and other journals...Lau is the kind of stuff we should be
> > discussing on this list, not this more of the same crap.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, chang wrote:
> >
> > > Max Sawicky,
> > > Do you agree that GDP as a measurement of the whole economy condition is
> > > unscientific and unfair for poor people? Is GDP for the rich to hoodwink poor
> > > people's eyes?
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Ju-chang He
> > >
> > > SHENZHEN, P.R. CHINA
> > > Welcome to My Homepage
> > > <http://sites.netscape.net/juchang/>
> > >
> > > Date: Saturday, September 04, 1999 12:28 AM Max Sawicky wrote:
> > >
> > > >chang:
> > > >>> Why do economists have no other standard of measure indicating the
> > > >living
> > > >standards of poor people?
> > > >
> > > >We do. Plenty of them. If you want references,
> > > >one place to start is with an intermediate text
> > > >on public finance.
> > > >
> > > >There is data on incomes by income class and many
> > > >other characteristics reported by the Census. There
> > > >is research on non-monetary types of income received
> > > >by the poor. There are measures before taxes, after
> > > >taxes, and after taxes-minus-transfers. There are
> > > >various measures of income inequality.
> > > >
> > > >I'd be surprised to find an introductory text which
> > > >does not make clear the distinction between GDP and
> > > >well-being, or between GDP and the condition of the
> > > >poor. The use of GDP in political debate as a welfare
> > > >indicator is another matter, but this thread is getting
> > > >ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > >mbs
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >