Speaking of language problems. I was at an international conference on labor law at Peking University about a year ago. I was listening to a Chinese Law School prof go on about how unemployment is good for the economy, it forces workers to become more productive and firms, by shedding redundant labor, become more productive, more taxes are collected by the gov't, firms reinvest their $$ rationally....And then he concluded this fluently delivered paper (in Chinese) with a quote from , what I thought he had said was an American labor union official, to the effect that unemployment is what America needs more of, it is the way to stay competitive in the next century.... I thought to myself, "Who in the hell said that? Good christ, talk about doing one's homeork, able to find a union official spouting such nonsense"....Well, then I listened to the outstanding English translation of that segment, and though my comprehension of everything else he had jus said was on the money, well it turns out that the person he was using to back up his ideology was none other than a quite widely admired (in China) American named Alan Greenspan....
At the very same conference a official union cadre, an older fella, wasted about 20 minutes of conference time trying to dress down those at the conference who were making calls for China to get more sserious about protecting workers' right to organize, especially in the foreign enterprise zones, but in State enterprises as well. he too played the "eurocentric" card, arguing that this call was a conspiracy of western wealthy and Euro-centered governments to make China
less competitive. What was ironic about this was that at that conference, in fact, the majority of poeple making that call were from non-western, poor, countries, such as Indonesia, Thailand, Korea, the Philipines, and Hong Kong. These labor activists were, of course, not friends of the US or any European country FTM. And to add to the irony, the person representing the American contingent (not US gov't related in any fashion) was herself a person of color and a memeber of an organization that helped independent trade unionists organize in Indonesia, Korea, Bangladesh,....in direct contradistinction to US policy in those regions ...
The ironies of that moment are rich...
Steve
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>