Well if they are arguing for social clauses, I don't agree. If they're there to fight PNTR and protect American jobs, I am quite ambivalent. Max seems confused about what I am saying, . . .
[mbs] Am I ever.
which is simply
that American capital probably needs the expanded base of Chinese labor to
avoid a breakdown crisis of overaccumulation (watch the pick up in US
accumulation after some of those postal funds are released into the
global securities markets); if he wants to hasten that crisis, he should
oppose PNTR, not because it will save American jobs but because it will do
the opposite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] That part I understand. I don't agree with it but I understand it. You invoke the fabled breakdown crisis in the sky. And no, I am not interested in hastening a world depression, nor would I look forward to one.
>>>>>>>>
If leftists are there to demand shut down of IMF, then I
need to have some idea of how exchange rate crises and panic capital
outflows are going to be dealt with because I don't think in the absence
of IMF policies, those sorts of things are not going to happen--Brad has
been making this point. If they're there to protest structural adjusment
programs, fine, that makes more sense in my opinion.
>>>>>>
Flash: Council Communist turns into his opposite! Mao Tse-Tung, call your office.
>>>>>>
If they had been there to stop the Wall Street Treasury complex from
forcing capital liberalization on any and all countries, that would have
been a lot more sense. After all, they're in Washington, permanent home of
the Treasury. But they'd probably find more support for that within the
World Bank than the US Congress, no?
>>>>>
[mbs] Of course preventing untrammeled capital market liberalization is the goal. It's the most important part of the whole thing, from labor's standpoint.
mbs