From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 07:43:07 EDT
Jerry, you fig for UK tangibles seems odd... there is a permenent BoT deficit here in UK ...this doesn't fit . Paul Bullock ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 12:22 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] [Jurriaan] Notes on gold > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <adsl675281@tiscali.nl> > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:26 PM > Subject: Notes on gold > > > Jerry, > > Previously I wrote on this topic: > > "But maybe there's some new ways to mediate that contradiction..." > > One thought I had about it among others was that the ultimate argument the > Fed has, is that "if you guys don't back the US dollar, then we're all down > the tubes", i.e. that in a real crisis situation, other countries would be > either motivated or forced to back the dollar, because if they didn't do > it, the trading circuit would collapse. Thus, any move away from > dollar-denominated international trade could only be a gradual one; any > sudden shift to alternative currencies of a very large magnitude would be > unlikely (in geostrategic policy shifts, the timing is always very > important - as you can see with regard to Iraq; some US strategists argue > the job should have been done earlier, some argue it should have been done > later; similarly, Lenin remarked it was no good being correct beforehand or > afterwards, one had to be correct at the correct time, which is what made > real politics hellishly difficult, never mind the analysis, i.e. what > analysis do you do, at what time). Maybe Mandel would say "den of thieves, > but they stick together". > > Just to give you a quick idea of the current role of the US in the world > market, to show you some broad proportions: > > estimated US exports of goods and services in 2004: $1.1 trillion > estimated Other US income receipts from abroad $379 billion > estimated US imports of goods and services in 2004: $1.7 trillion > estimated Other US income payments to foreign countries $349 billion > estimated US-owned assets abroad in 2004: $10 trillion > estimated Foreign-owned assets in the US: $12.5 trillion > > That's a very big market process, let me tell you that now. And a few > numbers on the EU (regrettably, although eurostat has a lot of nice graphs, > data trees and pictures, it's still a bit difficult for me to get useful > data from straightforward tables for standard measures; it looks to me that > data presentation is fast becoming a science in itself): > > estimated extra-EU25 imports of goods and services in 2004 $1.2 trillion > euro (15% from the US) > estimated extra-EU25 exports of goods and services in 2005 $968 billion euro > (24% to the US) > estimated EU25 holdings of foreign FDI stocks in 2001 $1.7 trillion > estimated holdings of FDI stocks by foreigners in the EU25 in 2001 $1 > trillion (can't get data on total asset holdings so far). > > By the end of 2003, the estimated EU15 direct investment in the US amounted > to US$856 billion, or 62% of total foreign direct investment in the US. > Similarly, estimated US direct investment in the EU15 amounted to US$845 > billion, or 47%percent of total US Foreign Direct Investment. An estimated > 3.3 million US jobs were supported by EU15 investment in the US in 2002 > (BEA). > > In the case of Japan (I am not much good yet with Japanese data), > > estimated Japanese 2004 exports about US$562 billion > estimated Japanese 2004 imports about US$430 billion > > A very large part of world trade, of course, occurs within the triad. > > The total value of world merchandise trade in 2002 was estimated at $4.9 > trillion, and the total value of world commercial services trade in 2002 > was estimated at $5.5 trillion (excluding significant re-exports), giving a > total value of world trade of $10.4 trillion. > > In 2002, I calculated a while ago that the top ten players in the world's > commercial services trade were: > > USA ( 17.4% of world exports, of 14.3% world imports), > Germany (6.2% of world exports, of 9.4% world imports), > Japan (4.2% of world exports, 6.9% of world imports) , > France (5.5% of world exports, 4.2% of world imports), > China (2.9% of world exports, of 2.9% world imports), > UK ( 7.9% of world exports, of 6.4% world imports), > Italy ( 3.8% of world exports, of 4% world imports), > Spain (4% of world exports, 2.4% of world imports) > Netherlands ( 3.6% of world exports, of 3.7% of world imports), > Belgium/Luxemburg ( 3.5% of world exports, 3.1% of world imports). > > (In addition, Canada represents 2.4% of world exports, and 2.9% of world > imports). > > Totalling up the figures, in 2002 the world's top ten countries exported 59 > percent of the world's commercial services by dollar value, and adding > Canada, the figure is over 61 percent. The top ten countries import 54 > percent of the world's commercial services by dollar value. > > In 2002, the top ten players in the world's merchandise trade (i.e. traded > tangible goods) were: > > USA (10.8% of world exports, of 18 % world imports), > Germany (9.5% of world exports, 7.4% of world imports), > Japan (6.5% of world exports, of 5% world imports) , > France (5.1% of world exports, 4.9% of world imports), > China (5.1% of world exports, 4.4% of world imports), > UK (4.3% of world exports, of 3.6% world imports), > Canada (3.9% of world exports, of 3.4% world imports), > Italy (3.9% of world exports, of 3.6% world imports), > Netherlands (3.8% of world exports, 3.3% of world imports), > Belgium (3.3% of world exports, 2.9% of world imports). > > So, in 2002 the world's top ten countries exported 56 percent of the > world's goods by dollar value, and they imported about 56.5 percent > of the world's goods by dollar value. That's "globalisation" for you. > > I realise you would like an in-depth, sophisticated dialectical analysis of > the world market, starting off with the law of value, its modifications in > the course of market expansion, and then integrating various aspects of > capital finance etc., but, to do that takes a lot of time, and I haven't > got that just now, I mean, I'd have to do a lot of work on it, if I wanted > to > go beyond verities and platitudes. Nor do many academics have the time > actually, they are often forced to spend more time on admin, management and > teaching than they can shut out the world for a bit, and spend time on > substantive research. But maybe somebody out there is inspired to do this, > and enlighten us all. > > In terms of my previous argument about Marxian dialectical analysis, the > project really has to begin with assimilating and analysing a mass of > factual material, or at any rate, some objective reality (as well as a > critique/conspectus of the current theories about foreign trade, as a guide > to the data; but this is to a large extent already done in the literature, > if you get it). Otherwise you would have only a dialectical formalism, a > dialectic without content, a dialectic of pure thought, rather than a > dialectic operating in the real world. Maybe a creative mental dialectics > is very useful, but as I said, this could end up any place, unless > "bestimmt" > by the facts of experience. Or, you could just have a dialectical mess, a > "morass" or "mire" of contradictions to borrow Lukacs's phrase. I've had > that problem before. I do aim to study Hegel more myself at some point from > good sources, but I haven't even enough hours for that just now. > > I suppose some Marxists might take a dim view of "vulgar" and "superficial" > things like data and empiria, believing they've already got the "insuperable > dialectical Theory process that can unlock the secret of the march of world > history". Maybe they're right, who knows? E.P. Thompson was a bit skeptical > of that. But anyway for an ordinary person like me, dialectical thought is > something that can only develop through practical experience (aided by > theory), it is a lot of work that has to be done. In the 1872 Preface to the > French edition of Das Kapital Vol. 1, Marx emphasised in this regard that > "There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the > fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous > summits". I've noticed the odd exception to that, but in general it seems > to be true, at least for mere mortals like me. The mind might soar in flight > of fancy, but meanwhile you've got to deal with everyday life as well, > being > who you are, rather than a God dancing from one soul to the next. > > Regards > > Jurriaan > > In my world, it all makes me think of that Pink Floyd number: > > And if the dam breaks open > many years too soon > And if there is no room > upon the hill > And if your head explodes > with dark forebodings too > I'll see you on the dark side of the moon. > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 19 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT