From: david@danyaf.plus.com
Date: Thu Feb 28 2008 - 07:58:50 EST
Sorry Rc3/4 URL does not seem to be working at present. Try http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/marxism/articles/rc3-4_inflation.html still on old site. David Yaffe At 12:43 28/02/2008 +0000, you wrote: >I agree with Dave Z. Military spending while it can lead to the creation >of surplus value in its absolute form cannot create surplus value in its >relative form with the consequences that Dave Z argues. An article in this >month's (February 2008) Le Monde Diplomatique by Chalmers Johnson of all >people shows concretely the effect of arms production on the US economy >and proves the point (http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military ). The >theory of the permanent arms economy is totally misconceived as Paul >Bullock and myself argued over 30 years ago in Revolutionary Communist 3/4 >(http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/marxism.html.) > >David Yaffe > >At 15:50 27/02/2008 +0100, you wrote: >>Hi Jerry, >> >>I don't agree with their analysis, but I think it is interesting that >>they reach a similar conclusion. In the short run military spending >>raises demand. But it drains investment in the productive sectors, >>reducing the growth of productive capacity of the economy which >>determines the long-run development of output and the material living >>standard. Moreover, increased arms spending means that more surplus >>labour must be pumped out of the workers in the rest of the economy. >> >>//Dave Z >> >> >>GERALD LEVY wrote: >>> >>> > The Economic Impact of the Iraq War and Higher Military Spending >>> > May 2007, Dean Baker >>> > http://www.cepr.net/content/view/1155/8/ >>> > Quote: >>> > "Military spending drains resources from the productive economy. For >>> > this reason, it will typically lead to slower economic growth, less >>> > investment, higher trade deficits, and fewer jobs." >>> >>> >>> >>>Hi Dave Z: >>> >>>The same argument could be extended to the >>>consequences of just about any increase in government spending. >>> >>>What is curious here is the apparent lack of recognition that >>>increased government spending, including increased spending >>>on the military, can increase employment, income, and >>>spending in the macro economy. It's almost as if he is making >>>a pre-Keynesian claim and thereby failing to recognize the >>>role that fiscal policy (not to mention the "multiplier") can >>>play in short-run macroeconomic activity. >>> >>>In solidarity, Jerry >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ope mailing list >>>ope@lists.csuchico.edu >>>https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ope mailing list >>ope@lists.csuchico.edu >>https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope >_______________________________________________ >ope mailing list >ope@lists.csuchico.edu >https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 00:00:05 EST