[R-P] En Inglés The Peso is a "Derivative" of the Dollar (3° Artículo)

Julio Fernández Baraibar julfb en alternativagratis.com.ar
Dom Ago 18 17:09:26 MDT 2002

Este aporte al intercambio de ideas es de Mark Jones, el moderador de la
A-List. Marxista inglés, de tradición stalinista, Mark es un
extraordinario pensador, poseedor de un profundo conocimiento histórico
y de un fínísima perspectiva de análisis. Gran conocedor de la Unión
Soviética, en la actualidad ha introducido preocupaciones ecológicas a
su visión del mundo.
Su tesis es que China le va a ganar a los EE.UU., y que esto traerá
necesariamente una tercera guerra mundial, por la crisis que produciría
en los EE.UU. Es más, Mark considera que la actual política de Bush está
constituida por medidas anticipatorias de este evento.
Bueno, disculpen que sea en inglés, pero creo que estas tres notas
aportan un interesante y necesario punto de vista económico a la lista.

Julio Fernández Baraibar
julfb en sinectis.com.ar

> >All the currencies of the world, are simply "derivatives" of the U.S.
> ... or as Charlie Marx said, at bottom there is only one money in the
> The bit of this article and the von Mises view generally that I buy
> insofar as I understand them, is that for money to be a store of value
> well as means of exchange, it must contain as one of tis forms,
> commodity-money, of which metallic money, primarily gold, is the most
> developed variant. This is because to be a store of value, money must
> contain value itself, ie, 'congealed labour-power', which in marxian
> is the quantity of socially-necessary abstract labour contained within
> particular amount of gold, and is that which is generally required to
> it, refine it, mint it, etc. Imperial systems which base themselves
> entirely on credit or fiat money invariably come to grief in the end
> because without the anchor of 'real' money (gold) somewhere in the
> huge and unsustainable disequilibria build up. This happened in Mongol
> controlled China which under Kublai Khan abolished metal money--all
> was confiscated from travellers when they crossed the border into
> China--and the only money in circulation was paper money backed by the
> power of the Mongol state. That was 700 years ago. The system
> collapsed in a hyperinflation and Mongol control of China was
> Undoubtedly the same fate awaits the new US Empire, or at the very
> great financial and systemic shocks are sure to happen before the
great US
> ponzi scheme is brought down. Now it seems to me that Henry Liu, in
> the Asia Times articles we've just been reading, does not really
> with any of this. He, like me, would say that it is wrong to fetishise
> a la Mises, but we all acknowledge that when Nixon went off the gold
> standard it was done to counteract perceived US weakness, and insofar
> the underlying weaknesses have not been addressed but have only
> all that Nixon did was put off the day of reckoning and make the
> debacle much worse. Well, three decades later we are still waiting,
and in
> the meantime the USSR has disappeared and China has decisively broken
> Maoist autarky and with import-substitution as developmental paths and
> embraced the export-led growth model which Henry abhors as serving
only to
> enrich America and further impoverish the Chinese people.  So the
> of US imperialism have not exactly had it all their own way in the
> meantime. What happened as a result of Nixon's initiative and as a
> consequence of the 1970's oil shocks which going off Bretton helped
> trigger, was that we got 3 decades of relative stagnation, of powerful
> deflations visited by the US on its competitors, but at the same time,
> US did not succeed in securing absolute and unchallenged world
> which IMO was never in the cards anyway.
> So now we have the possibility that despite the many dangers of the
> export-led growth model, which Henry lists in his Asia Timnes piece
> I posted here the other day) there is the possibility that China may
> the US at its own game. China may develop such competitive strength
> its economy deals a death-blow to US industry; this will be no mean
> considering the fact, as Henry says, that the export-led model on the
> of it serves to enrich the US because they get free imports just for
> running their dollar printing press; and China loses out by exporting
> real wealth, its bountiful stream of commodities, in return for US
> which is has to reinvest in T-Bills anyway as imperial tribute.
> My point--I do have one-- is this: if -- and I think Henry agrees with
> that it can happen-- China wins its economic war with the US -- then
> will indeed be possible for China to revalue the yuan and transfer
> production towards satisfying the domestic market; if that happened,
> dollar house of cars will collapse, and the US will, inter alia, lose
> ability to denominate oil prices in the US dollar. Remember that the
US now
> imports 70% of its crude. This will bring an era of great hardship to
> American people, and will finally humble boith the almight dollar and
> Sam generally. I think that preventing this is Bush's real concern,
> everything he is doing in Central Asia and Iraq is about this. It's
> shoring up US control over world oil, and forcing unwilling European
> Japanese allies back into line. Only then will the US feel ready to
> with China, for deal with China they surely will and must. And this is
> where I part company a bit with Henry because the kinds of policies he
> recommends, while superficially innocuous (going for yuan revaluation,
> China satisfying domestic demand more etc) are potentially so
> to the US that they would rather have world war 3 than let it happen.
> The other query I have to put to Henry, and everyone else, is this:
> says >>As for aggregate demand management, Asia leads the world in
> overcapacity and underconsumption. It is high time for Asia to realize
> potential of its market power. If the people of Asia are to be
> fairly for their labor, the global economy will see its fastest growth
ever. <<
> But isn't the underlying cause of American panic the fact that this
kind of
> growth is already FOREVER IMPOSSIBLE because of fundamental and
> physical and environmental constraints. Where is the oil, the energy,
> clean air coming from?  Today China uses 10% of US energy per capita.
> Chinese consumption of oil doubled it would still be only a fifth of
> levels, but it would totally wreck the environment and what's
> just isn't the oil.
> Check this out:
> http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Campbell_02-3.pdf
> Mark

El mensaje recibido, fue analizado por el Servicio de Antivirus de Alternativa
Gratis y se encuentra libre de virus y contenidos peligrosos.

Más información sobre la lista de distribución Reconquista-Popular