Dan Drezner reports on a small tiff between Paul Samuelson and Jagdish Bhagwati over outsourcing. It contains a good line that tells you a lot about neoclassical economics:
But Mr. Bhagwati … says he doubts whether the Samuelson model applies broadly to the economy. “Paul and I disagree only on the realistic aspects of this,” he said.
In contrast, Marxists tend to agree fully on the realistic aspects of things but disagree about the unrealistic ones, such as when exactly the revolution is coming, who will be in charge, and whether people or robots will clean the toilets afterwards.
The great thing about Samuelson is that (as veterans of the Cambridge Capital Controversy know) he is incredibly intellectually honest, but manages to end up surrounding himself with groupies who aren’t.
The issue here is that Samuelson notes that there will be short-term (the short term can last a surprisingly long time) losers from outsourcing, and therefore suggests that there should be some social policies carried out to cushion the blow for the losers.
His groupies, however, pay lip-service to this, say “of course we must do something for the losers”, and then go ahead and cut welfare. Samuelson’s giving them a nudge to keep them on the intellectual straight and narrow.
FWIW and BTW, my personal view on the outsourcing thing is that Bhagwati is probably correct in his central argument, which is nothing to do with economics but takes the form of saying “all previous predictions of imminent economic disaster as a result of trade policy have turned out to be bollocks so this one probably is too”.
Can we just let the “robot/toilets” thing rest for a while?
If it were possible do the 1980s over again, that is one debate I would spend a lot less time on. The revisionists made a lot of good point, now that I think back on it.
“If Corsica declared war on Sardinia and won, then continued to rule over Sardinia while not itself declaring independence from France, would that be imperialist?”
Um, you mean there really was a robots/toilets debate?
I’d be happy to have either a robot or a person clean my toilet, if I don’t have to pay.
Robots- nonsense. It will be monkey butlers for sure.
Now the question of whether the work done by trained monkeys is part of surplus-value is a discussion that I absolutely do remember having.
I’m having great fun imagining this debate. Are robots fellow-workers? Do they suffer alienation? Do they produce surplus value? It could go on forever, and sounds as if it just about did.
It would be nice to have a discussion about Samuelson and outsourcing, but frankly Kieran only has himself to blame. The robot toilet thing is much more interesting.
Robots are capital equipment, surely. They embody the labour used to produce them, but their own productive activities are not labour, not alienated and thus not part of surplus value. The widespread robotisation of labour would be associated with an economy-wide lowering of values.
DD, I see we posted the same thing simultaneously. Surplus value down the toilet!
I would also hazard a guess that although trained monkeys would be workers, and there would be a sense in which their labour was alienated, they would not be capable of being part of a relation of production, and therefore a toilet-cleaning monkey’s work would not be part of surplus-value.
Do relations have parts? I suppose complex ones might be said to have. But monkeys are surely capable of being the objects of an ownership relation: I can own a monkey. Is the thought that monkeys can’t own themselves? Well neither can slaves and they are sure as hell part of a relation of production.
Of course, Marx thought that only labour power could pass on to goods in the process of production more value than it contained. But this is generally false anyway (corn, steel or widget inputs can have this property too) so surely a fortiori where monkey or robot labour power is concerned.
Monkeys of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but you nuts, you have a banana to win!
Monkey hate clean.
Is the thought that monkeys can’t own themselves? Well neither can slaves and they are sure as hell part of a relation of production.
Well the idea was partly that monkey’s can’t make contracts (I checked with a lawyer) and partly that slave labour isn’t part of surplus-value, because surplus only exists under capitalism. But I may have some of the details wrong; in particular, it might be possible to have primitive accumulation of monkey labour.
I’ve also just looked in the index of Piero Sraffa’s “Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities”1. There’s nothing under “M” for “monkeys” or under “R” for robots, so this may be a quite intractable problem in value theory.
[1]Of course I haven’t, what do you take me for?
This discussion is never going to get serious until we do an Althusserian reading of “Theories of Surplus Value” and produce the concepts necessary to deal with Engels’s “The Part Played By Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man.”
I spent all my time arguing this during the 1980s, until even the Spartacists begged me to shut up. But damnit, rigor counts for something.
Rather than government programs to “cushion the blow” of globalization, how about just not subsidizing it in the first place? Producing stuff overseas is artificially profitable because of all sorts of government intervention to externalize the cost on the taxpayers. For example, foreign aid and World Bank loans subsidizes the infrastructure that’s necessary for overseas investment to be profitable. Massive transportation subsidies make it artificially cheap to ship the stuff back home. Political support for anti-labor regimes, and military intervention to protect the interests of capital abroad, are also parts of the equation—American capital should be fully internalizing all the costs and risks of investment, including the political ones.
As for the robot thing, robot labor doesn’t create any value at all. Human labor creates exchange-value because of its disutility. Robot “labor” is merely a use-value. It’s exchange-value comes entirely from the embodied labor in it, and from scarcity rents charged by those who control access to it. Like a lump of coal, a robot doesn’t have to be persuaded to contribute its “services” to production. A robot doesn’t drag itself out of bed every day and groan about another day working in that shithole to pay its rent.
Monkeys can be hanged for spying for the French , so I’d have thought a mere contract was well within their capacities.
A robot doesn’t drag itself out of bed every day and groan about another day working in that shithole to pay its rent.
That is, suppose that the U.S. stays stagnant, but China and India learn how to do everything that we know how to do. Then they will no longer export cheap goods to us, and we will lose. This, they claim, is what Samuelson’s theoretical paper describes. If so, then it does not really describe outsourcing.We all know what ‘outsourcing’ is: US-based companies hiring foreign workers, cheap foreign labor. So, China and India don’t need to “learn how to do everything” - US companies already know how to do everything. Pertty much any job outside of a few basic trades (like hairdresser, plumber, garbage collector) can be outsourced. And, unless the exchange rates change dramatically and make the US labor cheap, eventually every job will be outsourced, because there is no reason to hire a more expensive worker. Will ‘we’ lose? Shareholders will win and workers will lose. That’s what Greenspan means when he says that there will be winners and losers.
I’ve been ordered to take you down to the bridge. Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they ask me to take you down to the bridge. Call that job satisfaction? ‘Cos I don’t.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review