globaliation and capital mobility in the automobile industry, aschoff (2010)

(1): perception of competition over wages is at the root of declining union power (i.e., that unions' subscription to the globalization narrative explains their failed strategies) [interesting but surely marginal]

(6): not 'race to the bottom' [this is better framed as 'filling out' the other pressures that capital faces]

1. large market
2. skilled workforce
3. proximity to assemblers/suppliers
4. state policies
5. pressures from finance

(9): US has been the site fo much new investment

(11-12): Serious pressures to move to low-wage sites [The point of the argument, then, can only be that this isn't the only thing going on. Not that it's entirely unimportant, which is sometimes how the claim is presented]

(16): New jobs have been created by new assembly/component firms, thanks to foreign capital moving to the US (and this is equal to the job loss)

(19): why capital moves? 1. location theory; 2. political conditions; 3. laobur

(29): Aschoff wants to introduce four dynamics: 1. intercapitalist competition; 2. capital-labour competition; 3. gepolitics; 4. financialization

(44): for Delphi, "a tacitcal decision' was made to move abroad--it wasn't mandated by economic exigencies, but was a strategic decision

Chapter 2

(49): 1. There have been more oepneings than closings in the US, based on Aschoff's sample

(53): 2. Investment is also happening in 'traditional' regions

(59): 3. US assemblers opened almost as many as Asia suppliers have; US suppliers have opened far more

(63): 4. There's been a 'stretching' of production, rather than a replacement of North by South

(65): Low-value added production has moved to Mexico; high value-added has stayed within US

(68): in sum, we have seen 'restructuring,' rather than simple job loss

(71): in the 1990-2005 period there was expansion (but without addition of labour)

(74): important--new investment in traditional regions has remained unorganized [strongly suggesting that it's union bankruptcy rather than the bogey of the 'US South' that's prohibited expansion]

Chapter 3

(84-85): suggestion of ways in which apartheid was dysfunctional for Capital

Chapter 4

(131-132): Delphi's trajectory is not a 'production costs' one, but (1) rise of finacne + (2) inter-capitalist competition story [Again, these are all pressures, yes--but it's still true that lowering costs would still be a way of alleviating pressures. It's distinct from the globalization story, but it is not a total refutation of that story's central mechanism, for good reason.]

(142): Volcker shock hit manufacturing hard (tight credit, high dollar)

(143): Ec recovery by 1982, but interest rates were still high

(145): 'State policies "matter" [But of course they do. It seems an odd 'central mechanism' for an analysis of why capital moves, though]

(146): Now, three processes matter: (1) export restrcitions; (2) financialization; (3) GM-UAW relations

(153): 'quick-fix' solutions to deep problems were pursued

(155): key--restructuring in response to pressures int he 1980s undermined post-war compact between Capital and Labour (through (1) geographical mobility; (2) technical changes; (3) firing [In this sense, the post-war compact was unwound as much by the normal operation of capitalism, as it was by 'bureeaucracy'. The key question, which Aschoff doesn't really ask, is what could labour have done realistically. Counter-factually, had a different strategy been pursued, how might this have looked?]

(157): a 'cooperative' stance didn't work [so, again, what would have? Militancy?]

(159): There's a 'lazy' argument here that the Reagan counterrevolution made it difficutl to resist [At best this ignores the effects of bureaucratization; at worst, this ignores capitalism!]

(177, 183): Accessions, concessions, etc. [Good place to ask the counterfactual question]

(187): Firms closed above and beyond what was necessary--used this opportunity to restructure/streamline so as to better position themselves to be competitive

(203): Labour costs are a small % of value [for a diss that wants to evaluate the importance of labour costs in determining capital mobility, surely this has to be brought up earlier!?]

Kollmeyer 2009, "Explaining Deindustrialization"

(abs): two-way fixed-effects regression indicates that rising consumer affluence, differential productivity growth, and expanding trade all matter to deindustrialization (18 OECD countries, 1970 to 2003), but single greatest factor is rising consumer affluence

Nordhaus 2005

(Abs): Productivity has grown, and has increased employment on its own--it is not responsible for decreased employment, which is instead a function of the fact that producers overseas have better increased their productivity

Alderson 1995

(706): distinguish between positive deindustrialization (rising real income leading to change in consumer preferences, or differential productivity growth), negative industrialization (poor performance leading to being outcompeted), and 'trade-related' deindustrialization

wood 1995, "how trade hurt unskilled workers"

(61): using Olin model, trade w/ developing country brings the wages of the unskilled down
(61): the recent period has seen a shift from 'manufacturing autarky' for developed countries
(62): larger increase in important penetration is associate with a larger fall in manufacturing employment
(68): based on revised estimates, calculated to have reduced share of manufacturing employment by 5 percent
(70): there's been an increase as well ithe labour supply
(77): basically, low-skill manufactured goods are no longer produced in the US

rowthorn and ramaswamy 1999

1/5th of deindustrialization attributable to N-S trade (even then the effects are indirect), 4/5 are 'internal' to advanced economies

luke

(1744): written 40-60 yrs after death of Jesus

(1830): Zecharaiah asks a rational question, and is made mute [what kind of God is this?]

(1831): blessed is she who believed [what kind of a conception of faith is this? compare to dictionary definition]

(1831): social justice passage--"he has brought down the powerful..." [but, again, is this accidental to the position of Christianity? think of its evolution, into Church doctrine. why does it abandon this? why are certain parts of the text picked up on, at certain moments?]

(1833): "and for glory to your people Israel" [is this a God who looks after all people? or just Israel? two wholly different implied projects]

(1834): wrath/punishment, but as part of a compassionate project?

(1835): social justice passage--'whoever has two coats must share' [what might this imply, today?! and for our 'Christian' candidates?]

(1837): Jesus performing more miracles [well what, again, does this imply about Faith?]

(1838-1839): curing the leper [here, question of the prior condition--i.e., where does evil come from? Satan? things we bring on ourselves? 'your sins are forgiven you'. these two are inconsistent]

(1840): what role do the Pharisees play? [dogma vs. principle behind laws. in a sense, opens up space for a re-interpretation of laws, based on principle. in other words, it suggests (either implicitly or explicitly), that laws can shift (cf. circumcision, not washing before eating, the 'sabbath')]

(1840): social justice passage--"Blessed are you who are poor..."

(1841): "Woe to you who are full now..." [NB: (1) not, everyone will be full; (2) God is not doing this now--why? one can understand why Marx would call this opiate]

(1842): the good slave [restored to good health, but never freed, of course]

(1843-1844): "faith saves" the woman who wept at his feet [but she's seen miracles! what kind of conception of faith is this, again?]

(1845): rebuking wind and raging waves [well, why were they raging in the first place?]

(1846): miracle, after miracle

(1852): "ask and you shall receive" [plainly not true.]

(1854): injunction to fear God [what does this add to conception of Faith]

(1854): life does not consist in "abundance of possessions"

(1855): "blessed are those slaves" who work their asses off [hmm, what kind of model of social justice is this? inconsistent, at the very least]

 (1858): why do you act humble, or do whatever else [b/c you will eventually be exalted? not because it's the right thing? how does this compare w/ previous ways of thinking about morality? very similar, and interesting, b/c it contrasts to Kantian, which is how we today think about Christian morality]

 (1861): Lazarus vs. the rich man [doesn't bode well for the 1%, eh? implies a very serious moral obligation on us, no? again, inconsistently very radical, this text]

(1863): sucks to be a slave..

(1863): why isn't everyone praising God?! [what kind of god, again? discuss this passage]

(1864): Sodom is the model for judgement day, Lot's wife example to avoid [nuts! the most reactionary incident in the Bible in it's most progressive book]

(1871-1872): question of Judas' responsibility [whence evil?]

(1875): "we deserve our cruxificion" [on the one hand text proclaims radical forgiveness, on the other hand crucifixion is just desert? today we wouldn't accept this for any kind of crime. just another example]

corinthians I

(2002): class composition of early Christian community (poor are the foolish, the unwise) [this is critical to understanding the framing, here. use as introductory point]

(2006): civic judgement [same basis as today's 'uncivilized' communities who claim right to sharia]

(2007): "the body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord" [example of different, new attitude to pleasure and the body]

(2008): celibacy is highest [again, shifting mores]

(2011): Paul defending his laboring [interesting, in light of class base, again--see 2012]

(2014): Paul's misogyny ["Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife"]

(2015): again, the lower-class appeal--musn't humiliate those who have nothing

(2017) in contrast to Plato, a different conception of the interdependence of parts of the body. the 'weakest' is the most important [again, do we understand this as intrinsic to Christianity, engrained in it forever more? no, it's a product of whom Paul is appealing to, and it changes rapidly as Christianity evolves]

(2021): eternal soul argument. [more like an assertion]