Naming the System: Inequality and Work in the Global Economy

by Michael D. Yates

Book Overview

The economic boom of the 1990s created huge wealth for the bosses, but benefited workers hardly at all. At the same time, the bosses were able to take the political initiative and even the moral high ground, while workers were often divided against each other. This new book by leading labor analyst Michael D. Yates seeks to explain how this happened, and what can be done about it.
Essential to both tasks is "naming the system"--the system that...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1583670793
• ISBN13: 9781583670798
• Release Date: January 2003
• Publisher: Monthly Review Press
• Length: 207 Pages
• Weight: 0.80 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.7" x 5.4" x 8.4"

Customer Reviews

The "No Logo" of anti-capitalism

Yates' book "Naming the System" is a valiant attempt to explain the failures, contradictions and problems of modern globalized capitalism in terms understandable to every layman. By and large, he has succeeded, though there are some flaws. His strongest point is reconciling the arguments against the orthodox neoclassical theory of "more free markets = better" with the 'facts on the ground', in the form of valuable statistics and examples from practical experience. He enthousiastically destroys the reformist view of capitalism as followed by many social-democrats and current-day labor union leaders just as much as the libertarian approach. In addition to that, he gives a worthwhile overview of the Marxist interpretation of capitalism and why it is better able to explain certain commonplace phenomena in firm practice than the neoclassicals. Finally, he gives a non-too-critical overview of the great variety of leftist anti-capitalist movements in the world today and some general perspectives on their success, though all this is very vague. The books great benefits are the easy to understand ways in which he shows the workings of capitalism in the many kinds of injustice felt by (young) leftist-inclined people, giving them a more solid ground for their critiques. However, this accessible approach is also the big downside to Yates' work: "Naming the System" is not in-depth at all, its wording is a little simplistic and childish sometimes, and it is virtually useless to those who already have a basic Marxist understanding of the capitalist world. Nevertheless, the book is worth four stars for its excellent utility as an education book on the Marxist approach for young people (high school and students), much like Naomi Klein's book was for the anti-branding movement.

An accessible and serious economic presentation

Leading labor analyst Michael Yates successfully strives to explain why the economic boom of the 1990s benefitted the wealthiest segment of business and society while doing little for the hard-working masses in Naming The System: Inequality And Work In The Global Economy. Aptly discussing a series of related issues including the inequalities that riddle the economic system of capitalism by its very nature (both within and between nations); unemployment and underemployment; contradictions within capitalism; and means for social change that battle for a better world, Naming The System is an accessible and serious economic presentation which has self-evidently been deftly researched and is skillfully argued. A welcome addition to personal and academic Economics Studies reference collections and reading lists, Naming The System is especially recommended to the attention of anyone wanting to understand the rationale behind the importance of placing limits and regulations to ensure a prosperous future for labor and management alike.

But, some of my best friends are economists

I am not an economist, but some of my best friends are. And much of my work as a labor law professor, has involved dealing with ideas couched in economic terms. Even so, there is a lot about economics as it is really practiced, that comes as a surprise. Several years, when the news was full of predictions from leading economists about the effects of a new policy on the economy, I asked a group of economists whether these sorts of predictions were based on studies of effects in the world. The economists told me that these predictions none of these predictions were ever tested. All that was ever done was to create simplified theories about how the economy worked and then use those theories to make predictions. No one ever checked to make certain those theories were valid. Imagine what healthcare would be like if doctors and scientists operated this way. Actually, we don't have to imagine. This is how life was in the Middle Ages when doctors tried to balance the body's four humors, and everyone knew the sun revolved around the earth. The models got more and more complex as reality did not jibe with theory. So all of us have our fates determined by economists whose methods are no more up to date than the 16th century. Consider Alan Greenspan, the hero of the Fed. He and his colleagues for years were convinced that the only way to fight inflation - and inflation had to be fought at all costs - was to raise interest rates any time unemployment fell below 5.8%. The effect was that higher interest rates increased unemployment. In the early 1990's, unemployment began to fall below this danger level, but no inflation appeared. Pressure was put on the Fed not to raise interest rates, enough pressure that they held off. Unemployment plunged ever lower with no inflation. Did the economists admit that their theory had to be discarded based on the evidence/ Of course not. They responded that they needed to refine the theory to account for this aberration from the theory, but the theory was still solid. Michael Yates does a much better job at leading the reader through classic economic theory and exploring the many ways in which those theories stand unproven - and yet they still rule the world. Yates provides a fair and balanced look at the claims of classic economics for economies and for global trade and demonstrates that there is no evidence to support those claims. There is no question that Michael Yates is passionate and has strong opinions. He does nothing to hide his views and is fair and open with the reader as he presents his arguments against classical economics and his ideas as to what should replace those disproven theories. I won't even try to summarize the. Yates deserves to be read and his arguments digested in full. Yates is a wonderful writer and educator. He should be. He had a long teaching career at University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, among prisoners, and with unionists. He is clear without ever talking down to his audiences. Over the yea

I am not an economist, but some of my best friends are

I am not an economist, but some of my best friends are. And much of my work as a labor law professor, has involved dealing with ideas couched in economic terms. Even so, there is a lot about economics as it is really practiced, that comes as a surprise. Several years, when the news was full of predictions from leading economists about the effects of a new policy on the economy, I asked a group of economists whether these sorts of predictions were based on studies of effects in the world. The economists told me that these predictions none of these predictions were ever tested. All that was ever done was to create simplified theories about how the economy worked and then use those theories to make predictions. No one ever checked to make certain those theories were valid.Imagine what healthcare would be like if doctors and scientists operated this way. Actually, we don't have to imagine. This is how life was in the Middle Ages when doctors tried to balance the body's four humors, and everyone knew the sun revolved around the earth. The models got more and more complex as reality did not jibe with theory.So all of us have our fates determined by economists whose methods are no more up to date than the 16th century. Consider Alan Greenspan, the hero of the Fed. He and his colleagues for years were convinced that the only way to fight inflation - and inflation had to be fought at all costs - was to raise interest rates any time unemployment fell below 5.8%. The effect was that higher interest rates increased unemployment. In the early 1990's, unemployment began to fall below this danger level, but no inflation appeared. Pressure was put on the Fed not to raise interest rates, enough pressure that they held off. Unemployment plunged ever lower with no inflation. Did the economists admit that their theory had to be discarded based on the evidence/ Of course not. They responded that they needed to refine the theory to account for this aberration from the theory, but the theory was still solid.Michael Yates does a much better job at leading the reader through classic economic theory and exploring the many ways in which those theories stand unproven - and yet they still rule the world. Yates provides a fair and balanced look at the claims of classic economics for economies and for global trade and demonstrates that there is no evidence to support those claims. There is no question that Michael Yates is passionate and has strong opinions. He does nothing to hide his views and is fair and open with the reader as he presents his arguments against classical economics and his ideas as to what should replace those disproven theories. I won't even try to summarize the. Yates deserves to be read and his arguments digested in full.Yates is a wonderful writer and educator. He should be. He had a long teaching career at University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, among prisoners, and with unionists. He is clear without ever talking down to his audiences. Over the years he

The Contradictions of Capitalism and NeoLiberalism

An extremist, disruptive version of capitalism, called neoliberalisim, now dominates the worldwide economic order. Practiced by huge transnational corporations and financial institutions with vast support from central governments, neoliberalism essentially transforms entire societies, destroying traditional ways of life and forcing individuals, sometimes with violence, to conform to its dictates. Not surprisingly, capitalistic institutions unleash immense propagandistic efforts to tout capitalism's unmatched outputs while obscuring the demands and burdens that it places on societies and individuals. "Naming the System" penetrates these purposeful obfuscations and describes the actual workings and impact of capitalism. The field of neoclassical economics provides a theoretical basis for the workings of capitalism. Though now dominant in universities and economic institutions, the author repeatedly takes issue with its essential premises. Especially irritating is the unwillingness of neoclassical economists to acknowledge the "contradictions" of capitalism, that is, its failure to deliver as predicted. It is difficult to not come to the conclusion that the entire discipline of neoclassical economics is subservient to the business class. Neoclassical economic theory posits "individuals," all seeking to maximize their self-interests by freely operating in various marketplace settings, as the core actors in capitalism. According to the theory, this "free-market" activity operates within the context of fundamental laws of supply and demand, and will result in socially optimal outcomes. However, to regard all market actors as essentially equal "individuals" is highly misrepresentative. Multi-billion dollar corporations often can monopolize markets, manipulate consumers through advertising, and otherwise leverage their tremendous advantages in resources. But neoclassical economists are loath to admit that the dynamics of power, inequality, and coercion can tilt markets.A huge gap in the theory of the general benevolence of markets is that a society of self-interested maximizers will often fail to generate even basic, needed social outcomes. Conveniently, neoclassical economists leave it to governments to fill in where markets fail by doing such things as building roads and bridges, providing for national defense and public schools, and providing a legal structure and the enforcement necessary to conduct business. Neoclassicists are far less sanguine about the need to regulate or otherwise deal with the side effects of marketplace actions. According to the theory, self-interested businesses do not have to deal with the social effects of causing environmental degradation in production, laying-off workers, or paying poverty-level wages, because the marketplace will. However, it is simply not likely that the random acts of relatively uninformed and powerless individuals will be aggregated sufficiently to affect social outcomes through the marketplace. Neocl