Search

The Wang-Chang-Chiang-Yao counterrevolutionary "Gang of Four" carried out revisionism, sowed seeds of discord and resorted to intrigues and plots in an attempt to usurp the Party, seize power, and restore capitalism. Ambition is the source of hypocrisy and falsehood and, of course, of the hypocrisy and falsehood of metaphysics and idealism. The more audacious the "Gang of Four's" ambition to usurp the Party and seize power became, the more barefaced its manifestation of metaphysics and idealism was. Metaphysics and idealism were the faulty ideological weapons they used in the attempt to usurp the Party and seize power. We must follow Chairman Mao's teachings to liquidate the "Gang of Four's" counterrevolutionary revisionist political and ideological line and its crime of impudently trampling on Marxist-Leninist philosophy and Chairman Mao's glorious philosophical thought and protect the purity of Marxism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to explore the theoretical underpinning of this proposal. Specifically, it purports to inquire through what mechanism the effects of output expansions in a country's foreign-trade and domestic-trade industries[3] are transmitted onto its external balance of trade. Although the subject matter is ultimately one of economic policy, our present concern is solely with positive economic analysis. In particular, no attempt will be made in this paper to evaluate the potential costs and benefits of the proposed policy in comparison with those of alternative policies for attaining the same objective; nor will there be an effort to prescribe any program of action for carrying out the policy. In short, the objective of this paper is to discuss the efficacy of the policy, not its merit, nor its implementation.
The purpose of theory in general is to clarify thinking in areas w here common sense fails to provide adequate guidance. Occasionally, conclusions obtained from theoretical analysis may seem to "subvert common sense." In such cases, clinging to common sense would clearly defeat the very purpose that theory is intended to serve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently Jerome L. Stein has presented a theory of the optimum foreign exchange market to demonstrate "how social welfare criteria can be used to evaluate the desirability of alternative foreign exchange markets." Arguing on the basis of a simple model, he is able to obtain conclusions of far-reaching significance. For an economy with idle resources, he concludes, a free exchange market is more efficient than a stabilized exchange market if the balance of payments tends towards deficits in periods of output contraction and surpluses in periods of output expansion; on the other hand, a stabilized exchange market is more efficient than a free exchange market, if the balance of payments tends towards surpluses in periods of output contraction and deficits in periods of output expansion. For a full-employment export economy with fluctuating productivity, a foreign exchange market stabilized at the "equilibrium rate" is found to be more efficient than a free exchange market. Thus, it appears that the long and arduous controversy over the relative desirability of freely flexible and fixed exchange rates has found a startlingly simple solution, depending upon the "structure" of the economy in question, Stein's theory would permit an unequivocal choice between the two types of exchange-rate systems.