Rakesh, the speaker was not identified but he did not sound like
someone with academic credentials, probably got the stat from
his shop steward in UNITE! On the Iraq #ers, that was from The
Nation and the background stuff I added about David Cortright
was a fyi in the interests of just saying in effect this not
some guy like Anthony Cordesman from the Georgetown CSIS or some
such. Plus those numbers came from Lancet, the UK medical journal.
I get so tired of (others, not you!) exaggerated figures on the
deaths due to sanctions. When the truth is horrible why inflate?
Anyway, good questions below, maybe I'll track down the NPR reporter
that did the story and send her a e-mail. Michael Pugliese ---
Original Message ---
>From: Rakesh Bhandari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 12/27/01 11:22:48 AM
>

>michael pugliese wrote:
>
>>    Yesterday on NPR it was said that 75,000 textile jobs have
>>been lost in the last yr.
>
>lost due to national and global recession?  loss of jobs that
would 
>have been added if not for recession? lost due to automation?
lost to 
>specifically defensive automation in the face of imports? lost
due to 
>surge of imports?
>
>how was this number arrived at? what is it an estimate of? is
it 
>reliable? why we should we be concerned only with job loss in
one 
>sector, not net job gain or loss due to globalization or regional

>markets (i.e., why not include jobs gained  directly and indirectly

>from capital inflow, including foreign direct investment; jobs
gained 
>from exports)? why not estimate how successful the 'North' has
been 
>in slowing down the loss of industries in which they have no

>comparative advantage as well as the human consequences that
this had 
>on poor countries?
>
>Michael, I remember when you were sending around *very* low
estimates 
>of the human destruction wrought by the us sanctions on iraq,
while 
>suggesting that they were authoritative because some person
with 
>impeccable leftist credentials had made them. It did not seem
to me 
>to be a very credible way of proceeding.
>
>Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to