Re: +
Apologies for mistakenly sending a message to Pen-L, but the result was making making contact with others doing courses on Marx, so I don't feel so bad. Bill
[no subject]
Hey Tom I'm teaching Mike Lebowitz's old Marxist economics course at SFU this semester. Any chance you would enjoy coming to talk to 40 economics students about the world-historic issue of shorter work time on a Tuesday or Thursday between 1.30 and 3.30? I can't really offer any benefit other than as much beer as you can drink in one sitting and vague notions of karma. Bill
Fortune article on corporate pensions theft
The latest issue of Fortune magazine says employees counting on company pensions to help fund their retirements may be in for a rude awakening when corporations renege on their commitments and slash pensions benefits by as much as half. It reports the pension plans of the largest American corporations no longer have enough money set aside to pay the more than one trillion dollars in benefits owing to their current and future retirees. Companies calculate their future obligations on the basis of actuarial projections of the revenue they expect their plans’ bond and equity holdings to generate over time. But the stock market and interest rate plunge have played havoc with these projections, and instead of meeting the shortfall – an estimated $240 billion and growing – from profits, as required by law, companies are slashing benefits and employing creative accounting and auditing techniques to disguise future liabilities. The article describes the accounting subterfuges and regulatory changes which are allowing companies to cut the promised retirement income of US workers, but, as many of you know, the same pension shortfalls and management evasions characterize private and public sector plans in all of the OECD countries, the effects of which are certain to be felt over the coming decades. You can access the site directly, or I've posted the article on www.supportingfacts.com. Apologies for any cross posting. MG
oooops
New York Times] March 7, 2003 Vivendi Posts Huge Loss; May Shed Assets By JOHN TAGLIABUE PARIS, March 6 - Vivendi Universal reported today that it lost more than $25 billion for 2002, largely as a result of huge write-offs on investments made in the heady years of the 1990's. Vivendi's board, meanwhile, gave its chairman, Jean-René Fourtou, the green light today to explore shedding its American entertainment assets. Vivendi's loss of 23.3 billion euros - more than expected and nearly double its loss of 13.6 billion euros a year earlier - was the largest corporate loss in French history, breaking a record set just Wednesday by France Télécom, which reported a loss of $23 billion. Vivendi narrowly escaped a liquidity crisis last year. Today, however, the company said that it expected to return to profitability, before exceptional items, by 2003 and reaffirmed its pledge to shed assets worth 7 billion euros this year. The results were announced after a much-anticipated meeting of the company's directors. While the entertainment businesses were discussed, senior managers gave no hints on their future at a news conference today. Mr. Fourtou said only that Vivendi was examining options for the entertainment assets, which include Universal's film and music businesses, its cable channels and television production businesses, and that Vivendi had been approached by several potential partners. He said Vivendi's plan to shed assets this year worth 7 billion euros was a continuation of an effort to reduce the mountain of debt built up by his predecessor, Jean-Marie Messier, who transformed Vivendi through acquisitions from a water utility into a media and telecommunications giant. Asset sales last year, Mr. Fourtou said, including the sale of the publisher Houghton Mifflin and most of Vivendi's stake in the water and waste group Vivendi Environnement, enabled the company to cut its net debt to 12.3 billion euros by the end of the year, from 37.1 billion euros a year earlier. Vivendi's loss reflected good-will charges of 18.4 billion euros and another charge mirroring the depreciation of portfolio investments totaling 2.9 billion euros. Excluding one-time items and good will, Vivendi lost 94 million euros. Last year, Mr. Fourtou said at a news conference after the board meeting, was "an extremely difficult year," but 2003 promised to be a "year of transition and of financial and economic progress." On the bright side, Mr. Fourtou said operating profit at Vivendi's six core business units rose 18 percent, to 3.2 billion euros, last year, largely because of strong performances at the phone company Cegetel and Vivendi Universal Entertainment. The company's other core businesses are the Universal Music Group, Vivendi Universal Games, Maroc Telecom and the French pay-television company Canal Plus. Mr. Fourtou had considered selling 51 percent of Canal Plus in an offering on the Paris bourse this year. But operating losses at Canal Plus totaled 325 million euros last year, down from 374 million euros the year before. The losses, coupled with the weakness of global stock markets, led him to abandon the plan. Though a heavy loss had been expected, Vivendi shares dropped in Paris trading, closing down 4.3 percent at 12.43 euros; in New York, Vivendi's American depository receipts fell nearly 5 percent, to $13.56. Financial authorities in France and the United States are investigating Vivendi's accounting methods under Mr. Messier after shareholders filed a lawsuit claiming that they had been misled. Finance police earlier this week raided the offices of the French bank Société Générale and collected documents as part of the investigation. But Vivendi said today that the board had "no knowledge of any elements" calling into question earlier accounting methods. It said the 2002 accounts were established according to the same methods used in previous years.
Enronomics redux
Enron scams fill 2,000 pages Second report from investigator tells of increasingly desperate efforts to conceal financial disaster David Teather in New York Friday March 7, 2003 The Guardian The scale of the deception at Enron, the bankrupt energy firm, was further exposed yesterday in a 2,000 page report detailing the increasingly desperate measures the company used to hide its true financial position. The second in a series of reports from court-appointed examiner Neal Batson disclosed that Enron transferred as much as $5bn of assets off balance sheet through sham transactions as part of the attempt to manipulate its financial statements. The disclosure sets the stage for a bitter fight in the bankruptcy court to determine which assets creditors have a claim over. With every new examination of activities at Enron, the scale of the alleged fraud and corruption grows. The latest report from Mr Batson is no exception. Andrew Fastow, the former finance chief awaiting trial on fraud charges, creamed "at least $60.6m" from arranging transactions designed to prop up earnings between Enron and its special purpose entities, the report claims. Previous estimates were that Mr Fastow had pocketed $45m from the deals. The report also details the yawning gaps between Enron's reported numbers and its actual state. In 2000, Enron reported income of $979m, of which 96 per cent was generated from six "accounting techniques" used by the company to give the appearance that it was making money. Enron reported income of $352m from the sale of assets to SPEs, which had taken loans to pay for the acquisitions - loans that Enron was liable to repay. Debt that year was reported to be $10.2bn when in reality it was $22.1bn. Cash flow should have been a negative $154m instead of the reported $3bn in the black. "Enron so engineered its reported financial position and results of operations that its financial statements bore little resemblance to its actual financial condition or performance," Mr Batson says. He concludes that the Enron estate could seek $74m from former chairman Kenneth Lay, who borrowed the money and repaid it in company shares in the months before it fell into bankruptcy. The estate could also go after $55m in deferred compensation that was handed out as accelerated payment to a number of senior executives in the weeks before Enron collapsed. One of the accounting techniques, called mark-to-market, was used aggressively by Enron. Assets were carried at their "fair value", a figure that can be estimated by management and was used by Enron to accelerate earnings of new projects which actually were not generating any cash. A deal with Blockbuster to deliver video on demand never got off the ground but Enron recorded a gain of $111m from it. It ultimately used the accounting method on 35 per cent of its assets so that "a mere 5 per cent fluctuation in the value of these assets would have resulted in a gain or loss of $1.1bn". To mask the fact that the earnings were not "real", the company was forced to come up with schemes to generate cash flow. One was a 1999 deal codenamed Project Nahanni. Enron, weeks away from the year-end, borrowed $500m in treasury securities from Citibank, sold them immediately and reported the proceeds as operating cash flow. That represented 41 per cent of the total cash flow from operations recognised by Enron in 1999. The firm swiftly repaid the loan without it ever showing up as debt on its financial statement. Pre-pay transactions were also widely used. Enron would promise delivery of oil or gas contracts in return for an upfront payment designed, according to a memo from Mr Fastow, "to bring cash forward to match earnings". Seven such deals were facilitated by JP Morgan Chase and four by Citibank. A managing director of Citibank affiliate Salomon Smith Barney allegedly described the technique as giving "oomph to earnings". According to the report, up to $2.1bn in assets had been moved off balance sheet as part of the SPE deals while another $2.9bn was fraudulently shifted out of the company shortly before its bankruptcy filing in December 2001. A third report from Mr Batson is due in late June.
law and economics redux
No case for Iraq attack say lawyers Michael White and Patrick Wintour Friday March 7, 2003 The Guardian Tony Blair last night faced fresh pressure to abandon the threat of war against Iraq when 16 eminent academic lawyers warned him that the White House doctrine of "pre-emptive self-defence" has no justification under international law. Not only do all the UN security council's existing resolutions on Iraq - including 1441 passed unanimously in November to enforce disarmament on Saddam Hussein - fail to provide such authority, there are currently no grounds for passing a new one to give the "clearly expressed assent" to a war that Mr Blair still seeks, the lawyers declare. In a letter sent to Downing Street and published in today's Guardian, the signatories - specialists who include James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge, and Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor at Oxford - also take a sideswipe at the prime minister for saying that he and President Bush would ignore an "unreasonable veto" in the security council. Noting that Britain itself has exercised the veto 32 times since the UN was founded in 1945, the 16 say "the prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes 'unreasonable' and may be disregarded has no basis in international law" either. The 16 do leave themselves some wriggle room by pronouncing their verdict "on the basis of information publicly available" so that a major disclosure of Iraqi non-compliance with the UN weapons inspection - or other subterfuge - might change their stance. But US-UK dossiers have so far failed to persuade wary voters. Not content with telling Mr Blair that a second resolution is legally necessary as well as politically vital if Downing Street is to stem growing dissent among Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, the lawyers, mostly British-based but of many nationalities, add a further sting. "A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law," they say. "Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war." That amounts to a blanket thumbs-down. The letter's signatories include six leading international lawyers from Oxford, three from Cambridge and three from the London School of Economics. Also among them are Professor Phillipe Sands, a member of Cherie Blair QC's Matrix chambers who teaches at University College London, and Professor Pierre-Marie Dupuy of the Sorbonne. The substance of the letter, however, is certain to be disputed by other senior lawyers. Some argue that, if 1441 is not deemed strong enough, resolution 678, passed in 1990, will be deployed by the US and UK to justify an attack. Mr Blair, himself a lawyer, again insisted he will only act in a manner consistent with international law when cross-examined by European young voters in an MTV TV debate yesterday. Some senior ministers have been alarmed that legal opinions circulated within the cabinet challenge the legality of the looming scenario for war, not least the prospect of a US-led reconstruction of a post-Saddam Iraq. It would be illegal, Whitehall lawyers say, without direct UN authority. The warning from legal advisers shown to ministers, including foreign secretary Jack Straw and Clare Short, the international development secretary, makes it clear why Britain has been pushing a reluctant US to bring the UN into running a post-war regime as soon as possible. Ministers and officials are acutely aware of the problem which has led to informal talks with UN officials to draft options. But they fear that Mr Blair is not pressing Washington hard enough. This adds to pressure to delay military action, now expected in the second half of March. In the MTV debate, Mr Blair implicitly acknowledged the problem when he stressed that Iraqi oil supplies would be placed under UN supervision, though he pointedly drew attention to Iraq's "outstanding debts and contracts" to France and Russia. Some Blairites say the debts explain the two states' attitude to war. Equally significantly Mr Blair appeared to admit that either - or both - could veto the resolution now being redrafted to win wavering security council resolutions. "If there was a veto applied by one of the countries with a veto, or by countries that I thought were applying the veto unreasonably, in those circumstances we would (go ahead)," he said. Aides later stressed that Mr Blair still expects to win the second resolution. A further sign of planning jitters emerged yesterday from a secret session at Westminster, where a UN official told the Commons international development committee that its financial resources for a proper humanitarian operation in Iraq are totally inadequate. Ross Mountain, director of UN humanitarian affairs, told MPs that 470,000 tonnes of food were available, with most Iraqi
3 vetos?
China's position hardened in what could just become a "defining moment" in post cold war world politics. The possibility of 3 vetos against the US-UK push to war. BBC: China's foreign minister, speaking before leaving for the UN on Thursday, said: "We think it is not necessary to introduce any new resolution". .. Russia has repeatedly said it might use its veto. But French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said on Thursday that the use of the veto "wasn't an issue" because the majority of council members supported France's position. The BBC's Francis Markus in Shanghai says China's pragmatic instincts make it reluctant to jeopardise an improving relationship with Washington by using its veto against a war it knows might well go ahead anyway. But the BBC report added that China might decide merely to abstain might leave it looking isolated. That would be a new dynamic. And China can be decisive as when it captured the US spy plane. Such a vote would leave an unforgettable polarisation - an open coalition determined to punish the USA for its hegemonic hubris, and waiting for the opportunity. Tonight the BBC1 commentator talking from the United Nations was unable to relay any optimistic message given to him by UK government representatives.. Straw has the hardest sell of his life. He has come trying to interest people in the an amendement to Britain's own resolution. The Russian ambassador dismissed it curtly as not serious. Instructively one of the "smaller nations" was quoted with an ingenious formula for escaping from all the arm twisting and bribery: they did not see why they should have to resolve the differences between the great powers on the planet. And although Blair maintained that he still thought there would be a second resolution, he undermined his position on MTV by admitting that he would be prepared to defy more than one veto. The BBC commentator outside the UN said "It is looking pretty desperate for Tony Blair" Chris Burford London
tax breaks
[tackle box producers of the world, unite!] Military Tax Bill Pulled By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 6, 2003; 4:53 PM House GOP leaders abruptly pulled a tax bill for military personnel from the floor today after fellow Republicans objected to a handful of parochial tax breaks the Ways and Means Committee had added to the measure. The bill was originally designed to give several tax breaks to members of the armed services, including reservists called to duty. House Democrats cried foul last week when several committee Republicans inserted other tax provisions that would benefit a few U.S. companies and trade associations. Republican House leaders had hoped to win passage of the bill today, but abandoned the effort when several GOP members balked. "This bill over the period of the past couple of days got heavier and heavier," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters as he left the House chamber. "We always want to make sure our members feel comfortable with bills that come to the floor." About two weeks ago, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) told Republican and Democratic members they could use the $482 million tax bill as a vehicle to add other tax provisions that had failed in previous efforts. Several Republicans responded with targeted items, including a repeal of the excise tax on fishing tackle boxes, a simplification of the excise tax on bows and arrows, and elimination of taxes imposed on foreigners who bet on U.S. horse races. House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Republicans bore the blame for temporarily blocking the bill's progress. "It's a darn shame that we got a partisan dispute that sent a message to our men and women in the service overseas that we couldn't get our act together because they larded up this bill with controversial provisions," Hoyer said in an interview.
attacking Dubya's trade policy
Administration attacked for failing to file WTO case Associated Press Published March 6, 2003 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Two key senators on trade issues attacked the Bush administration Wednesday for not bringing a case against Europe's ban on imports of genetically modified food, saying the decision was costing farmers millions of dollars in lost sales of corn, soybeans and other crops. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the committee's top Democrat, told U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick that they could not understand the administration's delay in bringing a case before the World Trade Organization given the economic pain for farmers. Saying he was "profoundly disappointed" in the delay, Grassley said the E.U.'s four-year moratorium on imports of genetically modified food was costing U.S. farmers $300 million annually in lost sales and hurting companies that had spent the money to develop the genetically modified crops, which have been used extensively in the United States to grow more disease-resistant corn, soybeans and other crops. "E.U. policies also create a chilling effect on the approval and sale of biotech products around the world, especially in developing countries that fear that if they start using biotech crops, they'll lose the ability to sell in the European market," Grassley said. He said the decision of countries in Africa not to use genetically modified seed that has been proven to boost crop yields dramatically was contributing to the starvation of tens of thousands of people on that continent, a fact that he said "doesn't seem to matter to anyone in Europe." While Zoellick in January called the E.U. ban "immoral" for the same reason that it was influencing African countries to the detriment of their citizens, the administration has delayed for weeks a Cabinet-level meeting where Zoellick had expected to receive the go-ahead for filing a case.
the political ecology of megaprojects
[free chapter to boot!] http://books.cambridge.org/0521009464.htm Megaprojects and Risk An Anatomy of Ambition Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius, Werner Rothengatter Megaprojects and Risk provides the first detailed examination of the phenomenon of megaprojects. It is a fascinating account of how the promoters of multi-billion dollar megaprojects systematically and self-servingly misinform parliaments, the public and the media in order to get projects approved and built. It shows, in unusual depth, how the formula for approval is an unhealthy cocktail of underestimated costs, overestimated revenues, undervalued environmental impacts and overvalued economic development effects. This results in projects that are extremely risky, but where the risk is concealed from MPs, taxpayers and investors. The authors not only explore the problems but also suggest practical solutions drawing on theory, experience and hard, scientific evidence from the several hundred projects in twenty nations and five continents that illustrate the book. Accessibly written, it will be the standard reference for students, scholars, planners, economists, auditors, politicians and interested citizens for many years to come.
Go... Read... NOW! Rowley letter to FBI Director
Rowley letter to FBI Director http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3738192.html Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Warmongering pigs at Human Rights Watch
Building a better war As the U.S. marches toward an invasion of Iraq, Human Rights Watch is trying to do what critics say is impossible: Wield public opinion to create a more humanitarian war. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Mary Papenfuss, salon.com March 6, 2003 | Human Rights Watch is nothing if not pragmatic. The New York-based organization, which investigates human rights abuses worldwide by traveling to trouble spots to interview victims and witnesses, vehemently opposes human rights abuses -- yet also seeks dialogue with governments guilty of gross violations, and dictators that other human rights groups won't deal with. When total compliance with international law is unattainable, HRW battles for degrees of improvement. So while antiwar activists are pouring into the streets to protest America's threatened invasion of Iraq, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has taken a proactive role in its own unusual gray area of warfare. Rather than trying to block an Iraqi invasion, or even arguing against it, HRW has, in effect, been trying to build a better war in Iraq. It's not so much supporting the unthinkable, the group insists, as attempting to mitigate the damage of what may be inevitable. To protect its image as a neutral observer and advocate for human rights, HRW rarely opposes -- or supports -- war, and hasn't taken a stand for or against an American invasion in Iraq. Rather, it's already bringing pressure to bear on the U.S. government to wage as good a war as possible -- by limiting civilian casualties and suffering. That means careful choice of weaponry and targets, and acceptance by the U.S. of its responsibility to quickly respond to the humanitarian disaster that could be triggered by an invasion -- and to prepare for the horrors Saddam Hussein may unleash on his own people in the face of his defeat. Kenneth Roth, the quietly intense executive director of HRW, spoke to Salon recently from his office in Manhattan about building a better war. He talked about America's troubling history in Iraq, the risk of dangerous alliances with brutal Saddam opponents and the potentially catastrophic fallout from an Iraqi war. Roth also discussed HRW's productive tension with the antiwar movement. While Human Rights Watch has been criticized by some peace groups for its pragmatic approach to war, Roth admits his group needs the movement to maintain world focus on the plight of Iraqi civilians. He worries, though, that once war breaks out, demoralized protesters will abandon their concern for the Iraqi people "at the moment of greatest need." Q: How do you build a better war? A: That question probably strikes most people as odd because many people are opposed to any war. Even if you accept that war is sometimes necessary, there's no avoiding the fact that war can be devastating, not only for the soldiers being shot at, but also for civilians. War does have an inherently evil component to it, even if it is sometimes necessary. What Human Rights Watch and other groups like us try to do is to say: If it comes to the point when there is a war, for better or worse, how do you make sure that the consequences to civilians are minimized as much as possible? We use as our legal framework the Geneva Conventions, which do not prohibit war; they regulate war. They accept the fact that in the course of a war it's acceptable for one soldier to be shooting at another soldier. What they aim to do is to protect as much as possible people who are not combatants, either because they are civilians or because they are injured combatants or they are captured combatants. All of these people are protected under the Geneva Conventions, and a soldier no longer is privileged by laws of war to shoot these people. Instead, a soldier has a duty to protect these people. Human Rights Watch sees as our responsibility enforcing these rules. We've tried to push warring parties, whether it's the Pentagon or Saddam or anyone, to do everything possible to spare civilians the consequences of war. full: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/06/human_rights_watch/ -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Labor strife at Bard College
I've just learned that Gehry's "creation" at Bard has run into labor trouble. Apparently it started 2 days ago as a response to the builder's bringing non-union workers to speed up the construction. The completion date is sometime in May and a big gala event was planned and the tickets were already being sold. This does not surprise me at all. The whole point of Gehry's computer-based design methodology is to reduce labor costs. I covered this project in: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/culture/gehry.htm However, I neglected to include an important point that was covered in the Baffler Magazine article on Frank Gehry that prompted me to write my own piece. Gehry's characteristically "melting wax" forms are facilitated by computer-based design, which are also meant to cut down on skilled labor costs. It is the same phenomenon identified in David Noble's "Forces of Production" as adapted to architecture. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
The terrorist rating game
http://www.suntimes.com/output/pickett/cst-nws-pickett04.html Chicago Sun Times March 4, 2003 'Terror boss' moves up ladder as U.S. sees fit By Debra Pickett Sun-Times columnist A month after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush released a list of the world's most-wanted terrorists. There were 22 names on it. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was No. 22. And the list wasn't alphabetical. But, sometime between then and early Saturday morning, when Mohammed was captured in Pakistan, the U.S. government identified Mohammed as the mastermind behind the al-Qaida plot. Osama bin Laden, we're now told, is pretty much a figurehead: It's Mohammed who made things happen. Over the past 2-1/2 years, he's climbed from last place to a photo finish for No. 1 on the most-wanted list. The cynical view on this is that Mohammed is still the relatively small fish we were first told he was, but the news of his arrest is being hyped because the Bush administration needs a victory in the war on terrorism before going to war in Iraq. The merely skeptical view is that we are clueless about how al-Qaida really works. When Mohammed's name first made international news, he was described as an accomplice to Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind behind the first World Trade Center bombing, in 1993. In retrospect, that might have been Mohammed's stint in the terrorist-mastermind internship program. In the first intelligence reports following the 2001 attacks, Mohammed was named as an "al-Qaida operative," a couple of levels down the organizational chart from bin Laden's top deputy, Egyptian doctor Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaida military commander Mohammed Atef and security chief Saif al-Adil. Those were the big fish. Mohammed's name came up again when officials began to speculate about how al-Qaida might be reorganizing in the wake of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. With bin Laden apparently on the run, and periodically presumed to be dead, it seemed to make sense that an operational guy, with a lower profile, might step in to run things. Mohammed seemed to be that guy. He was described as "al-Qaida's engineer," a nerdy, uncharismatic sort, a middle manager who'd probably never get the key to the executive washroom, no matter how much he sucked up to the boss. Then, in the summer of 2002, things started to change. News reports quoted U.S. officials as saying that Mohammed was like the "Forrest Gump of al-Qaida." His name and fingerprints seemed to be everywhere. He'd been involved in all of al-Qaida's major attacks. But no one had noticed. The class nerd has a way of fading into the background. Around the same time, the government started to release intelligence information it had gathered from "various sources," which, we all understood, included alleged al-Qaida members being held at Guantanamo Bay and other, undisclosed, locations. Abu Zubeida, who was described as a top bin Laden lieutenant when he was captured in Pakistan last year, is widely assumed to be one of those sources. He's apparently the first person to have told U.S. officials that Mohammed was the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Here in Illinois, we've learned a little something about the reliability of jailhouse witnesses. It's not clear that U.S. intelligence officers have come to the same understanding. Soon after their first interrogations of Zubeida, the government offered a $25 million reward for Mohammed's capture. Forrest Gump had become an official terrorist mastermind. For the first time in his long al-Qaida career, he appeared on al-Jazeera TV, the CNN of the Arab world. His bosses were nowhere to be found. Mohammed had replaced bin Laden as the face of al-Qaida. He'd also replaced the Rev. Jesse Jackson as the world's most famous North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University alumnus. Mohammed's star fell, briefly, when a raid in Karachi, Pakistan, last September netted Ramzi bin al-Shibh. When we captured him, President Bush announced that bin al-Shibh was "one of the chief planners and organizers" of the Sept. 11 attacks. Then, like Zubeida before him, this alleged big shot apparently told intelligence officers that no, he wasn't very important within al-Qaida; it was really Mohammed they wanted. Now, we have him. But no one seems to be breathing any great sighs of relief. We don't feel any safer. We're just waiting for the next revision to the most-wanted list. It seems that every time we capture one of these guys, we insist that he's the one we wanted all along. Then, he points a finger at Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. So you have to wonder who Mohammed himself will blame. A cynic might guess that he'd modestly decline to take credit and, instead, tell us, finally, who was truly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks: Saddam Hussein. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harpers on sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction
FYI, a thorough article on sanctions by Joy Gordan, appearing in Harper's Magazine. http://www.harpers.org/online/cool_war/Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
Re: Germany
Eichel's claim rings true. Does anyone know the current figure for the transfer to the Neue Laender (former GDR) each year? I think I recall hearing ten years after the fall of the wall that it was continuing at the incredible rate of 150 milliarden (billions) of marks a year, or was it three years? Or did I get the figures wrong? Essentially the enforced currency unification under Kohl's populist demagogy was a disaster, abruptly destroying a whole swathe of productive forces, and leaving the east on charity handouts. The instructive comparison is with the Czech Republic, which of course kept its own currency without a destruction of large sections of relatively advanced productive capacity, at the price of accepting an inequality of wages compared to its richer western neighbours. That gave the possibility of smoother change. But does anyone know of any recent economic comparison? The massive bailout of East Germany also brought to an end the EU dynamic of the 80's that Germany was able to continue to be a centre of capital accumulation and subsidise a large portion of the regional development subsidies to the outlying areas of the EU. Perhaps it could not have gone on forever but is seemed to work for the EU in the 80's. Chris Burford London At 2003-03-05 19:45 -0800, you wrote: Germany: a powerhouse in crisis Larry Elliott and John Hooper Thursday March 6, 2003 The Guardian Germany continues to pay a high economic price for reunification and it will take "an entire generation" to solve the problems of the former communist eastern states, the country's finance minister, Hans Eichel, says today. In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Eichel says that Germany is a "very competitive economy" which is at no risk of following Japan into long-term decline. But he claims that 13 years after joining the ramshackle economy of the German Democratic Republic with West Germany the legacy of de-industrialisation and high unemployment remains. Figures out today are likely to show unemployment in Germany rising towards 5 million. Mr Eichel says reunification "was in effect a programme for the de-industrialisation of eastern Germany and it led to very high unemployment, which it will take an entire generation to remedy". Unemployment has added 1.5% of GDP to Germany's social security bill and led to increased borrowing, he says. With the European Central Bank likely to cut interest rates for the eurozone today, Mr Eichel rejects the idea that Germany's problems would be eased if it was able to set its own rates. He also defends the EU's stability and growth pact, despite the pressure on the German government to keep its budget deficit below the 3% of GDP set by Brussels. He adds that if growth is lower than 1% this year, as many forecasters expect, he will allow borrowing to rise above the ceiling.
