Re: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
on work that EPI does. FYI we hardly ever lobby, and much of our education is aimed at the masses, albeit through the medium of mass organizations. > Not at all (if I had some money, maybe I'd give some to EPI). But the > influence that EPI has exists not because its accurate statistics but > because of what remains of the power of labor unions. That is, it arises > from extra-parliamentary venues. Well, I would say that the parliamentary and labor sectors have a dialectical relationship, if you'll excuse the expression. > Lobbyists, politicians, and other denizens of the parliamentary deeps can > help build the extraparliamentary forces that can win them some elbow room > so that they can break from the constraints of capitalist politics. > Unfortunately, the careerism of the vast majority of politicians (with the > notable case of Clinton burning our retinas) prevents them from doing so. > They go the path of least resistance, seeking campaign bucks and the powers > of incumbency. I'd say we have substantial areas of agreement. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: fast track
> Subject: Re: fast track > The deals to which I referred were not the special payments to compliant > congressional representatives, but the corporate deals tucked in the > earlier agreements. Had anyone addressed them? Sure. > Also, the Naderite discussions that I heard gave references to protecting > the environment without specifying just how trade agreements do so. As I mentioned in another post, formulating a positive alternative is our next order of business. We've begun working on it and will have something ready for next January. Cheers, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: fast track
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:34:07 -0800 (PST) > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Thank god fast track is stopped for now. I was troubled by the framing of > the debate. I heard virtually nothing about the Naderite critique -- that > the trade agreements gave a free hand to corporations to dismantle any > social or environmental controls, such as the case with the tuna fishing > and the Venezualan oil. > > Nor did I hear anything about the vast array of special deals tucked away > in GATT or NAFTA. > > Were these issues brought up? If not, why not? Nader's groups and green issues were quite prominent in the process, from where I sat. The special deals were also discussed and as before tended to undermine the credibility of the entire exercise, not least because the Administration reneged on a number of deals it had made to pass NAFTA. Some Members were not ready to be suckered a second time. MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: fast track
> Congratulations are due to Max and others who worked against this > measure. Thanks but personally I didn't do much except post a few things on the net. The real credit as far as EPI is concerned is due to Rob Scott and Jesse Rothstein, who did most of the trade work, and Thea Lee of the AFL-CIO (formerly of EPI). Politically of course the center of opposition was House democrats under the leadership of Dick Gephardt and David Bonior, and the AFL-CIO. One new political factor was the avid participation of the public employees and other service workers, who understand their wages and political fortunes in general depend in some measure on how well manufacturing workers are doing. There is more class solidarity by virtue of this experience. This process also elevates how organized labor is viewed by the general public. More broadly, there has been established more of a distinction between the Administration and what some people call "the democratic faction of the Democratic Party." There is an important opportunity here for the left to float and motivate progressive proposals to receptive Democrats, not for the sake of herding people into the DP, but to further the establishment of a progressive political platform independent of the White House/ Democratic National Committee which forces Democrats to choose between the two and lays the basis for either driving the Clinto-crats out of the party or contributing to the formation of a viable third party. The immediate next step in the wake of the Fast Track outcome is to propose an alternative approach to trade which can be used to counter any repeat attempt to pass Fast Track (a virtual certainty), but more important to build support for a positive alternative. Suggestions in this vein and supporting research would of course be very welcome. Cheers, MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
(Fwd) ADAction News and Notes
From: Laurence Shute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Actual US Unemployment Rate?? <> The ADA regularly presents figures on an alternative unemployment rate along the lines you suggest. Check out their web site (noted below) if interested. MBS e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://adaction.org ___ AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION 1625 K Street, N.W., Suite 210 Washington, D.C. 20006 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: (202) 785-5969 phone:(202) 785-5980 ___ ======= Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: VOTE SCHEDULED ON FAST TRACK NOVEMBER 7
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:53:43 -0800 > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "michael perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: VOTE SCHEDULED ON FAST TRACK NOVEMBER 7 > > Max said that it was dead. Why would they bother to vote on it? I said it was on its deathbed. Latest scuttlebut is the other side hopes a vote will get undecideds off the fence and onto their side. We'll see. Like Dracula, it will rise again next year or thereafter (more likely thereafter), but since Congress plans to adjourn by about November 21, if it goes down on 11/7 it's probably dead till 1999. MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: the crash and politics
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:16:41 -0800 > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "michael perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: the crash and politics > > > From: Max B. Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Fast track was already on its deathbed, > > thanks principally to the exertions of undead > > U.S. social democracy. I'm afraid the dip could > > be used to revive it. > > Max, I would not be so sure. I assume that the "undecided" are waiting for > Clinton to offer them a special deal. Nafta too looked dead at one time, > till Clinton started dealing. Now, the Dems. know that it "pays" to be > undecided. Do you agree? No. Clinton tried to jerk some people around with threatened vetoes of down-home pork and only succeeded in driving a few more votes to the other side. My information, which in this case is from those who know, is that if there are 20 such persons in the House, namely those waiting for some bon-bon in return for a vote, that's a lot, and another 20 is far short of what the other side needs to pass the bill. Max === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: the crash and politics
> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:17:28 -0800 > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: the crash and politics > Am I wrong in suspecting that the crash [if it is not just a passing > blip] may doom fast track and discredit neo-liberalism? Fast track was already on its deathbed, thanks principally to the exertions of undead U.S. social democracy. I'm afraid the dip could be used to revive it. As others here have noted, the idea of privatizing Social Security doesn't look quite as good this week. Greenspan has an interesting dilemma. If he raises rates in the wake of this episode, which seems rather unlikely, he creates a target for a broad base of critics. Absent further developments, there are no other political handles right now that I can see. I'd say it will take a lot more than a 10 percent decline in U.S. stocks to discredit n-l. MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: Asian ecological crisis
> Whatever one's theory of their sources, the recent economic/ecological crises > to sweep SE Asia (currency crashes, regional pollution disasters, stock > market swoons) represent a serious legitimacy problem not only for heads of > state and > governments in that part of the world, but to exponents of the so-called > "Asian miracle." Serious students of the region know that a) each of the In principle it is possible to distinguish between the growth achieved thus far, which is real, and the conniptions of the financial system. Now some here would say the two are inseparable, but that is debatable. In either case, the legitimation issue is salient. If the financial system blows up or we get ecological catastrophes that prevent the routine functioning of society, the fact that these things might not have been necessary recedes into the background and political opportunities for the left expand. > . . . > of its own reproduction through destroying the natural environment. No doubt > the mainstream development theorists and ecological economists and environmental > policy wonks in the North will blame political cronyism and the absence of > liberal democratic institutions such as technocratic environmental protection > bureaucracies for the regional environmental catastrophe to perpetuate the > illusion that sustainable capitalism on a world scale is possible and > practicable. Since the socialist world (sic) has witnessed similar disasters, the problem probably goes deeper than the mere fact of private ownership of capital or its absence. > Any remarks on these ill-formed thoughts ? No less well-formed than most of the other jive on this list. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Any UFFO's? (Unidentified Flying-Financier Objects)
Yo Doug, Anything interesting happening in your neck of the woods? Let me say that if the socialist revolution is finally upon us, I always have been deeply sympathetic. Secretly Marxist Max === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: price indexes
> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 22:45:20 -0500 > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: price indexes > Does anyone know of any work on different price indexes for different > income classes in the U.S. A book I'm reading, Williamson & Lindert's And another thing; there has been work on separate indices for the elderly stemming from Social Security policy debates. MBS
Re: price indexes
> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 22:45:20 -0500 > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: price indexes > Does anyone know of any work on different price indexes for different > income classes in the U.S. A book I'm reading, Williamson & Lindert's There was a thread or two in FEMECON not too long ago on alternative price indices for different social groups which included some citations. It was inspired by the Boskin Comm. debate. MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
> > Today, the Jews are doing better at blending in. We see more and more of > > them in the right wing think tanks. I suspect that this turn of events > > might be an interesting sociological study. Waddya think Louis? > > > Yeah, this will go into my chapter on Jews in America. The specimen known > as Henry Kissinger deserves close scrutiny under a microscope, especially > in light of the mordant comedy that went on in Nixon's White House when he > complained, "It's the Jews, Henry, it's the Jews." For any who didn't know, the definitive treatment of this is Joseph Heller's novel, "Good as Gold." If you haven't read it, stop whatever you're doing now and get a copy. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: The New Zealand Experiment
> Those interested in the New Zealand Economic Experiment may be > interested in a brief paper by Paul Dalziel, Reader in Economics, > Department of Economics and Marketing, Lincoln University. > > I reproduce its abstract and conclusion below. Paul has not yet had > it accepted for publication, but is happy for it to be distributed > and is interested in comments, so I can send a Word 6 version to > those who are interested. I'd like one. For any PEN-L members in the D.C. area, we're having two NZ trade union leaders in for a talk on November 17. Write me for details. MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
FYI: Capital's Gain
Regarding a subject that has come up on this list, namely the current very high rates of profit and capital share of income in the U.S. and other advanced nations, the interested reader is referred to: http://epn.org/prospect/33/33mishfs.html This is an article by Larry Mishel of EPI (my boss, quite coincidentally) in The American Prospect. The only thing we're trying to make out of these results is the idea that the economy can currently support higher pay (at the expense of capital income) without waves of business bankruptcy. Fans of some kind of imminent crisis theory might still have resort to arguments regarding the volatility of profits and finance in general. MBS ======= Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: A forum on finance capital
ne school of thought, including > Gabriel Kolko, views these institutions as signs of clashing interests > between the Eastern states and the Western frontier. A more scientific > understanding would be based on the insight that capital creates these > institutions so as to better regulate its own functioning. In any case, > they serve as a form of social control. Doug began his presentation with a Sure. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of conflict. To some extent, the insistence on a 'unified system' concept may be a different form of the perennial reform versus revolution debate. Differences between finance and industry make for political opportunities which are eschewed by revolutionists. Alternatively, differences could be invented by reformers to evade the revolutionary imperative. Evasively, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: Book reviews of Thernstrom?
> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:15:23 -0700 > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "R. Anders Schneiderman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Book reviews of Thernstrom? > Dear Penlrs, > > Now that James Glassman and other right-wing idiots are using the new book > by the Thernstroms to argue that racism is bascially gone, I guess it's > time to take a quick look at it. Anybody seen a decent review? Front page of last week's Washington Post Book World had a piece worth a look. MBS ======= Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
EPI Fellowship Opportunity
ANNOUNCEMENT THE MARCIA MCGILL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE PURPOSE To provide advanced graduate students with experience in policy- relevant empirical research and to assist them in developing their own research/dissertation topic. ACTIVITIES The research fellow will assist EPI economists in empirical research, providing an opportunity to develop as well as use statistical and methodological capabilities. The Fellow will develop research/dissertation ideas and explore databases at EPI, and will be encouraged to attend seminars, hearings and conferences in the D.C. area. SEIU will provide the research fellow with the opportunity to learn about the role of labor unions in the policy-making process. Research will be empirical and relevant to public policy. Examples are the outcomes of welfare reform, the distribution of the tax burden, trends in labor markets and the income distribution, work reorganization and worker participation, macroeconomic policy, and the evolution of privatization efforts in state and local governments. Historically specific factors and the role of institutions will be included in the analysis. ELIGIBILITY AND TERMS OF AWARD The fellowship is available to advanced graduate students in economics, public policy, industrial relations, or related fields who have completed all requirements toward a doctorate except for the dissertation. It is primarily intended for those who have not yet selected a dissertation topic, but those who have begun their dissertations are also invited to apply. Minorities and women are strongly urged to apply. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Applicants must submit: 1. Statement from their department describing their current academic standing. 2. A three page statement on the applicant's research interests and their relevance to public policy. If applicable, the statement would briefly describe the dissertation, including the research problem or area, research questions, methodologies, sources of data or evidence (e.g., surveys, case studies), and policy implications. 3. Two letters of reference from faculty, one of whom must be the applicant's chief academic advisor. 4. Curriculum vitae and transcript from the graduate institution. 5. A writing sample, preferably a research paper, or equivalent. APPLICATION DATES Applications must be postmarked by 11/15/97. Awards will be announced by 12/01/97. The award will cover the period January 1998 through August 1998. Exact start and end dates are flexible. ARRANGEMENTS The Fellow will receive $16,667 (pro-rated from $25,000 annual) for eight months and reside in the Washington, D.C. area. Health benefits are available if the Fellow is not covered by his or her university. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION People of color are strongly encouraged to apply. SPONSORSHIP: The Marcia McGill Fellowship is sponsored by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in memory of Marcia McGill, an economist employed by SEIU until her untimely death in 1995. SEIU represents 1.1 million members in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. It is the third-largest and fastest growing union in the AFL-CIO whose members work in many industries including health care, public service, and building service. EPI is funded by foundations, trade unions, business organizations, and individuals. Founding scholars of EPI are Barry Bluestone, Jeff Faux, Robert Kuttner, Ray Marshall, Robert Reich, and Lester Thurow. Send applications to: Economic Policy Institute Marcia McGill Fellowship 1660 L Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20036
The New Economy
> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:55:46 -0700 > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: re: FW: BLS Daily Report > Are people really talking about the US economy entering a "New Era"? The > last time those words were used was during the optimistic phase of the 1920s. > > The "New Economy" is nicer in that it avoids the historical connection, but > in essence it's the same thing. Your buddy Paul Krugman has a piece in the Harvard Business Review which tries to debunk the idea of a new economy (July-Aug 1997). Before I started reading it, I was looking forward to him bashing the Al Gore school of economic gee-whiz, but the piece turns out to be a strange exercise in imputing to business persons a belief that Keynesian monetary stimulus will raise the long-term growth rate, in contrast to the wisdom of the Fed and 'almost all economists' (e.g., those in agreement with PK). In this respect we're back to the chestnut that money is neutral in the long run, though PK doesn't take this context as an opportunity to bash Fed critics or left-of-center advocates of looser money. Little of the article deals with cyberphilia, and only a small part to the salient point that relatively little of the U.S. economy-- 15 percent of value added--entails tradable goods. Here of course PK is momentarily abstaining from marginalism (as he has done in the trade debate). Funny that the idea of gains from trade does not arise in this piece at all. I would have thought that by standard theory, continuing globalization could add something to productivity growth as trade opportunities continuously generated better configurations of labor and capital, abstracting from technology or labor force growth. Please don't ask me to defend this view, but it does seem in the spirit of the mainstream. I guess PK is defending the traditional neo-classical synthesis view that monetary policy can be used to good effect, including in an open economy, and the U.S. Fed happens to be doing a bang-up job as things stand. One little surprize is that PK pleads agnosticism on the productivity debate, rather than throwing in with Boskin et al. His depiction is more or less balanced. Another is that he acknowledges trade to be a factor in U.S. inequality. My notion of the real 'new economy' debate is the premise that of a world where marginal factors -- prices, taxes, regulation (e.g., the market flexibility arguments) -- engender massive distortions in trade which eat holes in domestic economies. On balance, PK's article is testimony against this view, though in other places (such as a piece in Slate on France) he veers more in this direction. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
(Fwd) Re: PKs and Apologies
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rakesh Bhandari) > Subject: Re: PKs and Apologies > First, men are to leave these gatherings emboldened to make women serve > them--their children, the sick, the aged and themselves--as long as they > button-up, sit up straight and go to work (though of course the majority of That wasn't what the gatherings were about. The dominant theme was atonement for past sins, much more than your parody ("button-up, etc."). People are reading domination into this more than MAY be warranted, was my point. > . . . > Second, what's this crap about making men feel they have a moral obligation > to keep their promises. Men are obligated to make a family wage to support > their wives and children?! So men are obligated to work however many hours > and in whatever conditions it will take to keep their pututative promises > to be economically responsible for their families?! YES. > Of course to keep the family-based promises, male workers have to agree to > give up more labor time in their contracts with capital. This seems to me Not necessarily. To keep their promises, maybe men have to challenge the rule of Capital. As far as it goes, PK doesn't really preclude a world of possibilities. Once again, I think you're reading too much into, rather than drawing from. You may not know that the evangelical movement early 20th century was aligned with populism and included many bone-rattling denunciations of Capital, if not of capitalism in its entirety. If you don't mind, I would say all this commends to us all another homely virtue . . . being a good listener. Tomorrow we'll cover eating your vegetables. > Family values of the Walton's type (catch it on the family channel) is the > utopia of the bourgeoisie on the precipice of catastrophic depression. > > And it seems to me to be the family values that Schumpeter found so > attractive in Hitler's vision. Yipes. We're on the precipice of catastrohpic depression??!? Schumpeterian Hitlerism? I love PEN-L. Meanwhile, Doug said: Why can't we imagine an even better scenario - drunkard & fornicator gives it up and pledges himself to an equal partnership with his wife? Why does a return to "health" have to come with a reassertion of patriarchy? To which I reply, of course we can, and of course it doesn't. Now, don't you think that getting past the drunkard/fornicator part is more difficult than moving from virtuous patriarch to equal partnership? In the first case, you've got some meathead who can't even carry on a serious conversation. I liked the Zizek quote and agreed with Wojtek that it is more difficult to read than it needs to be. I'll leave the translation debate to Tom and W. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: Those PK's
> On Mon, October 6, 1997 at 15:02:20 (+0000) Max B. Sawicky writes: > >... > >The subjugation of women is the easiest argument against > >the PK's, since they are relatively open about it, but in > >practice I wonder how important it will turn out to be. > >Why will men who have heretofore declined to dominate their > >households now find themselves able and willing to do so? > > Just curious, how do you know these men are not attracted to PK > because it provides legitimization of their treatment of "their" > women? I don't. If it did, though, I think we could expect to hear a little bit more about it than we have. We'd see "Wives of Promise Keepers show you their black eyes, tomorrow on Oprah" or something similar. Instead, what we've mostly heard thus far is that the wives reckon some improvement in their mates, while acknowledging room for more. By contrast, the dominant theme here and with the MMM is atonement for one's sins. I have to admit I don't understand this impulse too well because I've never felt it. I've regretted many things I've done, but I've never felt like I wanted to file with God for total bankruptcy of the soul. If these guys didn't have major feelings of guilt for the way they've been living their lives, I don't think we'd see them. We'd have to say the jury is still out on your hunch. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Re: PKs and Apologies
Thanks, though 'clarification' rather than apology would have been sufficient. I wonder about peoples' negative scenarios regarding the remark that bothered you. Billy Bob Sixpack, former fornicator and drunkard, cleans up his act, appears at his family dinner table, swears devotion to Jesus Christ and family values, says "I am now the head of this family," and does . . . what exactly? How does the totality of his new conduct makes the family worse off than previously? It reminds me of the Muslims turning hardened criminals into religious zealots, though the PK process would seem to be less extreme at the front end, at least. On balance, you'd have to say we're all better off as a result, though the blessings are mixed. mbs =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Those PK's
rests goes, the treatment of missionaries, their rights to operate should be defended and regimes that curtail them should be identified for the odious affronts to democracy and labor rights, among other things, that they in fact are (e.g., Sudan, Vietnam, PRC/China, etc.) MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12757] RE: Overcapacity?
> From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:12753] RE: Overcapacity? > This may actually be true. There's a study somewhere, sorry I don't have > the reference, showing that the S&P 500 does better on days when it's sunny > in New York than on days when it's not. > > The market also does better on days just before and after holidays, > probably for similar reasons. The fate of the NY Yankees must surely be a factor as well. Tell us, has the market correctly discounted the likelihood of their winning the World Series, and if not, should we go short or long? MBS (Stopped rooting for Yankees when R. Jackson was traded by Mr. Unindicted Unmentionable.) =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12735] Re: Unions and Globalisation
> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:06:27 -0700 (PDT) > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:12733] Unions and Globalisation > I am participating in a panel on Unions and Globalization at a > conference later this month. Has anyone specific material they would recommend > as giving a good leftist analysis on the topic? > Cheers, Ken Hanly For a set of papers/presentations dominated by social-democratic views, try to get proceedings of a conference in Brussels sponsored by the Institute for Progressive Policy Research this past spring. Their e-mail address is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the proceedings aren't ready yet, they can send you a summary document which should be completed by now. If that stuff isn't radical enough for you, try the anti-EU web site (or ask Sid Schniad): http://www.eusceptic.org/welcome.html >From there you can probably pick up more stuff by following links and cruising. MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12600] A Few Questions on Work Time
In preparation for our discussion today (9/26) at EPI on work time, I've done a smidgeon of reading and am now ready to die for a reduction of the working day. Tomorrow may be a different story. A few questions: The principal tool to alleviate the fixed cost of new hires and thus mitigate against the incentives for overtime, as opposed to new hires, seems to be pro-rating the payment of fringe benefits. It doesn't seem like there is anything to be done about reducing training and transition costs of extra hires. Most of that is likely to be firm specific. The principal fringes are pensions and medical. How do you pro-rate health insurance? Is the only solution bringing health care into the public sector? How do you pro-rate defined benefit plans? If you can't, do we want to encourage a switch to defined contribution plans with variable returns? Uncapping the payroll tax carries the threat of upsetting the current U.S. system of social insurance. Any thoughts on this? Cheers, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12569] Fast Track and Free Trade
ing Boeing shift their jobs to China. 3. A third of U.S. growth and many high-paying jobs are due to trade. The administration and The Post invariably talk about only one side of the trade picture: rising U.S. exports. They conveniently ignore the fact that U.S. imports from Mexico and the rest of the world have been growing much faster than U.S. exports and that many of these imports are in auto parts, automobiles, textiles and other products that were previously produced here. Since the onset of NAFTA, U.S. trade with Mexico has shifted from a small surplus to a large deficit. Hundreds of thousands of workers have lost jobs from the shifting production and rising imports. These lost jobs, like export jobs, pay better than the average. 4. Stronger labor language in trade agreements "wouldn't erase the competitive advantage that poor countries enjoy in labor costs." This may be true for the poorest countries such as Haiti and Bangladesh, but little of the new competition comes from these countries. In the "big emerging markets" such as Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, and China -- the favored investment sites of General Motors, General Electric and other large firms -- modern infrastructures permit the production of the same goods with similar levels of productivity to those enjoyed in the United States. Yet, because fundamental worker rights and environmental standards are routinely violated, firms can pay wages that are a fraction of those in the United States. We live at a vital moment when governments are setting new rules for engagement in the global economy. In a world of rich and poor nations with vastly different standards, new rules are vitally needed to ensure that globe-trotting firms don't use their ability to exploit the forests, minerals and workers of other nations to bargain down U.S. working and environmental conditions. The current debate over expanding NAFTA offers the opportunity to set rules that offer workers, communities and the environment the same rights to prosper in the global economy as they offer corporations. John Cavanagh is co-director and Sarah Anderson is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. c Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:12516] EPI Trade Reports; Clarification
The new NAFTA reports I advertised in my previous post are free of charge and can be downloaded or printed directly from our web site. They are there now. No need to e-mail EPI for copies unless you don't have access to the web. If you need to send e-mail, the address is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MBS ======= Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12513] New NAFTA Reports from EPI
New from EPI: NAFTA's Casualties: Employment Effects on Men, Women, and Minorities" NAFTA and the States: Job Destruction is Widespread" (Includes state-specific numbers) Both by Jesse Rothstein and Robert E. Scott. For more information, check our web site, EPINET.ORG For information on how to order, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:12414] Re: slurs
> From: Ajit Sinha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:12401] Re: slurs > Let me add one thing here. The problem here could be cultural as well. I > hope I'm not condemning all Indians of impolitness, but it is true that > Indians argue among friends with a lot of passion and not much concern for > politness. But heated philosophical and political arguments usually do not > affect personal relationships and friendships. In West, I have noticed that > people attach their ego a bit too closely with the ideas they are arguing > for. So i need to be more sensitive about that. Cheers, ajit sinha Without getting into the substance of the thread on language or the specific words beween others on this list, which I have archived for future deep consideration, I'd like to second this point about differing cultural norms of politeness, particularly relevant to e-mail. Around my Jewish parents' dinner table in the Jersey suburbs of NYC, "you're nuts" had about the same rhetorical temperature reading as "please pass the salt," but a visitor of ours from the Midwest took great umbrage to such remarks. She was nuts, but that was not why we divorced years later. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12375] Re: 1997-09-12 Abraham Nom inated Bureau/Labor Sta
> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:35:13 -0700 (PDT) > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: jf noonan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To:Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:12372] 1997-09-12 Abraham Nom inated Bureau/Labor Statistics >Comm > > Does anyone know if this is good, bad, or indifferent? Has she > commented on the push to change the CPI? She's been a tower of strength in her resistance to bullying by Newt et al. Her basic position has been the BLS is responsible for doing the CPI on the basis of the best available scientific evidence and acccording to well-established processes of internal review, and no ad hoc committee of professors however eminent is in a position to do better on the merits or by any legal right. It is worth noting that the centrist Brookings crew -- Bosworth, Gramlich, etc. -- has been supportive of this position and critical of the analytics behind the Boskin Commission report. MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12373] Re: NAFTA
Bill B said: > I agree with this, but I disagree you can "point to larger solutions" by > blaming job losses on NAFTA in a way that is virtually indistinguishable > from Perot et all. I'm not suggesting maximum program everywhere, all the The focal point of left opposition to trade liberalization is a defense of the principle of labor rights and environmental standards in all nations. I think that is distinct from Perotista appeals. Actually, our side is trying to move away from the job loss issue to the implications of liberalization for job quality and pay. Obviously job loss is a problematic theme with 5 percent unemployment. It is really shorthand for losing relatively good jobs and getting relative bad ones. > time, but the left should raise proposals in a way that unites our side > and brings out our common interests, not reproduces those that e.g. are > imposed by imaginary lines on the earth's surface. It's doing that. In fact, starting with the NAFTA debate this work has entailed collaboration with trade unions and progressives in Canada and Mexico. > . . . > solution" in both the US/Canada and Mexico. And yes, I am in favour of > 'trade liberalization' if by that is meant freer access for oppressed > countries to world markets. Aren't you? . . . When you say it that way, who can disagree? Isn't the issue always the way principles such as this translate in practical application? In other words, it is really-existing trade liberalization in question. > > > To clarify: it was * against* the "dispossession of Mexican > peasants from their [communal] land". Right. Pardon my shorthand. > Michael Perelman asked if we should not have the right to pass protective > regulations in a city or state or country. Of course, and I'm all for > improving the regulations. But he goes on to say "The problem is that > capitalists use trade organizations to break down the protection of local > control". > > First, on the *strictly formal* level, and please correct me if > I am wrong, I don't think NAFTA stops countries from adopting national > regulations etc. It mainly imposes a certain kind of 'template' on > these, which I understand as a kind of a pro capitalist trade 'template'; > an extention of the direction GATT moved in for decades, e.g. no > 'discrimination' against capitalists on the basis of (certain specific) > nationalities. Well, this is what a major part of the debate is about. Will trade regimes undermine national or (in the U.S.), state sovereignty? It seems pretty obvious they do, though the scope and importance of this is open to debate. What else do you call the right of Mexican truck drivers to drive in California without a U.S. driver's license in an uninspected truck carrying uninspected produce working below U.S. minimum wage? What is left of U.S. national regulations in light of that? > If Michael is saying our stance on trade should be based on something like > "protection via local control" under capitalism, well, I just can't agree, > because it seems to me like tilting at windmills, or weaving ropes out of > sand, or some such metaphor. I would disagree as well. Standards are intrinsically broad in scope, otherwise they are not standards at all. Local jurisdictions may be best suited to run their schools, but localization goes fundamentally against the grain of labor and environmental standards, for pretty obvious political and technological reasons, respectively. BTW, I was serious about soliciting better fuel for this debate from you and this list. Thus far it seems you have been dwelling on the maximum program. Solidarity with workers in other nations, for instance, around what exactly (or approximately)? Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12343] Re: NAFTA
hen* get on > with the left's job of explaining how rotton capitalism is. The left's job is to strive for practical, incremental gains in a way that points to larger solutions. "Capitalism is rotten" is not a program, either incremental or long-term. > Erik Leaver posted some points about the tendentious use of statistics on > NAFTA's job effects. We had the same in Canada about the impact of > Canada-US 'free' trade: some anti 'free' traders made wild claims about > job losses due to its implementation and completely ignored the effect of > the recession or capitalist crisis. When this line became untenable the > fallback was a near-conspiracy theory that the recession was caused by the > Bank of Canada's high interest policy ...implemented at the behest of *US* > corporations. Its not domestic capitalists but foreign capitalists that > are blamed, in other words not capitalism at all, but foreigners. I can't speak about Canada, but there was no conspiracy mongering in the U.S. from the left. As to whether the discussions about job losses were "wild" or not, I can only refer interested parties to EPI's numerous releases on this subject. > I had complained about the 'border ecology' argument. Shouldn't we favour > a "massive increase" in industry in this country underdeveloped by > imperialism, including by allowing freer access to the richest market in > the world? Are jobs for Mexican workers only OK if the pollution stays Now we seem to be getting closer to your argument, which seems to be a brief for trade liberalization so that Mexico can escape its underdevelopment. Is this how you think Mexico will develop? It sounds like by your criteria, to paraphrase you, "capitalism in Mexico 'with freer access to the richest market in the world' would be just fine." Where's the "good reason" to oppose NAFTA, etc.? > away from out border? Or should they all locate in Mexico City? I'm sure > we all favour rational, balanced, minimally-polluting economic development > in Mexico, but they can't wait for world socialism for us to support it, > and to do so without giving up anything on protecting ecology everywhere. > > Another point to link our interests in the US and Canada with > those in Mexico against these trade deals: the ne-nationalization of > Mexico's petroleum industry, which is another blow against their right to > develop independently of imperialism. This suggests trade deals are fine, it's only the side agreements that are objectionable. You said there were good reasons to oppose Fast Track and NAFTA-type agreements. You say here these should be "in the interests of working people in all countries." Your alternatives seem to consist of: a world without borders capitalism is rotten a "massive increase" in industry in this country underdeveloped by imperialism, including by allowing freer access to the richest market . . . dispossession of Mexican peasants from their land oppose denationalization of Mexican oil I see no critique here of trade liberalization under capitalism, much less of capitalism in general. It even smacks of the contrary position. The allusions to land reform and public control of resources are side issues in this context. If you do think of some good reasons to oppose Fast Track, let us know. We can use them. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12336] Re: the beautiful poor
This post reminds me of the Kathleen Turner's line in Prizzi's Honor. Jack Nicholson learns with shock that his girlfriend is a hit-person with many jobs under her belt. Expressing his amazement to her, she replies, "Well, it's not that many if you take it as a proportion of the population." > Now Doug, I thought you liked numbers, especially as they pertain to > ratios (%):). How about getting the stats on widow burning? This is an > old "internal" versus "external" debate. An understanding of social > change in India informs us that local institutions have interacted with > those introduced from the outside. There is a significant variation > across regions: dowry deaths seem to be taking place in northern Hindi > speaking belt (centered around Delhi and other urban centers). > Paradoxically it is associated with the middle classes. As for widow > burning you need to update your information. The last case I > heard was in the 1980s, in a village in rajasthan, perhaps > one of the most economically underdeveloped state. > > As for restrictions on property ownership it is still a > problem. The institution of patriarchy will not be easy to > eliminate. === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12240] Lo lo lo lo Lola . . .
> psychotherapy/radical politics run by one Fred Newman. Their presidential > candidate last go-round was Lola Fulani who does have some following in the That would be Lenora, BTW, though I much prefer Lola, or for that matter Lola Folana. Must be the borscht in your veins, or maybe some flashback to The Kinks. As testament to Lenora-Lola's erratic nature, she took some of her folks into the Perot's Reform Party and may still be there, for all I know. I agree with the rest of your post. MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12231] Slurs
I've been scolded by two persons now for my "Buddha can you spare a dime" joke re: Al Gore, which included implications of Asian-stereotyping. I sincerely regret offending any Buddhists or Asians who may have seen this, but I also think it is possible to be over-sensitive about this stuff and I think this is one of those times. I also shudder to think about the political implications of such a posture, since over-sensitivity tends to backfire and legitimate truly bigoted speech and elevate truly conservative critics of such a position. It reinforces the cultural isolation of the left. I hate to lose any friends over this, assuming I have any to begin with, but I'd rather have a few less friends and live in the world I'm trying to change than dissolve into identity-politics ether. Like Al Gore, I want to be receptive to all denominations -- tens, fifties, hundreds, etc. Cheers, MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12221] Fast Track: Bill's Knees Buckling?
Latest hot rumor about fast track legislation, previously scheduled to be released Sept 10: The White House is reportedly alarmed by the volume of Democratic opposition to fast track piling up, not least for the presidential prospects of VP Al Gore. They are talking to union leaders about some kind of version which Democrats could support (and which the GOP would thus reject). The likelihood is that such a bill would not pass and we would have no bill. There is a slim possibility that some kind of mongrelized form could get majorities in Congress if all those folks forget about party politics (yeah, right). A re-engineering of the legislation will require a delay in its introduction, which by itself would be a major admission of weakness by Clinton. ANY 'fast track' procedure is inherently anti-democratic. One could imagine a bill that would be strong on labor and environmental standards, but this takes quite a bit of imagination. Support for any such bill would also undercut any claims by the left to favor popular participation in trade legislation. On balance my own bias is to oppose any fast track, its redness or greenness notwithstanding. A failure of the effort would stimulate a national debate about what fair trade ought to mean, a natural setting for promotion of progressive goals. Let the ruckus rise. MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12210] Re: FAST TRACK ALERT; Heads Up: Son of NAFTA
The object of the previous post's wrath was a single, partial info sheet, part of a sea of material that is being developed and circulated. > Blaming Mexicans for bad food and drugs is a reactionary > approach. The blame is on unregulated markets, not Mexicans. This choice of translation mirrors the mainstream media's characterization of anti- NAFTA sentiment as xenophobic and racist. >> Blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA would be just fine. Self-evident rubbish. It implies there would be jobs without NAFTA that are gone as a result of NAFTA. Nobody thinks the left's work is done if NAFTA goes down. Sheesh. >> Citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico > is incredible hypocracy. Why? Because there is ecological destruction within the US proper? The greens, which means Public Citizen, the source of the leaflet, are no less committed to that issue as well. You might want to argue that labor's focus on this is self-serving. On the whole, labor in the U.S. is more in favor of environmental regulation than against it. Certainly the consortium fighting NAFTA reflects narrower interests than that of the workers of the world. Doesn't every social struggle, at least at the start? >> These are yuppie Perot arguments - lets oppose > NAFTA for **good** reasons! Such as? The sheet you criticized spoke to legitimate issues, albeit partially and not in technical econo-speak. If you can do better, by all means make your contribution. It will be appreciated, if it proves of any use. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12208] Re: Real social change
> In the spirit of hard-headed science, Max, how about quantifying the > respective influences of Abbie and Diana? While we're at it, why not throw in > some multiple regression analysis? Abbie got people into the streets for explicitly political, mostly constructive purposes. You don't need regression analysis. All you need is arithmetic. > Wouldn't it make more sense simply to say "I like Abbie Hoffman and his > views/values better than those of Diana? That wasn't the issue. I have nothing against Diana, never have. Her public elevation to sainthood is simply without foundation. > I heard a local representative of an organization fighting to have an anti-land > mine treaty put in place this morning on CBC radio. Given your statement, I > guess there's nothing his contention and that of other folks fighting against > the use of anti-personnel mines in places like Angola and Cambodia that the > deployment of these armaments changed drastically in the 1980s, that the > new deployment was designed to inflict damage and terror on local > populations instead of targeting armed combatants. Nothing to their thanks > to Diana's efforts for helping to publicize this fact via things like > documentaries filmed in Angola with the civilian victims of these mines. I'm firmly against little kids being blown to smithereens, and I commend the efforts of activists in all noble causes, including the suppression of land mines. I simply don't believe it means a god-damned thing. Can't I do that without being associated with "inflicting damage and terror on local populations"? Call me crazy, but I think the working class is going to be the agency for curbing the use of land mines, not the forces that could be attributed to Diana's activities. > Since you have declared that any change in the disposition of land mines > won't have any effect on the conduct of war, etc. I guess that settles it. No > point in trying to raise public awareness or to change public opinion on the > subject. In any event, that wouldn't be _real_ social change, would it? I'm not on any crusade against do-gooders about whose projects I have skepticism. But sooner or later we all have to consider the best use of scarce political resources. Don't we? I am struck by the contrast between your indulgence of the Diana cult and your hard- headedness with respect to the extensive labors of trade union and social-democratic forces to move the EU to the left. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12112] New EPI Privatization Study
Now available from EPI: "The Privatization of Public Service: Lessons From Case Studies" By Elliott Sclar The case studies' topics are fleet vehicle maintenance in Indianapolis and Albany, and highway maintenance in Massachusetts, but the report is strong on general implications and related principles. Cost of the report is $12. Orders should be directed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:12104] EPI Issue Brief: Minimum Wage
New Issue Brief from EPI: "America's Well-Targeted Raise: Data Show Benefits of Minimum Wage Increase Going to Workers Who Need It Most" By Jared Bernstein This should be of particular interest to those involved in "Living Wage" campaigns. It's free for download from the EPI web site, EPINET.ORG. The principal subject of the brief is the nature of minimum wage workers, exploding the canard that they are mostly teenagers in middle-class families. There are numbers on affected workers by state, and on demographic characteristics of affected workers. Users of EPI material may recall our briefing paper on the lack of disemployment effects, a separate topic. If you don't have access to the web, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] and they will e-mail or fax it to you. =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:12091] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) > Subject: [PEN-L:12076] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets > Max Sawicky wrote, > > >> It's true that policy tools and policy goals go together "to some > >> non-trivial extent". . . . > > > >True but too general. > > That was precisely my point. I'm glad we agree. Or were your arguing with > the elipsis? Not then, though I note it had one too many periods. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12090] Re: Borscht Belt Reds
> > Unfortunately, her talk did not really get into the sort of detail I was > looking for. So during the question period I stated that I was researching > the left-wing bungalow colonies and hotels of the Catskill Mountains and If you're not already familiar with it, you might be interested in and find useful Paul Buhle's (Radical America) work on Yiddish labor activists, which I understand includes oral history as source and output. He's at Brown Univ. MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12065] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) > Subject: [PEN-L:12062] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets > . . . > A tool is a tool, Max, and a goal is a goal. One learns to distinguish > between the two. I wasn't criticizing monetary reflation for the purpose of > maintaining effective demand and full employment. I was criticizing monetary > reflation as a supposedly "free market" fix for the consequences of rampant > financial speculation. I'd say even under capitalism there's a more The two go together to some non-trivial extent, don't they? It's not as if the Fed drops off a bag of money at ailing financial institutions, by and large, though even then monetary ease would be implied. By my reckoning, looser money at almost any point after WWII, putting aside the energy price spikes and the late 1960's, would have been helpful. When the rising tide lifts the smallest boats, it's going to lift the big ones too. MBS "Who are you going to believe? Me or your own two eyes?" -- G. Marx == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:12061] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) > Subject: [PEN-L:12055] Re: Greenspan on Govt. Intervention in Markets > Greenspan on Role of Governments in Markets: > > > ``Central banks are led to provide what essentially amounts to catastrophic > >financial insurance > > coverage,'' he said, adding, however, that ``such a public subsidy should > >be reserved for only the > > rarest of disasters.'' > > By my accounting, the "rareness" of such intervention works out recently to > be about once every two or three years. Then there is the phenomena of > creeping monetary looseness in order to avoid a situation in which > catastrophic intervention becomes necessary. Kind of like the alcoholic who > needs just a *small* drink to steady the nerves. Funny I didn't take you for a gold standard kind of guy. > The truth that Greenspan acknowledges is that central bank intervention to > "calm" markets is a public subsidy. To be more precise, it is a massive > welfare program for the rich. To call it "insurance" is a bit odd -- the > insured don't pay a premium for the coverage and the extent of their > protection is limited only by the vastness of their holdings. A chain-reaction of bankruptcies might conceivably be of some harm to the working class, notwithstanding the pleasure of watching many of the rich cease to be so. I have some dim recollection of problems of this nature in the past. By my reckoning this puts you roughly to the right of Milton Friedman, but everybody has a bad day now and then. I'm sure you'll rebound, or maybe the right word is reflate. Cheers, "Greenback Max" == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:12020] Re: Swedish sterilizations & SDs
> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:29:17 -0700 (PDT) > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:12013] Re: Swedish sterilizations & SDs > Keynes was a supporter of the Eugenics movement; so was Irving Fisher. > -- I understand Margaret Sanger and other early feminists said some pretty hair-raising things about the merits of abortion for the sake of population improvement (sic). =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11999] Re: More on UPS
> . . . > On a related note, a lot of the privatization stuff is only possible, I > think, _because_ of new technologies -- that is, it had not been possible Yes and no. Without doubt technology is important, but the political element should not be underestimated. For instance, before 1900, much of routine municipal services (such as they were in those days) were contracted out. Corruption scandals ended those practices and gave rise to civil service standards. There were also private roads and bridges, and catastrophic bankruptcies in companies that had contracted to build such things. This will be explicated at length in an EPI report, probably out early next year. Cheers, MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:11997] EPI: Coming Attractions
EPI in collaboration with the Women's Research and Education Institute will be releasing the following reports on Labor Day: "Nonstandard Work, Substandard Jobs: Flexible Work Arrangements in the U.S." The authors are: Arne L. Kalleberg, Edith Rasell, Ken Hudson, David Webster, Barbara F. Reskin, Naomi Cassirer, and Eileen Appelbaum. and "Managing Work and Family: Nonstandard Work Arrangements Among Managers and Professionals" The authors are: Roberta M. Spalter-Roth, Arne L. Kalleberg, Edith Rasell, Naomi Cassirer, Barbara F. Reskin, Ken Hudson, David Webster, Eileen Appelbaum, and Betty L. Dooley. Summaries will be available on the EPI web site (EPINET.ORG). The full reports cost $12 each. PLEASE DO NOT e-mail me to obtain these items. For further information on ordering, send e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or regular mail to: Economic Policy Institute Publications/Fulfillment Suite 1200 1660 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:11995] Re: Big mouth
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:11994] Re: Big mouth > In a message dated 97-08-26 21:10:17 EDT, you write: > > >By the way, I usually give anyone who ask at least some money. > > I used to do this, but it got sooo overwhelming. . . . Since this has come up again, let me say I was talking about the futility of giving money to people you know who already have an adequate income (cash or in-kind) and who don't have the capacity to make good use of money (e.g., people like my brother and others who are simply not capable of caring for themselves). Giving money to strangers on the street is a whole different proposition. I have to admit I don't do that either, except for street musicians, but it has more of a rationale if you're willing to give the grantee the benefit of a doubt. My own brand of idealism, such as it is, doesn't flow in that direction. MBS ============== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:11988] Re: THE FIGHT IN THE FIELDS (fwd)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:11986] Re: THE FIGHT IN THE FIELDS (fwd) > . . . > founder of Synanon. I can say a lot more about Chavez if anyone is interested, > but it looks like his son-in-law who is now union president may be doing a lot > better job in building the union than Chavez. One of the problems is that . . . The new president is a very impressive guy. I heard him speak at one of our ADA meetings, and I predict great things from him. MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11976] Re: Big mouth
> Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: J Cullen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11973] Re: Big mouth > Law and Order, like nearly all cop shows, is inherently conservative, but > at least it provides some nuances. It is likely to show judges throwing out > evidence for what appears to be capricious reasons, but the judges also > occasionally tilt toward the prosecution. My major criticism is that the > public defenders on Law and Order appear to be capable and smart enough to > file exclusionary motions, research cases and stay awake during court > proceedings. Here in Texas they are likely to pull in a civil lawyer off > the street and give him $500 to prepare and present a capital defense. The > New York Public Defender's Office may have more resources but I bet it's > squeezed, too. That's a good point. As I think of it, in L&O the prosecution always seems to have its hands full with the capabilities of the defense attorneys, whereas in the real world free legal defense is often unequal to the tasks it is given. > As I recall, didn't Michael Moriarity, who used to play the chief > prosecutor, walk off the show in a dispute with the producers because of > the rightward tilt? He did leave in some kind of principled dispute with management. If memory serves, it was in protest against the networks propitiation to forces calling for censorship or self-regulation (e.g., Tipper Gore, etc.) Obviously a show whose protagonists are cops is going to portray them in a sympathetic light. Most of the shows have bad cops too, or even protagonists who do bad things. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11975] Re: Big mouth
> Welcome to the club. I had a brother who hung himself in a mental hospital > in 1971. Frankly, anecdotes like this are about as useful as Ronald > Reagan's anecdotes about welfare queens driving Cadillacs. . . . > > The problem we are dealing with is a social problem. The American people > were sold a bill of goods when they were told that the solution to inhumane > mental hospitals like Boston's infamous Mattewan, subject of Frederic > Wiseman's "Titicut Follies", was to empty the mental hospitals while giving > each discharged patient medication to help them function. Actually, they (we) were also told that the public sector would provide care in decentralized facilities. We also had the institution of rights for mental patients, even a "Mental Patients Liberation Front," and those rights have proved to be a double-edged sword. > The true solution is group homes where the chronically ill can get adequate > supervision and medical attention. Even though these group homes are > cheaper than the old-time mental hospitals, the ruling class doesn't want > to foot the bill. Psychotics, like disabled children and poor people with > AIDS, are just not important enough. This is the significance of the > balanced budget austerity program of the Democrat-Republican party. Less > money for social services so that people like Bill Gates can afford a $30 > million house instead of a $20 million house. As my 'anecdote' (unlike yours) pointed out, there isn't any such safety net. The L&O story, while falling short of great art or trenchant Marxist analysis, reflects that dilemma. Everybody with a pulse understands that the homeless reflect some kind of failure of policy, or a 'social problem' if you like. Whether the 'solution' is taxing Bill Gates is another matter, but even so, this amounts to the old joke about economists assuming a ladder to get out of a hole. There is no safety net, so shit happens and stories are told to that effect. Even if there were such facilities, there would be people who would refuse to live in them and civil libertarians who would defend their right to do so, with the best intentions in the world. It's not quite the simple morality tale you make it out to be. There are villains enough in other respects, so it ought not to matter. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11967] Re: Big mouth
> >I know people like this myself and it's not an easy thing for > >anybody to address. The afflicted have sufficient faculties to > >refuse care that is good for them and society and the legal rights > >to enforce such a refusal. Often the only thing they will let you > >do is give them money to piss away. > > This is a bunch of reactionary crap. My brother was diagnosed chronic schizo when he was 20. Now he's 45. He's been living with his mother, unable to hold a job or take elementary care of himself. In front of a judge, he's as lucid as Socrates. Other times he talks incessantly about the Mafia, the FBI, and the CIA conspiring against him. He writes poetry. He can't be committed. He would only consent to live in a country club-type facility that indulged his every want, which my family can't come close to affording. So he's basically ruined my mother's life. I wouldn't tolerate his behavior and let him ruin mine, in which case he would probably end up on the street. The only fix for this is coercive confinement, which we wish would be generously funded by society, but we know probably would not be. In any case, it's irrelevant because such confinement is illegal. I know what I'm talking about, here if nowhere else. Cheers, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11964] Re: Big mouth
> From: Louis N Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11959] Re: Big mouth > The biggest problem with "Law and Order" is that poverty as a causal > explanation of crime is simply absent from the show. All of the gangsters, . . . You could take that two ways. You could take it to mean poor people are no less moral than anybody else, that crime is a choice, not an environmentally-instilled, irresistible impulse. > . . . > The homeless man, as it turns out, spent a semester at Bard College, my > alma mater. He was a dance major from an impoverished single-mother Harlem > family. He was also a schizophrenic whose illness manifested itself for > the first time after he came to Bard. After a few hospitalizations, the > social safety net began to unravel and this young man found himself on > the streets. The cops and DA's on Law and Order are incapable of > addressing this reality and the show's writers never present credible > characters who can. I know people like this myself and it's not an easy thing for anybody to address. The afflicted have sufficient faculties to refuse care that is good for them and society and the legal rights to enforce such a refusal. Often the only thing they will let you do is give them money to piss away. > I don't think there can be a "liberal" cop show. This is a contradiction > in terms. American society is in a fairly deep crisis and the police are > functioning more and more like occupation troops in communities where > injustice cuts deepest. Police brutality simply does not exist on NYPD, > Homicide, or Law and Order, etc. When Jerry Orbach grabs a guy by the In the climactic final episode of this past season (maybe the penultimate one, can't remember), a member of the Homicide squad executes a drug dealer after one of the other cops has beaten him to a pulp. The two cops plus an additional one all cover for each other. Another cop on Homicide (Bayliss) who is relatively unstable also frequently loses his temper on suspects. And of course, in "the box" the Homicide detectives routinely subject suspects to all manner of mental/emotional abuse to extract confessions. Finally, the higher-ups in the police bureaucracy in Homicide are some of the most evil shits you can find on tv. > collar and tells him, "You better tell me what I'm looking for or > else...", this is about as far as the show will ever go. But this will not > disturb the liberal yuppie enjoying his or her TV show. What will disturb > them is the sight of two cops holding a black man down while a third > sticks a toilet plunger up his ass. This is real life and will not appear > on "Law and Order". Like I said in my previous post, count on it. It'll be there. I don't know when cop shows started to depart from the squeaky-clean 'Dragnet' or 'FBI' model, but for some time police forces have been portrayed as including a generous share of crooks, murderers, lunatics, and assorted creeps. It's true you don't get much marxist analysis. As Harry said, the fallability of individuals underscores the legitimacy of the system, so it is a form of propaganda, notwithstanding the fact that everybody here seems to have some familiarity with the material that goes beyond social-scientific investigation. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11963] Re: The call for new Teamsters election and Michae
e further in life. I doubt that an ISer would actually put on the airs to which LP says they are entitled. The funny thing is, the day after this post Louis uploads a nice news account of the IBT's preparations for the UPS strike which centered on the work of the leadership and its staff, not on rank-and-file activists. My recommended slogan is: Defend Citizen Action, Mike Ansara, Ron Carey, and the victorious IBT UPS strike leadership from State harrassment and tendentious Internet posts Coming in September: "How to turn into your opposite." In solidarity, MBS == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:11958] Re: Big mouth
> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 11:08:19 -0700 (PDT) > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "Harry M. Cleaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11955] Re: Big mouth > On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Louis Proyect wrote: > > > I'm glad god blessed me with a big mouth. The TV show "Law and Order" is > > filming on the premises of Columbia Teachers College where I work. The show > > presents a right-wing version of the crime problem, as would be indicated > > by the title. It is basically "Dirty Harry" without the vigilantism. The > > "bad guys" who are usually minorities get their comeuppance in the courts > > rather than the streets. > > > Louis: I haven't watched L&O with any regularity but I have watched it > often enough to see that it is NOT "a right-wing version of the crime > problem". It is much more of a liberal version --still very much within > the system-- but frequently giving a liberal view of various social > issues. For instance, I have seen at least two shows in which right-wing, > pro-lifers (if you will excuse the term) used violence against abortion > clinics. In both cases the treatment was anything but favorable to the > usual right wing positions and attitudes. I suspect that if they haven't > done a show, or shows, dealing with crooked or sadistic cops, they well > might. It would fit nicely into the liberal agenda favoring reform to > clean up the dirty corners of society --without of course questioning the > basic fabric of "law and order". I haven't done a head count --as I say I > haven't watched it systematically-- but I'd also guess that the majority > of the "bad guys" are NOT minorities, for all the same reasons. Harry is right on the button. In the same vein, the plots of L&O frequently feature scenarios where a working-class or minority suspect is thrown out as bait for the viewer, only to be exonerated later by when some kind of upscale type is revealed to be the culprit. Since the cops are the good guys, naturally they are never shown beating the stuffing out of anybody (or almost never). However, they often seem to violate suspects' civil rights, tho I'm no lawyer, by using a variety of deceptions to get them to come clean. In the context of the stories, this is portrayed sympathetically as resourcefulness in nailing guilty parties. The show's stories follow headline cases very closely, so I am willing to bet anybody here something of value that this year's episodes will include a fictionalization of the Brooklyn case. As tv goes, L&O ain't bad, tho I prefer 'Homicide.' Child of television, MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11918] Re: Blackfeet National Bank--Another Struggle
> From: "James Michael Craven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11917] Blackfeet National Bank--Another Struggle > I posted this previously with no response. I got a lot of response on > the subject of "high-class" prostitutes in Canberra, AU but > apparently the subject of genocide against American Indians in a > America is not on this weeks "buffet" or of much interest to some of > the keyboard revolutionaries. BTW, wouldn't this be a nice story for > "Left Business Observer"? I don't remember the prior post, but Nader's people might want to make something out of this. The place to inquire would be Public Citizen in D.C. (202-833-3000), as well as some places on the Hill (e.g., Senators Inouye and Campbell). You could probably get a story on this into the Progressive or In These Times. It's not as much an LBO story. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11905] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
> From: Nathan Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11881] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap > In some ways, the more interesting aspects of risk management are in the > Grameen Bank and community banks around the US. . . . > This doesn't erase risk but collectivizes it in interesting ways, an > important model for any form of market socialism that might have > collective entrepreneurship by small enterprises or work groups. Your post pressed some buttons and made me resolve to read Bernstein's book. Incidentally, there are other types of socialized risk pooling in the Third World involving clubs. A friend of mine who is a development economist, John Edwards at Tulane, has written about them. I agree that all this is interesting, for the U.S. as well, not because Grameen is some kind of cure-all, but as a lead-in to thinking about market failure in capital allocation. With some stretching, one could imagine a line from these types of arrangements to traditional populist critiques of finance and proposals for new banking systems. Cheers, MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11904] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) > Subject: [PEN-L:11892] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap > Maybe it's just my fetish for fuzzy-edged skirts showing. . . . > . . . > (4) certain patterns of 'violating' behavior can be distinguished and > described in terms of a specified decision rule." > > Can you dig it? I give it an 86, Dick. MBS =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11897] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:19:40 -0700 (PDT) > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) > Subject: [PEN-L:11893] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap > ulterior motivation of bureaucrats, politicians or voters. In other words, > bureaucrats may sincerely believe it is better *public policy* to fail > conventionally, not merely a career expedient. ;-) Obviously the probabilities of success have everything to do with the relative merits of going by convention or otherwise. By definition, convention would connote that which is more reliable, hence bureaucratic rationality follows for the slogan cited. The penalty side is also worth mentioning. The penalty for failing unconventionally would be higher than failing conventionally. (e.g., "You tried WHAT?!?") I worked in the Federal bureaucracy for a few years and the biggest secret I have to impart is that bureaucrats act entirely at the behest of elected officials. Every nook and cranny of the bureaucracy has a patron somewhere; otherwise it wouldn't be there. If you don't obey your patron, you're toast. Your only defense is information you have and they don't, but there is always some traitor among your peers willing to give you up, so information isn't that useful either. Hence *insofar* as voters get the politicians they deserve, they get the bureaucracy they deserve too. All of which doesn't seem without merit from a democratic standpoint. MBS == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:11891] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) > Subject: [PEN-L:11887] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap > I doubt that public choice right-wingers would have much use for Ellsberg's > Paradox. If anything, the paradox presents an indictment against any kind of > reductivism. As I understand "public choice", it is founded on one set of > reductivist principles, in opposition to another set of reductivist principles. Public choice applies neo-classical welfare theory to the behavior of public officials and collective decision-making processes. > The problem is not with the scale on which decisions are made but with the > nature of the decisions -- "utility" abstracts from some difficult to define > considerations in certain kinds of decision making. Thus Ellsberg contrasts Yeah but every theory abstracts from something. Whether it's important or not is another way of saying whether you dig the theory. (I've started rereading the Beats.) > the decision situations in which his paradox prevails to those involved with > familiar production processes or well-known random events (such as coin > flipping). Aren't the right-wingers arguing -- in contrast to Ellsberg -- > that there really is "no difference" between, say, personal consumption > choices and public policy choices so that the market is an adequate model > for either? No, I don't think that's right. First of all, public goods are different than private goods, and secondly collective decision-making is different from individual decision-making. The real application of the 'market' analogy lies in individual utility maximization, not in fantasizing the existence of organized markets. There is discussion of a market for political ideas or policies, but clearly the variety of electoral and other non-market processes are distinct from markets with buyers and sellers of non-public goods. > I would venture to say that "ambiguity" arises often around ethical issues, > so that any effort to repackage them in terms of "efficiency" is doomed on > grounds of both ethics and efficiency. The solution is not to distribute the > ethical choices and hope that millions of atomized, private *utilitarian* > decisions will somehow add up to an ethical collective choice (or, at least, > a choice "exempt" from criticism on ethical grounds). The privatization of > welfare as voluntary charity and the kind of welfare reform that is promoted > as "workfare" are two examples of suppressing the public ethical dimensions > of issues in the name of a chimerical private ethics. By contrast, the Right, though this last is not necessarily implied by N-C or public choice theory, which allow for collective expressions of empathy or altruism. A virtue of utilitarianism is that in its specificity it is more compelling than utter fuzziness, the edge of which you are skirting here. > ethical dimensions of the Vietnam war were suppressed in the name of an > overriding (and ultimately venal) "national interest". What is needed > instead is the foregrounding of the ethical dimensions of public issues and > a spirited, informed public discussion around precisely those dimensions -- > what used to be known as "democracy". Sounds good, maybe too good. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11867] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
> From: Nathan Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11865] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap > > Social policy debates have gotten so stupid it is > > hard to see them as informed by any kind of > > theory, liberal or conservative, much less anything > > as high-falutin as risk theory. > > . . . > If risk is seen as a friend and an equal opportunity for entrepreneurship, > then inequality becomes just a reward system for those willing to take the > risks that drive wealth creation. . . . This is interesting but perhaps a little too ingenious to attribute to popular debate. There is an individualist ideology which holds that people choose their risks and ought then to take the consequences of their choices, just as they are entitled to the rewards of a fortuitous choice. If your point is that the way this is viewed is politically important, I agree. It's a little more mundane than what I would think of as risk theory, however. > . . . > up the messiest aspects of poverty, but there really is no solid left > position on how we would ideally balance risk and security, while making > both equitable. In the broadest speculations of socialist theory, have > market socialists grappled with that balance? The market socialists devolve to welfare statism in this circumstance, which is perfectly well-taken in the context of that system. I would say you have to be a rather extreme leveller to argue against any scope for voluntary individual risk-taking, with its attendant rewards and losses, but I don't doubt that the more left among us would take exception since in their vision capital is more-or-less completely socialized. Max === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11864] Privatization Conference; Speaker Needed
The Institute for Community Research of Hartford, Connecticut, is holding a one-day conference entitled "Privatization for the Common Good? Implications for Social Health and Welfare." ICR is a feminist-oriented organization. They are looking for a woman economist to address the question, "Can Markets Govern?" with particular reference to possible privatization of social services. The talk would be about 25 minutes, followed by Q&A as part of a panel lasting 75 minutes, from 9 a.m. to 11:00. The Institute is willing to offer an honorarium and cover the usual expenses. The conference is scheduled for October 21, 1997, in Hartford, starting first thing in the morning. Inquiries should be directed to: Dr. Jean Schensul, whose e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please DO NOT direct inquiries to me (Max Sawicky), so get your finger off that reply key. You may also contact Dr. Schensul by phone: 860-278-2044, x227 (voice) 860-278-2141 (fax)
[PEN-L:11861] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
> From: Nathan Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11855] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap > Any other thoughts on how risk theory plays an implicit or explicit role > in social policy debates? Social policy debates have gotten so stupid it is hard to see them as informed by any kind of theory, liberal or conservative, much less anything as high-falutin as risk theory. You have to analyze it instead as the transmission of folklore into the political arena. Imbeciles like Charles Murray and the journalist who wrote "The Death of Compassion" (his name escapes me at the moment) are the reigning conservative authorities. The liberal side is not without academic expertise; the politicians merely refuse to acknowledge it. This was typified by the resignation of Wendell Primus from HHS upon passage of the welfare reform. His shop's research, very much in the mainstream of liberal study of poverty and welfare, was simply ignored by the politicos in the White House, including the top one. HHS Secretary Shalala has been completely ineffectual in making a reasoned case. If she had any shame she would have resigned as well. Another good example of the divorce between politicians and mainstream research is the recent tax bill, which violated every principle of tax design ever enunciated by the economics profession. Max =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11831] Re: Ellen Dannin in the New Zealand news
> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:39:22 -0700 (PDT) > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Dollars and Sense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11820] Re: Ellen Dannin in the New Zealand news > Bill, do you know how to reach Ellen Dannin? Marc Breslow, Dollars & > Sense magazine. Sure: Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Not Bill ============== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 ===
[PEN-L:11756] (Fwd) Re: Towards a resuscitation of post keynesian thought
in my signature?! Best, Per Per Gunnar Berglund Lilla Sallskapets vag 60 127 61 SKARHOLMEN SWEDEN Voice/fax +46-(0)8-883065 === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11702] Re: questions about part time jobs
> From: Laurence Shute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11696] Re: questions about part time jobs > . . . > My understanding was that part-time employment, as a percentage of the > labor force, was increasing world-wide, from Europe to Asia. Does anyone > have data on this? As I thought I mentioned here a couple of weeks ago, this year's gala EPI Labor Day release will be a study on non-standard work arrangements. Check our web page for details (EPINET.ORG). Cheers, MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11672] Re: Barabara Ehrenreich
> From: Terrence Mc Donough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11669] Re: Barabara Ehrenreich > The thesis that beatniks and Playboy magazine had more to do with the > breakdown of the patriarchal family than the women's liberation > movement and the increasing economic options of women as they were > drawn into the capitalist labour force is simply incredible. . . . I don't disagree at all, but by way of clarification of something I said in a previous post in a related vein, Burroughs differed from the rest of the Beats in some important respects. I surfed a few web pages after going through some of the previous posts and was informed and/or reminded of a few things: WSB was one of the few Beats not involved in Buddhism. This comes out, among other ways, in his view of violence (and his personal affection for firearms). He was untypical in other ways as well. The main issue was here was on family, and in this area (and elsewhere) WSB had some truly loopy ideas. In this sense BE's characterization has some faint relevance, but it is faint because WSB's negative view of families was not typical of the Beats. Contrast Ginsberg's landmark poem on the death of his mother, and his joint appearances at poetry readings with his father, notwithstanding the fact that pop was not much of a poetic force, to put it politely. Of course, more incredible than the idea of the Beats fomenting an erosion of family values is the idea of WSB diverting the course of mainstream culture's view of the family. Cheers, MBS "As one judge says to another, 'Be just, and if you can't be just, be arbitrary." WSB (Naked Lunch) == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 ===
[PEN-L:11656] Re: beating the Beats some more
> . . . > On the second thought, however, that seems to confirm one of the fundamental > points of Marx's critique of capitalism: that the system operates on its own > logic that is rather independent of virtues and vices of individual > capitalists. It follows that even a devout anti-capitalist is bound to > behave like a capitalist when he/she is put in control of the means of > production. That, BTW, is a reminder to much of today's Left, not to > mention Ben-and-Jerryesque "bleeding hearts" and reformers, who seem to be > pretty Dickensian in their desire to improve the system by requesting more > virtuous functionaries of the system. Are you there, Max? You must be talking about some other Max. Max =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11636] re: "the Beats"
> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11632] re: "the Beats" > Not to beat this into the ground, but Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a book which > I believe is titled HEARTS OF MEN, which argues at length that the Beats > criticized family institutions (using both theory and practice) in a way > that exempts themselves from responsibility of helping raise children, > etc., without criticizing the inequalities of power in the usual family. Barbara's a fine lady but invoking her authority on this topic . . . you might as well ask Hillary Clinton. As for what the Beats didn't talk about, you might as well indict the entire pre-1972 left for male chauvinism. What does that have to do with, say, the merits of William Z. Foster? I don't recall whatever the criticism of family institutions in the Beats. I would say any such implied criticism was founded on a bigger dilemma, namely the moral and spiritual wreckage of society writ large -- the foundation for deformation of family relationships. It's also a little silly to criticize 1950's gays for failure to build nuclear families, since they were barely permitted to exist openly as individuals in the first place. > I must admit I only glanced at the book, so if anyone has corrections I'd > appreciated them. Only these few. Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11624] Re: "The Beats"
> From: "James Michael Craven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11616] "The Beats" James, > At the risk of alienating even more people and in response to the No risk there; if you're beat you're already alienated. > euologies on Burroughs and previously on Ginsburg, my personal > opinion is that the so-called "Beats", revealed themselves through > their writings and lifestyles to be largely: self-indulgent, > pretentious, arrogant, narcissistic, petit-bourgeois, phillistine, > ultra-individualistic, superifcial, elitist... Self-indulgent: no more than the rest of us. Pretentious: I don't see that; they were more reclusive than not. Arrogant: never saw a trace of this; more self-effacing Narcissistic: in the sense of self-involved, yes, like most artists Petit-bourgeois: this covers a broad area. The beats were not in hot pursuit of money, a leading p-b pastime; certainly not p-b in terms of morality; more communal than individualistic, I would say. It's hard to imagine a Beat with a house, mortgage, and kids, much running a business (unless it's a book/record store or a coffee house). Philistine: not sure what this means; the Beats were a reaction against mass culture, and elitist in this sense Individualistic: not quite; covered this above. Superficial: not at all to my way of thinking Elitist: not really. a better accusation could be romanticizing the lumpen-proletariat, a subtle type of elitism in the sense of reverse snobbery > Historically, anarchists have done very little for anybody or > any just causes; often they have served repressive powers-that-be as > wreckers obsessed with their own self-centered concepts and states of > "Liberty". Sure some of the poets have used metaphors and symbology Don't disagree in general, though there are different sorts of anarchists, as MIKEY notes. The problem here is not so much beat but art and the whole art is a weapon debate, which can simply be resolved as, 'sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.' > to decry various forms of oppression but generally from detached, > self-centered and elitist lofty heights of "culture" detached from > concrete struggles and sacrifices of their subjects--oppressed people > who generally will never read nor "truly understand" their esoteric > poetry and literature. This sounds like English professors, not at all like the beats. > In Germany many of the anarchists were instrumental in wrecking > united fronts against fascism and easily came over to the side of > the Nazis and cut their own Faustian Bargains; the S.A. in particular > was full of them. More often than not when they called for personal > liberty, they meant for themselves personally rather than a This is unfair in respect of the beats, whose brand of anarchism was more communal and especially anti- violence. Ginsberg and of course Leroi Jones/Amiri Baraka have been quite active politically. Baraka is a full-blown M-L but never severed his ties with the Beats. > generalized condition which must be fought for with organization, > discipline, focus, sacrifice, determination, compromise to build > unity, humility, etc.--all qualities and capabilities that anarchists > and libertarians (one version of anarchism) are not generally known > to exhibit. Here you're basically knocking them for not being M-L revolutionaries, which is true but has no bearing on the value of their art. > Of course there were some exceptions, but generally the Beats wrote > for themselves or narrow circles of the faithful sycophants who fawned > all over them, gave narcissistic/theatrical readings of their crap in > cloistured "coffee houses"... Beat literature was always been circulated on a relatively low- cost basis, though more recently it has been commercialized to some extent. Coffee houses were always open places, in my experience, and public reading is a communal act not unlike declaiming from a soap box against the yoke of Capital. Moreover, poetry readings tend to be democratic -- unlettered, unpublished authors are typically able to participate. Jim D. mentioned male chauvinism. Burroughs had a mysogenistic streak but I recall no animosity towards women in Ginsberg, Corso, or Ferlinghetti. Bukowski and Neal Cassidy are another matter, but I would characterize them more as glorifying the pastime of promiscuous screwing than objectifying women in particular. They would not expect women to be any more faithful than they were. Bottom line: all of these guys (plus Diane Di Prima, among others) are still worth reading and will inspire some young people to incline towards the left. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better."
[PEN-L:11613] Re: William S. Burroughs
> From: Louis N Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11610] William S. Burroughs > Oddly enough, there is a certain affinity between Naked Lunch and the > gothic novels of Stephen King. . . . Haven't read King, only seen a couple of movies based on. I don't take exception as far as you go, except to say King's stories don't seem to be about anything, whereas WSB's story is about everything. > Burroughs' relationship to the left was non-existent. As the ultimate > misanthrope, it is difficult to imagine him speaking from the platform of I believe he did interviews with anarchist mags, though we might not want to think of them as left. He did do readings at events that might have had a quasi-left character. > What Burroughs did articulate was a savage hatred for the destruction > industrial society wrought on the United States. . . . But don't forget his stories about oppression and rebellion in the time of the Incas (or Mayans, forget which). My impression is that for him every age had a particular horrific way about it, but that oppression and its opposite -- some kind of pastoral or urban/lumpen zone of freedom -- were timeless. His books juxtapose episodes from a variety of historical periods, including the future, suggesting the game is always more-or- less the same and only the players are different. MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11608] Re: "Teamsters" strike & double jeopardy
> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11606] "Teamsters" strike & double jeopardy > It's really clear how biased the media is in favor of UPS: I've never heard > of a strike that's been trumpeted as "a Teamsters' strike" unless it is > literal truckdrivers on strike (and many UPS workers are not). The word On the other hand, though it isn't worth much, Jay Leno announced last night that he favored the Teamsters' side in the dispute and he reflected an understanding of the main labor issue at stake. Sleepless in D.C., MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11598] Re: Work Time
> From: "James Michael Craven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11597] Re: Work Time > > > Response (Jim C): In a message to Congress on the Fair Labor > Standards Act, FDR wrote: > > "Goods produced under conditions which do not meet a rudimentary > standard of decency should be regarded as contraband and ought not to > be able to pollute the channels of interstate commerce." Thank you so much for this quote. I can almost guarantee it will be in politicians' speeches this fall, though obviously not with the revolutionary implications you impute to it. Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11596] Re: commodification
> Question: Who was the first Jew to receive the Heisman? Answer: Fred > Goldman. I'm afraid this would offend some Jews who don't share my black sense of humor. It doesn't bother me, though I will be careful about to whom I repeat it. > It seems that Fred Goldman has received a bona fide offer to torch > Simpson's Heisman on Pay-per-view for $1,000,000 guaranteed. I love > it! It seems that there is absolutely nothing that can't be > commodified under capitalism . . . You will be right if Fred keeps the money, but I would argue that if he gives it all away (net of welding expenses, natch) the 'commodification' is really inflicted on O.J. by Fred. If I was Fred I would be thinking of ways to hurt OJ every day, in every possible way. They say the Jewish Old Testament is unforgiving. I wouldn't know, but I know the feeling. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11588] Work Time
Bro. Walker, We're going to have a discussion at EPI on work time. I can tell you our labor econ mavens are open-minded but skeptical. We are going to read an article by Gerhard Bosch and Steffen Lehndorff presented at a conference, "Globalisation of Economic Activity and the Labour Market" in Portugal. The paper is entitled "The Reduction of Working Time and Employment." I will circulate the stuff you sent me. If you have anything else we should read, short of massive treatises, let me know. Other suggested reading is welcome. MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11586] Re: New strike deadline at UPS
> The following is from the Teamster Website > Teamsters News Release > June 26, 1997 > >New Research Shows Sky-High Turnover as Full-Time > Opportunities Vanish; >Throwaway Jobs Linked to Productivity Decline By sheer coincidence, the Economic Policy Institute will be releasing a new study on this subject on Labor Day. Check our web site (EPINET.ORG) for details. MBS =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:11585] William S. Burroughs
A few notes on one of my college literary heroes, William S. Burroughs, who died yesterday, partly to correct the predictably sappy NPR piece this a.m. The only book of his really worth reading is Naked Lunch. The ones that came after are somewhat repetitive, not as funny, and even more disconnected internally. Like Kerouac (another one-book author in my opinion) his life is more interesting than most of his books. Enthusiasts of NL may go on to read the other books to pick up some very good bits of writing amidst a mass of incoherence. NL and WSB were not about drugs or being a drug addict, but about the more general topic of control of the self by external forces (including but not nearly limited to drugs). Thus much of NL is about totalitarianism, oppression, and rebellion. The politics are revolutionary-anarchist -- e.g., "Fifty million juvenile delinquents hit the streets with bicycle chains and baseball bats . . . " The phrase "heavy metal" does come from WSB's writing but 'heavy-metal' music bears no resemblance to anything he wrote, said, or did. Contrary to NPR, the "cut-up" method of Burroughs and his friend Brion Gysin (the latter a mentor of sorts to the Talking Heads) was not to write pages and scramble them, but to cut up pages and scramble the pieces. This is not, however, what was sent to the publisher. Burroughs would work over the results. He used the scrambling to get new ideas. NPR's description is self-evidently wrong. I defy anybody to 'unscramble' the pages of any WSB book and get anything more coherent. Obviously if you wanted to create new juxtapositions, you wouldn't scramble pages, but passages, even phrases. Though dwelling on drug use, all of the writing is an utter turn-off from drugs, and thus on that account therapeutic fare for our youth, if you're willing to set aside all the frightfully obscene, highly entertaining sexual material. If you read NL, read the preface and afterword too. Norman Mailer's testimony at the obscenity trial described NL as a "profoundly religious work" about "the destruction of the soul." The NL movie was a commendable effort but sentimentalized the book and its author. As I believe the director said, paraphrasing, to make an accurate movie would have cost $50 million and it would have been banned in every country in the world. Now that I think of it, "Drugstore Cowboy" (in which WSB appears) captures the spirit of the writing somewhat better in its own way. So do The Sheltering Sky and Barfly (by and about Paul Bowles and another beat whose name I'm blanking on). I could go on, and probably will. To think I could have spent the past thirty years at this instead of economics. Shut up. "Only the dead are neutral." -- WSB MBS (e.g., WSB unscrambled) Interzone
[PEN-L:11564] Re: That's What.
> Response (Jim C): I have read some interesting and informative > missives from the above author and really this level and type of > response is saddening as he is obviously capable of a higher level of > discourse. The tone and level of sophistication of this response is > more in line with the type of response given by Sununu quoted above. Anyone who follows the thread should appreciate the response, if not agree with this writer's position on the underlying issues. MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11555] That's What.
> From: "James Michael Craven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11549] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction > > > an enormous legacy of theft and violence that didn't come to pass in > > > some dusty antiquity. Did you think that railroads, > > > telecommunications, oil companies, AT&T, Nike, etc. just grew from the > > > wholesome sweat of a few provident workers who tucked their savings > > > away to one day fund these immense projects? Does Taylorism > > > > No, but so what? > Response (Jim C): "So What?"; the Nazi and other Holocausts--"so > what?"; Slavery--"so what?" . . . Mr. A: No relief is conceivable under the Rule of Capital. Mr. B: Well, actually I believe some relief is possible and eliminating Capital altogether is unlikely and possibly inappropriate. Mr. A: The blood of the martyrs of millenia of oppression under the yoke of Capital gathers at your feet. Slavery! Enclosure! Peonage! Wage-gouging! Surplus value! Segregation! Lots of bad stuff! Mr. B: SO WHAT? Mr. A: Why, you no-good #@$%^&*+= so-and-so!!! Mr. B: I would say that about sums us this "debate." Now if you'll excuse me I have to go worry my hang-nail. "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11545] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction
> From: "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11514] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction > On Tue, July 29, 1997 at 16:28:27 (-0700) Max B. Sawicky writes: > >All you are doing is asserting that private ownership > >of any substantial body of capital inexorably implies > >all the evil deeds to which you refer, then you're trying > >to cast moral implications on my expected (and accurately > >so) refusal to swallow this assertion. > > Assertion with the benefit of history, yes. You have a nice way of > waving away the past: "All you are doing is asserting that segregation > of any substantial body of blacks inexorably implies all the evil > deeds...". Yes, today's capitalism---not yesterday's---is based upon I said "capital," and you translated my words, with quotes, as "segregation," as if to imply I regarded the latter as not necessarily evil. Really! > an enormous legacy of theft and violence that didn't come to pass in > some dusty antiquity. Did you think that railroads, > telecommunications, oil companies, AT&T, Nike, etc. just grew from the > wholesome sweat of a few provident workers who tucked their savings > away to one day fund these immense projects? Does Taylorism No, but so what? > ("scientific" management) and the associated transformation of the > education system to serve up "properly" skilled and obedient workers, > as David Noble outlines, not figure into this in the least? > > >Did you have a real question? > > My, how impressive, and gosh, unexpected---another ad hominem blast > from Max. For the crime of not being your kind of socialist, you paint me with indifference to historic oppression, tyranny, slavery, segregation, etc., and than as the inevitable source of "ad hominem" remarks. You are a piece of work. Bye.
[PEN-L:11544] Re: Info request re new tax accord
> From: Gil Skillman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11530] Info request re new tax accord > 2) Is there a segment of such investment--e.g. "venture capital"--that is > particularly dependent on private purchases of financial instruments? How > much so? American Enterprise Institute put out a little book on venture capital. It was mostly oriented to attacking proposals for the Federal government to undertake industrial policy interventions into private investment. About one percent of business start-ups owe their financing to "venture capital," strictly speaking. Most of the financing comes from corporations, rich folks who take a fancy to an idea, and personal/family sources (e.g., credit cards). Venture capital funds per se are a very minor player. > 3) What percentage of realized capital gains come from assets which do not > represent new investments in productive capacity, e.g. previously issued equity? Depends on how new is new. I would speculate that most gains derive from speculative activity or assets which have been held a while, so little of it has to do with 'new' investments. This isn't a very good argument, however, since the inducement of a preferred cap gains rate is held to stimulate the new investment. Tax economists don't buy that. Surveys of tax professionals (economists, accountants, attorneys working for academia, govt, and business) show strong majorities favoring the same rates for capital gains as for other types of income. > 4) Is there any significant (new) evidence on the beneficial economic > effects of cutting the capital gains tax? Paul Craig Roberts seems to think > there is, but, well, consider the source. Nope. This 'source' doesn't even do tax research, let alone any credible research. Don't forget a CG cut obliges some additional Federal borrowing, so the 'price effect' (e.g., the higher after-tax rate of return) has to be juicy enough to overcome whatever marginal propensity to consume out of the tax cut exists. As you know, it's not even clear that higher ROR's induce more saving, rather than less. Citizens for Tax Justice has a distributional table on the impact of the capital gains cut on their web site (www.ctj.org). On average the bottom 95 percent of the population gets at most $115 tax savings per tax filing unit annually from the cut, whereas the top one percent get more than $6,000. Another effective argument is the contrast horizontally. Think of grandma and her interest-bearing CD or savings account getting socked every year with the full income tax rates, while somebody else with an equal amount of capital gains income enjoys multiple preferences: the lower rates, deferral of the tax liability, the elimination of liability for assets held until death, and now reduced estate taxation of the latter. Rather than writing your Member of Congress, I would suggest you write an op-ed or letter to the editor and send a copy to the Rep. We can help you with placing such an item. This goes for the rest of you blokes too. Let me know if you're interested in further assistance or have further questions. Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11541] Re: Child tax credit
> From: Robert Cherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11531] Re: Child tax credit > YouR response seems to conflate two distinctly different aspects of the > labor supply response: The welfare versus work decisions of female heads of > households and the labor supply of mothers with working husbands that are in > the phase-out range of the eitc schedule. > > I am focusing solely on the latter group and arguing that for a > substantial portion, it is quite rational under the current system for them > to cutback on their work effort even if it means that the household income > declines from say $20,000 to $16,000. There actual disposable income will > not decline by $4000 since they will obtain an additional $884 of eitc; they > will save $600 in federal income taxes and $310 in SocSecTax, as well as > hundreds of dollars in commuting-related and childcare-related expenses. > With a quite small net income decline, I would expect many of these mothers > would choose the $16,000 by cutting back their market labor. I think that's entirely well-taken. >For this group your comment --"The answer that appeals to me is that > people basically would rather be working than on welfare, even if the > financial > benefits are not that great, so they don't care too much about marginal tax > rates" -- is beside the point. I would expect that the reason why they often > continue to work the same hours is that these mothers are not completely > clear on how large their implicit tax rate is. Right. I was thinking of either the male adult in the household, or a female head of household. My hypothesis is that for cultural reasons, either type of person would put an important non- pecuniary value on working. >Similarly, my view that we should look positively on this disincentive > aspect of the eitc, has little to do with your judgment that the *aggregate* > effect of the eitc on labor supply may be positive. It may well be > the case that the positive effect on female-headed households > outweighs the negative effect on mothers with employed husbands. However, > what if it is found that the eitc does have the substantial negative > impact on the market supply decision of mothers with working husbands. I > am simply arguing that we should be able to defend this aspect of the > eitc. I don't disagree. Making such a case is feasible if one adult in the household is working. Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11527] Re: Child tax credit
> From: Robert Cherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11518] Re: Child tax credit > Everyone agrees that the eitc will increase the labor supply of welfare > recipients. Max was simply trying to indicate that unless the demand curve > for labor is perfectly inelastic some of the benefits will remain with the > eitc recipient. > > Whether or not the demand curve shifts outward due to an > income effect is a bit tricky. Remember that since the cost of the eitc is > factored into the balanced budget one cannot simply assume that this will be > a net increase in disposable income. Moreover, since economic growth . . . The biggest factor is the likely increase in tobacco taxes. I doubt the increase in the tax on airline tickets will have much impact on the working poor. > What is at issue, however, is not simply the impact of the eitc on > welfare recipients but also the working poor. As I mentioned in an earlier > post, with this group the concern is how serious is the work disincentive > given the high implicit tax rate they face. The just agreed upon > provision that families with incomes of at least $18,000 will receive the > child credit allowance (is it phased in??) will mitigate this somewhat. The implicit marginal rates are indeed extremely high in certain cases. On the other hand, a fair amount of research suggests the marginal rates don't matter that much. The answer that appeals to me is that people basically would rather be working than on welfare, even if the financial benefits are not that great, so they don't care too much about marginal tax rates. An exception is the concern about loss of Medicaid benefits for their children. One of the few and fairly significant bright spots in the budget deal is an expanded access to such benefits. >Finally, I too am for the eitc -- who could be against it -- and in > particular believe that the work disincentive is a GOOD thing. What is > wrong with the government modestly subsidizing wives who are only > able to obtain low-wage employment with choosing to spend less time in the > labor market so that they can spend more time with their children? I'm for it but (not because) I think it has the opposite effect (e.g., encouraging work). I guess this is called 'operational unity.' Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11526] Re: Child tax credit
> From: Tavis Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11519] Re: Child tax credit > The package can only be helpful. But unfortuanately, in NYC, minimum wage > for workfare workers _is_ far less than minimum. The average Although I've opposed the budget deal, by all appearances it will include a requirement that workfare/welfare people be paid the minimum wage in cash (e.g., no offsets for Medicaid and whatnot). That is probably the most important, neglected aspect of what is otherwise mostly a bad deal. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11512] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction
> From: "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11509] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction > On Tue, July 29, 1997 at 13:50:38 (-0700) Max B. Sawicky writes: > >> this be held socially, how do you square that view with the historical > >> fact that productive property was originally stolen from workers > >> through enclosures and other means backed by state violence, and is > >> now maintained in the hands of the few by threat or outright violence? > > > >I ignore that view. I don't know what we're supposed to > >do about land expropriation that occurred x-hundred > >years ago. The remainder of your description is a > >fevered characterization of the routine enforcement of > >laws concerning private property. As I indicated above, > >I don't think socializing some property is as important as > >other goals, nor that it is well-founded in many cases. > > Thanks for the lecture, but we're not only talking about expropriation > of land that occurred "x-hundred years ago" or this year for that Well if we're talking about agrarian reform via land redistribution in the less-developed countries right now that's cool with me. You said enclosure and I thought you were talking about Merrye Olde England. > matter, since that still occurs around the world under the aegis of > the World Bank and its buddies. I suppose, following this logic, one > might as well pretend that slavery never existed when arguing about > current problems with racism. I suppose, further, that you have never > . . . All you are doing is asserting that private ownership of any substantial body of capital inexorably implies all the evil deeds to which you refer, then you're trying to cast moral implications on my expected (and accurately so) refusal to swallow this assertion. Did you have a real question? Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11507] Re: welfare and work
> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11503] welfare and work > Max wrote: >By associating 'welfare' with 'nonwork,' the Right has opened > itself to an > assault on behalf of people who work in the form of demands for bigger and > better refundable tax credits, FLSA protection, free health care, etc. When > the welfare rights movement makes its final transformation into a movement > on behalf of poor people who are working, as opposed to people who would > like to work but don't for an assortment of reasons, some of them not > credible, I think it will be a major tonic for progressive politic...< > > One way of transforming the "welfare rights movement" (is there such a > thing these days?) "into a movement on behalf of poor people who are > working" is to remember that taking care one's own children is _a form of > work_, even though our capitalist and patriarchal society refuses to pay > wages for that kind of work. Even though it's quite an important kind of > work, children being our future and all. Unfortunately, I would say the last thirty years demonstrate that 'remembering that child care is work' is NOT politically effective, though it has the secondary virtue of being true. Welfare rights politics has always upheld that child care is work, and socially important work to boot. People don't buy it, including working-class people. They know it's work but too many people do such work without pay, including many with low income, for us to effectively make the argument to pay people who don't work outside the home. > The old AFDC system (abolished by the Gingrich/Clinton welfare deform) was > a sort of minimum wages for housework system. Now many of the ex-AFDC > earners will have to take care of others' children in order to earn the > (minimum) wages that allow them to feed their own children. There's no > direct help to their own children at all, beyond some transitional sops. True in one sense, but if we are willing to get picky, the rationale for AFDC by those who supported it was that it was aid to children, not compensation for the care of children. The difference is important in this context. Of course, cash aid to children per se has not been politically sustainable either. Now I think we'll have a test of a different proposition: that aid by means of fiscal redistribution is acceptable if it goes to families whose able-bodied adults work outside the home. Ideally we wouldn't have to go this route, but that's where we are now. There are a smattering of organizing campaigns for 'living wages' around the country that have been quite encouraging in this vein, though they are still in rudimentary form. There is the battle over how to pay welfare recipients for the work they will be forced to do, and under what legal systems of protection, if any. This is going to heat up big time, as states are forced to implement the new welfare deform. I am hoping it is a major opportunity to recast the cause of the poor into a working class framework and set the stage for re-Federalizing the support programs low- wage workers need to maintain economically-viable families, along with guarantees of employment. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11505] Re: mortgage interest deduction
> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11500] mortgage interest deduction > According to Joseph Pechman's FEDERAL TAX POLICY (1977: 289), the US > Federal Income Tax exempted _all_ personal interest payments from taxation > from the start of the modern income tax (1913). I guess the major interest > group in favor of this would be the banking capitalists and kindred spirits. (BTW, there are more recent editions of Pechman.) The interest deduction under the personal tax is distinct from a similar provision on the corporate side. It's not clear how important this was for persons since as I noted the personal income tax did not become a mass tax until WWII. > Rather than being a policy that was instituted all at once, therefore, the > mortgage tax deduction is a break that survived a series of tax hikes. I'm Don't forget a rate hike can make the MI deduction more valuable since it 'clears' taxable income subject to a higher marginal rate. > pretty sure that it was in the 1980s that we stopped being able to deduct > interest on car loans, etc. The upper middle and upper classes were able to > resist the extension of this to mortgage interest. It was the 1986 reform. I think it is imprecise (not the worst sin in the world) to depict this as an upper-middle class thing since it affects the well-being of anyone who owns a home. > I still don't think that this tax break was any kind of deliberate effort > to co-opt the working class. The bosses lucked into getting that result, to > the extent that it actually happens. A more interesting and grosser abuse flowing from the MI deduction is tax arbitrage. Investors are able to deduct interest expenses under the personal income tax. This means you could borrow money (say, by taking a home equity loan, or just getting a loan on some other collateral) to buy stock, enjoy capital gains that is taxed at preferred rates (soon to be 20%), but deduct your interest costs against income subject to the top marginal rate (39.6) on "ordinary" income. This would be even more lucrative if we had gotten indexation of capital gains. If we had better tax enforcement such practices could be monitored and prevented, but at present there are no appreciable obstacles. Is this a great country or what? Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11504] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction
> From: "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11498] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction > On Tue, July 29, 1997 at 10:00:33 (-0700) Max B. Sawicky writes: > >Do we want the working class to accumulate wealth held > >individually (e.g., homes, stock, bonds, etc.), or must all > >wealth beyond personal items be held socially? I would > >say the latter is the correct socialist view but not the correct > >view. > > What is your criteria for correctness? > > I assume you include productive property in the class of items beyond > the personal. If so, and if you think that it is "incorrect" that No clearly some capital should be in the public domain. Besides the obvious stuff like infrastructure, R&D, and maybe patents, I would consider electric power, water, natural gas, communications, and some other things, but not manufacturing or a good deal what is now privately-owned. I would agree that this means I'm not much of a socialist. > this be held socially, how do you square that view with the historical > fact that productive property was originally stolen from workers > through enclosures and other means backed by state violence, and is > now maintained in the hands of the few by threat or outright violence? I ignore that view. I don't know what we're supposed to do about land expropriation that occurred x-hundred years ago. The remainder of your description is a fevered characterization of the routine enforcement of laws concerning private property. As I indicated above, I don't think socializing some property is as important as other goals, nor that it is well-founded in many cases. > Do you distinguish between family owned and operated enterprises and > those which employ labor outside the family, including huge (multi-) > national firms? I wouldn't cut it according to size, though I would think that taking over almost any little firm (in terms of income as well as size) would not be a priority even for a socialist regime. I would cut it mainly according to what industries had more 'public' attributes, in line with the neo-classical theory of public goods (applied in this case to intermediate goods). I would also have a much looser, more expansive definition in this dimension. > Also, what about the fact that workers must surrender basic human > rights, including the right to self-determination, upon entrance to > privately-held firms because (productive) propertyless workers have no > choice but to rent themselves to those who own productive capital? I'd say they need not surrender rights under a progressive regime. I'm not sure what you mean by self-determination. I would also strive for a system where workers had alternatives to renting themselves to others, but this requires an attention to an open system of enterprise, not traditionally one of socialism's stronger points. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11496] Re: home mortgage deduction
> Please correct me if my guesses are wrong. It's possible that the tax break > preceded this period. Since then, it's been a sacred cow. Not many people paid the Federal personal income tax before WWII, so if it existed (I don't know if it did or not) the deduction would have been a minor matter on that account alone. Clearly as you say major political factors included returning veterans coming home and rapidly growing economy and living standards. MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =========== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11495] Re: Child tax credit
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:11482] Re: Child tax credit Maggie, > Max (or anyone else), I have a question on how the eitc debate is being > formulated. The standard conservative/ mainstream economic response to > minimum wage, and rises in minimum wage, is that there will be higher > unemployment because employers are now forced to pay unskilled labor at a > rate higher than their marginal product. In reality, the last raise in > minimum wage preceeded a significant decrease in unemployment, and, stood in > some sense (IMHO) for a real world 'proof' of Keynesian economics--that > higher wages mean more spendable income and drive the economy toward real > growth. Now, assuming eitc would have much the same effect of increasing Right. The lack of disemployment effects from the recent minimum wage rise is is further documented in a new EPI report. > income by reducing the tax bite on dollars for low income working families, a > Keynesian argument would be that this would take more families off welfare > and put them into the workforce because there would be more jobs at some > point. The question (finally): Is any of this argument being waged by the Yes, but you can also get that result just from NC micro-reasoning, as I pointed out in my previous post. > proponents of the eitc or other tax breaks to working families? Supporting the EITC is good politics because the only thing the public sees is more after-tax income for people who work. The fact that many families end up with a negative tax liability, from the standpoint of the income tax, doesn't bother people. When the Right calls it welfare, we scream this is for people who WORK, you moron. By associating 'welfare' with 'nonwork,' the Right has opened itself to an assault on behalf of people who work in the form of demands for bigger and better refundable tax credits, FLSA protection, free health care, etc. When the welfare rights movement makes its final transformation into a movement on behalf of poor people who are working, as opposed to people who would like to work but don't for an assortment of reasons, some of them not credible, I think it will be a major tonic for progressive politics. Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11494] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction
> Subject: [PEN-L:11492] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction Robin said: <> It's not just the MI deduction, but also that for property tax, plus highway subsidies, plus under-taxation (from a social- cost standpoint) of fossil fuel and autos, plus diluted political power of cities in state-government context. Louis said: <> This is possible, though not necessarily the entire explanation. As the U.S. middle class, meaning workers who were able to increase their standard of living and accumulate some wealth, expanded, there was a natural political demand for subsidies to suburban areas. The location decision was probably influenced by the appeal (and subsidized cost) of owner-occupied housing and personal transportation, as well as racial motives. The point about ownership, also made by Lear, is salient and finds an analog in the UK and Thatcher's privatization of public housing, which I gather was quite popular and made for quite a dig at Labor, which missed out on this opportunity to please its constituents. > David Gordon has written that suburbia was favored because workers used > to live in communities close by their work sites, making organizing > easier. The author was Jane Holtz. AKA Jane Holtz Kay, as above. Louis said: <> Most every personal deduction is on their hit list if it means reducing the deficit. Research is pretty clear that the housing deductions are over-whelmingly focused on upper-income persons, though many more than "the rich." Most people who itemize (about 30% of 101 million tax filing units) probably take the home ownership deductions. Also, those who benefit from the deductions are not only those taking it at any point in time, but any home owner, since eliminating the deduction will reduce the value of all homes. Elimination wouldn't help people trying to buy homes either, since it would cost more for them to get in. Strictly speaking, if the deduction was terminated and the money used for progressive purposes, income equality would be advanced, but the deduction is so broadly shared that advocating its elimination would probably be the death of any movement so advocating it. It isn't going to happen. More from Louis: << . . . The questions of housing and transportation could lend itself to the sort of green-green mystification. Advocates of "less is more" might argue that we should walk more and live in apartments. The problem is that the working class might just interpret this as another form of Jimmy Carter austerity. . . .>> Another dilemma is that it may in fact be another form of such austerity. LP: <> Re: the last sentence, see George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead." At bottom of all this is a pretty interesting question, to me at least: Do we want the working class to accumulate wealth held individually (e.g., homes, stock, bonds, etc.), or must all wealth beyond personal items be held socially? I would say the latter is the correct socialist view but not the correct view. On the urban/transit stuff, readers are referred to a few EPI reports: "Does America Need Cities?" and Elliott Sclar's report on transit. There is also an anthology edited by Henry Cisneros. Elliott, now at Columbia Dept of Urban Planning, was one of the prehistoric URPE members. Currently he's finishing a book on privatization, but he will doubtless get back to his first love: cities without cars where you can go anywhere by bus/subway/cable car for free. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11479] Re: Child tax credit
> From: Robert Cherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11464] Re: Child tax credit > My own assessment is that the EIC was thought by small businesses > (chambers of commerce) as an ALTERNATIVE to minimum wage increases and > probably had some expectation that it would increase labor supplies and, > thereby lower pressures on wages in less skilled service occupations. Certainly a business would prefer an EIC to a minimum wage, but this doesn't mean there is anything wrong with an EITC, nor that its existence owes anything to business support. > Second, probably a majority of two-children families which receive the > EIC are in the $19,000-$25,000 range. Indeed, a family with two dependent > children and adjusted gross income equal to $20,000 is still receiving an > EIC equal to about $2000. Thus, the argument that the EIC should > distinguish between those who receive the child credit and those who should > not is problematic. Right, but only the Repubs say this. > Third, this could interestingly offset some of the work disincentives > inherent in the EIC. For families above $16,000 there is a quite high > implicit tax rate: 21% loss of EIC, 7.65% social security, and 15 > percent federal. Thus, without state or local taxes, these households face > a 44 percent marginal tax rate on each dollar earned. It is even higher if > they are also qualifying for other means tested programs like foodstamps, > health care, and/or housing subsidies. This is quite high considering that > work involves commuting expenses and for most of these families day care > issues. I would expect that for households in this income range with two > wage earners, it becomes quite rational for one (the wife?) to reduce paid > employment. Therefore, I would expect that if these families in the > $16,000 to $19,000 range know they would receive an additional $1000 for the > two children they have if they could raise their adjusted gross income above > $19,000 that they would seek more paid employment. (Isn't neoclassical > analysis wonderful!) You don't need NC analysis to justify the EIC if you are able to conclude it simply raises low incomes. The Marxist notion of the labor market would seem to argue in favor of an EITC, as far as the latter goes, in the following sense: If you think capital can get all the low-wage labor it wants for a given wage, and if you think firms compete for such labor, then there is a supply curve for such labor which is horizontal and a downward-sloping demand curve. An EITC or wage supplement or kiddie-tax credit shifts it down. The flatter the supply curve, the less the wage effect, but the greater the positive employment effect, while the steeper the supply curve, the converse holds (more wage increase, less employment gain). Either outcome would seem beneficial for low-wage workers. Only if the demand schedule is vertical (e.g., demand is unresponsive to labor costs) is the EITC 'eaten' by the employer. If you think employers will simply reduce their wages by the amount of the wage subsidy, you have to explain why they didn't do so in the first place. If you say they want to "reproduce labor power," you have to say why an individual employer would be public-spirited in this class-defined way when his individual incentives dictate otherwise. All efforts in Marxist education will be received with interest, if not without skepticism. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11462] Re: Child tax credit
> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:57:14 -0700 (PDT) > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To:Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11459] Re: Child tax credit > Doug Henwood wrote: > > >C'mon Max, didn't you read the DLC welfare literature? Time limits are the > >stick, and the EITC was the stick. > > Two sticks, hmm, maybe my unconscious is speaking. Anyway, the EITC is the > carrot, obviously. I thought you were attempting some esoteric form of wit. In this case the stick and carrot are independent (in law, policy, and politics, I would argue), so the carrot ain't responsible for the stick. MBS == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:11461] Re: Child tax credit
> From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11455] Re: Child tax credit > C'mon Max, didn't you read the DLC welfare literature? Time limits are the No because it is nothing but glosses of the tough guys (e.g., James Q. Wilson, Lawrence Mead) who are worth reading if not supporting. > stick, and the EITC was the stick. And you're not going to deny that the Calling a wage supplement a "stick" is bewildering. I guess that mandatory health insurance would be a club, and higher wages the kiss of death. > EITC is a public subsidy to low-wage employment, or more accurately, > low-wage employers. I won't deny that like a tax (but in reverse), part of the EITC is shifted to employers, but I will deny that none of it is received by workers. Beyond that you're into arguments about elasticities. Your point about policies towards the low-wage sector can get dicey. I hear the same thing at EPI. The problem is that we know very well how to destroy jobs by regulating and taxing them to perdition, but it is not so easy to create the jobs we would like to see, so I am leery of experiments in job creation that begin with job destruction. If we had a better safety net it would be as much of a concern, but we don't, as you know. > >"People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." > > -- John Sununu > > Are you making fun of Sununu, or adopting this as your motto? Both, albeit temporarily. Cheers, MBS == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:11452] Re: Child tax credit
> What you have here, Rakesh, is dueling forms of meanness. The EITC is > intended to drive a wedge between the "working" and "nonworking" poor, > between the worthy and unworthy, the fit and unfit, the deserving and > undeserving. That's why Clinton and the DLC love it. Dick Armey and his > comrades think that since the EITC is refundable - i.e. you get it even if > you don't pay any income tax - it's not fair to give folks a credit if > they're already paying no taxes. So to Armey & Co. all the poor are > undeserving. Or as fellow Texan Sen. Phil Gramm says, society is divided > into those who pull the wagon (his rich consituents) and those who ride in > it (the poor, all of whom are undeserving). (Sigh.) There was already a wedge between those classified as working or nonworking. Putting this on the EITC and its boosters verges on the 'social fascism' rap. The EITC was a resort to get some money to some poor folks. By your logic, we might as well dispense with the standard deduction and exemptions, since they are mere sops to the low-income among us and emphasize the malicious distinction between the deserving and the un-. MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11451] Re: Child tax credit
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rakesh bhandari) > Subject: [PEN-L:11449] Re: Child tax credit > As it has been suggested to me privately that I have misunderstood this > child tax credit, I reproduce what I read in the WSJ: > > "Neither Mr. Clinton nor Congressional Republicans are interested in > subsidizing the very poor. Families who make less than $19,000 or so > wouldn't benefit from White House, Senate or House plans, although they > would under alternatives offered by Democratic leaders of the House and > Senate. And all three bills would give the $500-a-child credit to families > with children smack in the middle of the middle class whose income, > according to the latest Census Bureau data is about $40,000 a year. (About > one sixth of the 37 families with children have incomes below $15,000 and > one sixth above $75,000.) > > "The big issue is whether to give any money to working families with > incomes bewtween roughly $19,000 and $28,000. Mr Clinton would, the House > wouldn't and the Senate is in between. In a recent interview, Mr Gingrich > acknowledged the president "may well get something" in the end 'because we > want the bill signed.'"WSJ, 23 July, 1997, A20 > > Now if there is going to be a child tax credit, why should the really poor > not get it? Because they already enjoy the EITC? Of course all children of low-income *should* benefit from a credit. That isn't what's at issue. The credit only applies logically in the first place to children in families who file under the income tax. If it applied to all, it wouldn't be a tax credit. It would be a childrens' allowance, a great thing but not what is in play right now. A tax credit in simplest terms offsets a tax liability. The EITC blurs that definition by being "refundable," meaning if the credit exceeds your tax liability the govt mails you a check for the difference. The struggle in this tax bill was for the kiddie-credit to have a similar feature. Clinton was better on this than the G.O.P., as the article points out, though not as good as the House Democrats. So your implicit complaint that the tax credit is not a childrens' allowance is analogous to criticizing a bridge because it is not a school bus. Moreover, your equation of Clinton and the G.O.P. on this issue was overdrawn. There's enough other points of similarity to slam Clinton (e.g., see "The Good for Nothing Budget," an EPI Issue Brief), but this wasn't one of them. The danger of glossing over the difference is indifference to the choice between Clinton's tax bill and the Republicans. Neither is great, to say the least, but they aren't the same. Is it too much to strive for a little precision in our criticism? > Well, others who will enjoy this kiddie tax credit also enjoy tax breaks as > well (eg, mortgage deductions). It cannot be because the really poor True but irrelevant. > already enjoy a tax break (the EITC necessary for their reproduction as > wage slaves after all) that the "really poor" are being punished by > disqualification for this child tax credit. Clinton is just using tax > policy against those whom he doesn't have the guts to call openly "the > unfit". As a further example, why is he giving a tax break to families for > kids in college for which this tax break poor families will *not* qualify > *even* if family members are in college, much less if they are not. What Clinton really wants is his lousy budget deal. He isn't thinking about the "reproduction of labor," for which the tax credit or its lack are irrelevant. He's doing the education credit in a misguided but more-or-less honest effort to get something that can be classified as "public investment" accomplished. The right time to be screaming about this was last year during the debate on welfare reform. It's a little late for that now, though I'm sure the opportunity will return. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11447] Re: Child tax credit
> Subject: [PEN-L:11442] Child tax credit > If I read yesterday's WSJ correctly, it seems that Clinton has agreed that > whatever the upper limit on income for qualification for this $500 per > child tax credit, so-called "very poor" families (<$19,000yr) will not be > able to receive it putatively because they already receive other offsets. The tax bill remains entirely in flux. The Administration and the GOP could compromise on the extent of refundability of the tax credit. There will be no deal without at least some gains for the working poor. The Administration has been pretty strong on this particular point so far. The real problem with the tax bill for the Administration is the proposed indexation of capital gains. That's the only feature that they've indicated would trigger a veto. That's unfortunate because there is lots of other garbage in the bill which Clinton would let pass in order to get his budget. I have two journalistic pieces on this topic on my web page, if anyone is interested (URL is below). The Republicans have been passing appropriations bills rapidly. This means the President is gaining enormous leverage in the negotiations because every bill that is passed is another chunk of the government that can't be shut down. With no deal, the so-called entitlement programs (e.g., social insurance, welfare) go on as under current law. It's getting to the point where the White House could walk away if they don't get what they want and suffer no ill consequences at all. Even the deficit is projected to go into surplus in two years under the status quo. A great opportunity for a Democrat in the WH, if only we had one. > As if those who will qualify for this credit don't receive other kinds of > offsets! This is just a war on the poor, a violent eugenics of the type > sanctioned by The Bell Curve. And Clinton has agreed to it. Clinton stands Not exactly, see above. > here to the right of some Democrats in the House and the Senate who have Did you just sail in? Clinton is to the right of the median Democratic Member of Congress. > . . . > Of course the headline should have read "Bipartisan Support for Negative > Eugenics Prompts Less Outrage Than In Nazi Germany" I would say that whether or not low-income families with children get a few hundred dollars per kid in tax credit refunds is not quite on a par with 'Eugenics.' Save your energy for when we really need it. Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11410] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory
> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT) > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Robin Hahnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11405] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, > What time is Costanza's brown bag at EPI? I'd like to come. > 12:30 till about 2 pm, and please do come. Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu =============== Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11400] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, an
> From: Anders Schneiderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11397] Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and >Economics > I'm starting a new research project, and I need to get up to speed on the > latest thinking about sustainable development. Anybody have any reading > suggestions (particularly things I can find on-line, since the libraries in > Syracuse are fairly limited)? I'm trying to use ecology / sustainable > development as a metaphor. Also, has anyone in economics done research > using complexity theory that's reasonably accessible? I know Kenneth Arrow > was doing some work, but I was curious who else has done interesting research. Talk to Dean Baker, Frank Muller, or Andy Hoerner at EPI ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Obviously check out Herman Daly and Robert Costanza (latter is at U of Md.). If you're in DC tomorrow (the 24th, Thursday), come to a brown-bag at EPI given by Costanza. There was a president's Commission on Sustainable Development (Dean was on it) which did reports or statements of some kind. Cheers, Max === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===