This gave me a giggle: collective noun
wunch, n, collective noun for a group of financial professionals: a wunch of bankers
FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
Much to my delight, the following appeared in today's Toronto Globe and
Mail: A13 ("J.K.Galbraith, who is 90, delivered this lecture last week on
receiving an honorary doctorate from the London School of Economics. It is
reprinted from The Guardian." )
Excerpt: "I come to two pieces of the unfinished business of the century
and millenium that have high visibility and urgency. The first is the very
large number of the very poor even in the richest of countries and notably
in the U.S.
The answer or part of the answer is rather clear: Everybody should
be guaranteed a decent income. A rich country such as the U.S. can well
afford to keep everybody out of poverty. Some, it will be said, will seize
upon the income and won't work. So it is now with more limited welfare, as
it is called. Let us accept some resort to leisure by the poor as well as
by the rich."
FW The Jobs Research Website Update June 1999
>From: "vivian Hutchinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "The Jobs Research Website" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:30:40 +1200 >X-Distribution: Bulk >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Subject: The Jobs Research Website Update June 1999 >Reply-to: "The Jobs Research Website" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Priority: normal > >N E W N E W N E W N E W N E W N E W >on T H E J O B S R E S E A R C H W E B S I T E >--- > >July 1999 > >a New Zealand - based internet resource >for employment action ... > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/ > >Hi, we've updated our website, and you might like to check out >our latest work! > >Take a look at these recent Jobs Letter features now freely >available on the Jobs Research Website ... > >* The Big Shift ---Canadian author Bruce O'Hara calls for a shorter >working week and a two shift workplace and outlines the advantages >for the workforce, for businesses, for taxation and for domestic >markets. > >http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl09110.htm > >* More Work for the Higher Paid -- >A Statistics NZ survey shows that higher paid New Zealanders are >working longer hours just like their overseas counterparts. > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl09210.htm > >* Toronto Dollars >by The Jobs Letter editors. Toronto launches a local currency to >help fund community projects that create work for those who are on >low incomes, unemployed and homeless. > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl09310.htm > >*Australian Jobless Trends -- A report from the Australian Bureau >of Statistics on the state of umemployment. How many Australians >are out of work, and for how long ? > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl08910.htm > > >* Oz Jobless Outcomes -- Ross Gittens of the Sydney Morning >Herald looks at how the new "outcomes"--driven employment >strategy, "Jobs Network" is working and finds some un-looked for >results. >. > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl09410.htm > > >OUR TOP TEN WEBPAGE HITS >- > >1. Internet Hot-Links recommended by our Editors > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/hot/hotlinks.htm > >2. Statistics That Matter homepage > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz /stt/stathome.htm > >3. Co-operation, Collaberation and Co-ordination -- the challenges >of working together on unemployment and poverty by Vivian >Hutchinson > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/vivian/ccc99.htm > >4. Local Employment Co-ordination What Can a Regional >Commissioner Do? by Jan Francis and Vivian Hutchinson > >http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/art/lec99.htm > >5. A Rifkin Reader > >http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/art/rifkin01.htm > >6. James K. Galbraith and Global Keynesianism > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/art/artg0002.htm > >7. Strategic Questioning by Fran Peavey and Vivian Hutchinson > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/vivian/stratq97.htm > >8. Vivian Hutchinson on the 1998 Anglican Hikoi for Hope > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/vivian/hikoi98.htm > >9. Ian Ritchie on Universal Basic Income > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/art/ian002.htm > >10. Garth Nowland-Foreman on Government and the Civil Society > >http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/art/artn0001.htm > > >STATISTICS FOR THE JOBS RESEARCH WEBSITE >-- >May 1999 > >Unique Visitors during the month 3,743 >Homepage Hits during the month1,867 >Total Webpage Hits overall 57,703 > >[Source -- OpenWebScope Website Statistics] > >-- > >REGISTER FOR EMAIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OF WEBSITE >UPDATES > >If you want to be kept informed of developments and updates to >the Jobs Research Website, we will be sending out an email >newsletter every 4-6 weeks with new links to information and >features. We will also include pointers to other material on the >internet which we have found relevant to our own research and >projects in the employment field in New Zealand. > >You can register for these free announcements by visiting the >registration page on our website at > > http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/register.htm > > >LATEST JOBS LETTERS >ARE STILL ONLY BY SUBSCRIPTION >While the Jobs Research Website will be freely available to all >internet users, we do not place the most recent (3-4 months) >copies of the Jobs Letter on the archive. These will continue to >be available only to subscribers, and to preserve our income base >for >the Jobs Letter -- subscriptions pay our bills. > >SUBSCRIPTIONS >(annual, for 22 letters ... prices include GST) > >(a) posted, paper edition (4-6 pages) $79 >this sub also includes a free email edition on request > >(b) emailed MS-Word edition $66 >formatted for onscreen reading or printing, >with hypertext links > >(c)emailed edition, raw text only $55 > >bulk rates for all editions are available, contact >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >The internet is one big copying machine, but it is our >subscribers who enable us to provide the
FW: Digital Monoculture
While not directly related to FW, this seems sufficiently interesting to pass along FYI -- From: Gary Chapman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: L.A. Times column, 7/5/99 Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 10:30AM Friends, Below is my Los Angeles Times column for today, Monday, July 5, 1999. As usual, please feel free to pass this around, but please retain the copyright notice. -- If you have received this from me, Gary Chapman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), you are subscribed to the listserv that sends out copies of my column in The Los Angeles Times and other published articles. If you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE from this listserv, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], leave the subject line blank, and put "Unsubscribe Chapman" in the first line of the message. If you received this message from a source other than me and would like to subscribe to the listserv, the instructions for subscribing are at the end of the message. -- Monday, July 5, 1999 DIGITAL NATION Troubling Implications of Internet's Ubiquity By Gary Chapman Copyright 1999, The Los Angeles Times Early last month, institutions around the world were crippled for several days by a new computer virus called the ExploreZip Trojan horse. A Trojan horse, in computer jargon, is a nasty software program that hides inside a file a user is likely to want to see or open. The ExploreZip virus -- more accurately, a computer "worm," which spreads more automatically than a virus -- affected machines running Microsoft's Windows operating system and Windows application software. Computers throughout the world were shut down, including some at Microsoft and other large corporations as well as the Pentagon. The ExploreZip worm was a more debilitating version of the Melissa virus that struck Windows machines earlier this year. Because of the apparent vulnerability of Windows-based machines, some computer experts have started to use the metaphor of a "monoculture" to describe our current computing predicament. The word "monoculture" comes from ecology and biology, another example of the merging of biological terms with computer jargon, like "virus" and "worm." In ecology, monoculture refers to the dominance or exclusive prevalence of a single species or genetic type in an ecological system -- a state typically regarded as pathological and dangerous. Agricultural monocultures, for example, are highly susceptible to blight, soil depletion, disease and other disasters. In computing, the recent use of the term has referred to the widespread dominance of Microsoft products. But we may want to extend the metaphor further and contemplate whether we're developing a universal digital monoculture, one with a troubling potential for negative side effects. Think of it as the perils of digital convergence. By now, nearly everyone assumes that almost everything we do will be absorbed into the digital "infosphere" -- as in IBM's advertising phrase "Connecting everything to everything." It's only a matter of time before television, radio, music, games, commerce and politics are assimilated into the Internet. This phenomenon is growing every day. We're about to step into the so-called "post-PC" era, when networked computing will permeate our homes and everyday objects such as refrigerators, telephones, cars and stereos. This model is known as "ubiquitous" or "pervasive" computing, when the Internet will be present in everything and everywhere. But few people stop to think of the vulnerabilities this might entail. Recently there's been a controversy on the Internet over a new product called Third Voice (http://www.thirdvoice.com), from a company of the same name based in Redwood City, Calif. Third Voice is a free browser plug-in (currently it only works with Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0) that allows users to create and see notes or messages attached to Web pages by other, independent users. The messages attached to pages are listed in a small menu bar on the left of the browser screen. When the list is clicked, the messages pop up over the Web page like digital Post-It notes. Third Voice advertises its product as a way for users to have their own say about Web content. Others have called it, pejoratively, "Web graffiti." The controversy was generated by Web masters and Web designers who don't like having their pages "defaced" by this product -- it puts the appearance of their pages beyond their control, and, some of them argue, it may be a copyright violation. The interesting thing about Third Voice, however, is how it works. The content of the Web page it modifies is not altered on the originating server. The messages are simply stored on Third Voice's own computers and merged with the Web page when a Third Voice user requests the page. The messages then become a kind of "overlay" on the original content, which is otherwise unaltered and available for viewing by other users in it
Re: FW: Digital Monoculture
AC forwarded: > In other words, a digital monoculture makes us vulnerable to all > sorts of manipulations that have not been possible before. The more > ubiquitous this monoculture becomes, the more vulnerable we will be. And the worst part is that this monoculture is authored by the company with the _least_ secure software ! > This phenomenon is growing every day. We're about to step into the > so-called "post-PC" era, when networked computing will permeate our > homes and everyday objects such as refrigerators, telephones, cars > and stereos. This model is known as "ubiquitous" or "pervasive" > computing, when the Internet will be present in everything and > everywhere. Yeah, and the future "virus warnings" are already circulating (below) ;-)) Chris > Virus warning from the year 2001: > > If you receive an Email with the subject line "Hi, chap" delete it > IMMEDIATELY, WITHOUT READING it. This is the most dangerous E-mail > virus yet. > > Not only will it completely rewrite your hard drive, but it will scramble > any disks that are even close to your computer. It also demagnetises the > strips on all your CREDIT CARDS. > It reprogrammes your ATM access code, screws up the tracking on your > VCR and uses subspace field harmonics to scratch any CD's you try to play. > It will recalibrate your refrigerator's coolness settings so all your > Mövenpick ice cream melts and your milk curdles. It will give your > ex-boy/girlfriend your new phone number. This virus will mix antifreeze > into your fish tank. It will drink all your beer. > It will even leave dirty socks on the coffee table when you are expecting > company. > > It will hide your classic-car keys when you are late for work and interfere > with your car radio reception so that you hear only static while stuck in > traffic. When executed, "Hi, chap" will also give you nightmares about > circus midgets. It will replace your shampoo with ketchup and deodorant > with Surface Spray. > It will give you Dutch Elm Disease and Tinea. If the "Hi, chap" message is > opened in a Windows00 environment, it will leave the toilet seat up and > leave your hairdryer plugged in dangerously close to a full bathtub. > > It will not only remove the forbidden tags from your mattresses and > pillows, but it will also refill your skim milk with whole milk. > It has also been known to disregard 'Open This End' labels and can often > make you 'Push' a door that says 'Pull' and vice versa. It is insidious > and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather > interesting shade of mauve. These are just a few signs. > > You have been warned, chap. >
Re: Media / Oral Literacy
Hi: My thanks to Thomas Lunde, Brad McCormick and Ray Harrell for commenting on my post. One important point that I didn't spell out - and which most people realize - concerns the absolute necessity of the written word for complex subjects. Without the ability to review, word-for-word, as needed, most non-fiction would be incomprehensible. I can't imagine anyone listening to audio tapes of Descartes, Advanced Algebra or Against Economics - or any of a hundred thousand other books and papers - and understanding them. A second point that I think needs emphasis, is that in a world where reading literacy is not universal and where the media is literally owned by a few with their own agenda, we would find it very difficult to convince anyone but each other of our convictions. To do so, we would have to revert to a time a century and more ago when the "workers of the world" were almost convinced to unite primarily by the oratory of their leaders. This was augmented by night schools, lecture series, pamphleteering and rallies. At that time the laboring class had a greater interest in their own welfare and destiny than they have today. I fear that if reading and writing literacy should go down the TV drain, we would all need Ray Harrell's coaching to reach out to the world :-) . Ray Harrell concluded his post with the following statement: "Without a serious grammar that is more inclusive English writing is a poor substitute for sound." I'm not sure of the relationship here and, perhaps, Ray could expand upon it. Writing is a poor substitute for sound - until one becomes a consummate reader and a multimedia world explodes inside your head - but this is for fiction, drama and poetry only, not for complex material. There is a problem and several people reading the same passage can come to different conclusions, but this has mainly to do with abstract nouns and their definition which, too often, differs from person to person. I don't see where either oral emphasis or a more inclusive grammar will help. Robert ___ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
interesting book review
Toronto Star, July 6, 1999 Thomas Walkom If the economy is so rosy, why arethings so grim? THE ECONOMIC boom, we aretold, continues. Productioncontinues to grow; the stockmarket is rocking. Asia isbouncing back and the big,powerful U.S. economic enginechugs along in one of thelongest periods of continuousgrowth since 1945. But at ground level, wheremost of us live, the world still seems a precariousplace. Wages lag. Big, profitable companiescontinue to lay off staff. The unemployment rateis falling but good jobs are still hard to find. TheKingston Rd. motel strip is chockablock withhomeless families. How can things be so rosy yet so grim? Jim Stanford proposes an answer to this question.An economist with the Canadian Auto Workers, heis youngish, articulate, whipsmart and, unlikemany in his profession, able to write in a knownlanguage. Those who know clothes say he dresses well.Indeed, if his views were more mainstream, hewould probably be a household name on thebiz-media circuit, a kind of male Sherry Cooper. What Stanford has written is a book called PaperBoom. Its central argument is that there are twoeconomies in Canada: a real one which producesthe things that people use - such as homes, cars,health care, roads; and a paper, or financial, one.This real-financial/productive-unproductivedistinction is not original with Stanford. AdamSmith, and Karl Marx made similar points. So toodid John Maynard Keynes and the curmudgeonlyAmerican theorist of conspicuous consumption,Thorstein Veblen. Like his predecessors, Stanford writes at a timewhen the system seems out of joint. For as hepoints out, the theory of financial intermediationso beloved by the teachers of first-yeareconomics courses doesn't work in practice. That theory holds that banks, mutual funds, stockmarkets and their like exist to service the realeconomy, that they channel savings intoproductive investments. But in practice, the realeconomy finances itself. Most corporations usetheir retained earnings to finance newinvestments. The savings of ordinary citizens are,by and large, channelled into the homes theyown. What, then, does the financial sector do?According to Stanford, the answer is not much.The stock market, he points out, ends upfinancing not real productive investment butget-rich-quick schemes, particularly mergers andacquisitions. In the 1990s, for example, only 5 per cent of themoney raised on the Toronto Stock Exchangewent into companies which wanted to financenew businesses. Instead, most stock exchangeactivity focuses on speculation - trading existingshares back and forth. The beneficiaries from this frenzy of trading arenot those companies in the real, wealth-creatingeconomy. Certainly, they are not the workers inthese companies (who often must be laid off topay for expensive takeovers, as journalists at TheToronto Sun found when they were swallowed byQuebecor Inc.) Curiously, individual investors don't evennecessarily benefit. In 1998, those who invested in Canadian mutualfunds did worse on average than those whodidn't. And they paid mutual fund managers heftyfees for the privilege. As Stanford notes, thesemanagers ``were paid good money to reduce, onaverage, the value of their clients' portfolios.'' Rather the beneficiaries are the high rollers in thefinancial industry, corporate captains paid instock options and the still tiny percentage ofpeople who own most of Canada's wealth. In fact, the very success of the financialeconomy has hindered the real economy. Stanford argues that there has been a slump inreal productive investment in Canada since the1980s, thanks in large part to deliberategovernment policy. This included a high-interest-rate regime designedin part to protect from inflation the abstractwealth of those who dominate finance. Themechanisms of this regime led to what Stanfordcalls a policy of ``permanent recession'' and thegradual attrition of the real economy. While Stanford writes from the left, he is politelydismissive of many of its shibboleths. Corporateprofits, he says should not be the focus of theleft's ire. In fact, given its crucial role in the realeconomy, investment by big business should beencouraged. He is equally bemused by the left's curious loveaffair with small business people (most of whomhate anything that smacks of socialism). Stanfordpoints out that small businesses are the pilot fishof the economy; they need the big corporatesharks to survive. Stanford does call for a public investment systemto bypass the paper economy. But his solutionsare less interesting than his analysis of theproblem. Paper Boom is a wide-ranging, provocative andsurprisingly readable look at the malaise of thecurrent economy. It's co-published by JamesLorimer and the Canadian Centre for PolicyAlternatives. Thomas Walkom's column appears Tuesdays. *** I didn't know the exact figure for productive investment through the stock
FW: Irish Workfare
> -- > From: B Sandford[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > FYI > > ICQ: 20816964 > Fax: USA(707)215-6524 > > *** > News via ainriail the Irish Anarchist Bulletin list > see http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter/email_lists.html > *** > > Social Welfare Bill 1999 > Hassling people into very low paid jobs > > > The Scheme Workers Alliance organises people on > employment schemes to combat cutbacks and win the > extension of part-time workers rights. Uisce from > 'Workers Solidarity' spoke to Leo Duffy and Seamas > Carrehan of the SWA about the upcoming Social Welfare > bill. > > The Government is continuing its campaign against > working class people. Workfare was introduced last year > by Mary Harney, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade & > Employment. It forces people into shit low paid jobs by > cutting their social welfare completely. The next phase > in this assault is the proposed Social Welfare Bill > 1999. > > Contained in it are provisions for increasing welfare > benefits for the unemployed, pensioners and other people > on welfare. However, the increase would not even buy a > packet of cigarettes, the price of which was raised in > the last budget. Hidden among these titbits from the > Tiger's table is Article 26, a draconian piece of > legislation directed at further oppressing the working > class. > > "This Welfare Bill, and particularly the section dealing > with vehicle checkpoints, comes at the end of a three > year sustained and covert campaign by the state against > the most vulnerable people in our society" said Seamas > Carrahen. It allows for Social Welfare inspectors to > mount checkpoints to (in theory) catch social welfare > recipients who are also working in the black economy. > > Welfare inspectors, when accompanied by a cop can stop a > vehicle suspected of "being used in the course of > employment or self-employment." Dermot Ahern, Minister > for Welfare has assured us "that the powers will > continue to be used responsibly. This programme is not > aimed at the ordinary citizen going about their > business." > > But as Leo Duffy put it "it reinforces the sense of > threat that people in vulnerable positions, on social > welfare (will be) hassled under the new welfare > arrangement". It will be used where unemployment is > endemic and it will infringe on the lives of working > class people. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties > described it as "another inroad into peoples liberty to > come and go in the course of legitimate activity." > > Even though the powers for social welfare inspectors are > only now being legislated for, these multi-agency check- > points have been in operation over the past year. When > criticised by other TDs who had never heard of these > checkpoints 'till they saw the Bill, Dermot Ahern > apologised saying "in retrospect it, perhaps, should > have been mentioned." > > Ahern "has done all of this without negotiating with any > of the people involved" said Seamas Carrehan, pointing > to the lack of consultation between Ahern's Department > and trade unions and unemployed groups. A reason that > Ahern is legislating for the checkpoints now may be that > "by formalising it in legislation it does give it a > status where it could be more easily manipulated against > vulnerable people" said Leo Duffy. > > Dermot Ahern, in defence of the checkpoints, said that > in February that 10% of vehicles stopped at certain > checkpoints revealed fraud cases. What he didn't say was > whether these particular cars had been deliberately > targeted. > > Perhaps he is implying that 10% of working class people > are criminals. According to Leo Duffy "anybody who is > carrying a plastic social welfare card is automatically > going to come under suspicion or threat". > > Seamas Carrahen described the Bill as primarily > representing "the interests of business. But the people > it represents and the people who are saying that we need > cutbacks and we cannot afford the welfare state are > actually the people, at this point, who are becoming > phenomonally wealthy". He added that the continuing > campaign against unemployment by the government is not > designed to help the unemployed. It is actually to drive > the unemployed into low wage jobs, and again that's a > business persons agenda that's being promoted by the > government. > > There has been minimal protest against the new bill. Leo > Duffy said that "protests have come from other agencies. > They haven't necessarily coalesced in that, but on their > own initiative they have sent protests to the Department > of Social Welfare". Seamas added "there has been a > fragmented response to the bill from isolated quarters. > There has been no co-ordinated or adequate attack on it, > it has been accepted a
