Who holds S&L Mortgages?
Here's a question about S&L Balance Sheets: I was lecturing the other night to my adult-ed class at Baruch and was trying to talk about "disintermediation" and how all the nice homely local S&L's got stuck with 5% mortgages when interest rates skyed to 16% in the early 1980's. Now one of my student's insisted that in today's "financially innovative" environment S&L's would never get burned again because they can get rid of the inherent interest rate risk of home mortgages through "swap" and other hedging strategies. I responded that though they can diversify some of the risk, the asset base of the local S&L is still comprised mainly of home mortg's. Moreover, New York State banking laws restrict how active an S&L can manage their loan portfolio - otherwise they would all become arbitrageurs and leave their nice safe offices out in Queens and get a plush corner office on Wall street. So, who out there in Pen-L land can help me with a useful response to this nice student (yes, he is visting from mainland China, and yes we had an interesting discussion about planning) before next Monday's class? Thanks Jason Hecht -- Jason Hecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] 48 West 68th Street, Apt. 3A New York, New York 10023-6015
Who holds S&L Mortgages?
Here's a question about S&L Balance Sheets: I was lecturing the other night to my adult-ed class at Baruch and was trying to talk about "disintermediation" and how all the nice homely local S&L's got stuck with 5% mortgages when interest rates skyed to 16% in the early 1980's. Now one of my student's insisted that in today's "financially innovative" environment S&L's would never get burned again because they can get rid of the inherent interest rate risk of home mortgages through "swap" and other hedging strategies. I responded that though they can diversify some of the risk, the asset base of the local S&L is still comprised mainly of home mortg's. Moreover, New York State banking laws restrict how active an S&L can manage their loan portfolio - otherwise they would all become arbitrageurs and leave their nice safe offices out in Queens and get a plush corner office on Wall street. So, who out there in Pen-L land can help me with a useful response to this nice student (yes, he is visting from mainland China, and yes we had an interesting discussion about planning) before next Monday's class? Thanks Jason Hecht -- Jason Hecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] 48 West 68th Street, Apt. 3A New York, New York 10023-6015
Re: Sunk Costs and Nike and Captialism
Larry Shute asked me to forward this.--Gil --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 09:53:39 -0800 (PST) From: Laurence Shute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject:Re: Sunk Costs and Nike and Captialism To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date sent: 15-MAR-1994 Last week Gil Skillman wrote: >Larry Shute writes: >> The classic work on sunk costs is John Maurice Clark's The Economics of >> Overhead Costs published in 1923. I wish more people would read the >> book, ignoring the mild tone. In my HO it's one of the seminal books >> of this century. Clark clearly points out the "discovery" of overhead >> costs and the implications that this has for the MC=MR type of thinking. >> Among his bon mots: "Discrimination is the secret of efficiency" -- with >> respect to using the overhead that modern capitalism builds. As Clark >> points out, his book is about unused capacity -- waste. Capacity which >> capitalism can never use. > >No disagreement that capitalism is wasteful, but I didn't think that >overhead costs had *any* particular implications "for the MC=MR type >of thinking." For instance, even with overhead costs, profit- >maximizing price discrimination typically implies MR = MC conditions. >Gil [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gil, 2 quick points here. One: Clark spoke of the shifting and conversion of overhead costs, by which he meant that fixed costs could be transformed into variable and vice versa. How? Well, rent your truck instead of buying it, for instance. Marginal costs are a function of variable costs, not fixed, so if we can change our variable into fixed and back again, we can make MC anything we want. Second point: is of course the fact that no firm at all is a single- product firm today. (Or, how many can we find?) So the idea of tracing costs in such a precise fashion is silly. Not at all like Adam Smith's day when costs were more or less dtracable to units of output. Sorry for the delay: my computer at home just bombed and this one at work is not very swift. Also, I don't know if this is going to Pen-L or just you. If you think it has a general interest, please re-post it for me. Many thanks. -- Laurence Shute Department of Economics California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Tel: (909) 869-3850 Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sunk Costs and Nike and Captialism
Larry Shute asked me to forward this.--Gil --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 09:53:39 -0800 (PST) From: Laurence Shute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject:Re: Sunk Costs and Nike and Captialism To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date sent: 15-MAR-1994 Last week Gil Skillman wrote: >Larry Shute writes: >> The classic work on sunk costs is John Maurice Clark's The Economics of >> Overhead Costs published in 1923. I wish more people would read the >> book, ignoring the mild tone. In my HO it's one of the seminal books >> of this century. Clark clearly points out the "discovery" of overhead >> costs and the implications that this has for the MC=MR type of thinking. >> Among his bon mots: "Discrimination is the secret of efficiency" -- with >> respect to using the overhead that modern capitalism builds. As Clark >> points out, his book is about unused capacity -- waste. Capacity which >> capitalism can never use. > >No disagreement that capitalism is wasteful, but I didn't think that >overhead costs had *any* particular implications "for the MC=MR type >of thinking." For instance, even with overhead costs, profit- >maximizing price discrimination typically implies MR = MC conditions. >Gil [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gil, 2 quick points here. One: Clark spoke of the shifting and conversion of overhead costs, by which he meant that fixed costs could be transformed into variable and vice versa. How? Well, rent your truck instead of buying it, for instance. Marginal costs are a function of variable costs, not fixed, so if we can change our variable into fixed and back again, we can make MC anything we want. Second point: is of course the fact that no firm at all is a single- product firm today. (Or, how many can we find?) So the idea of tracing costs in such a precise fashion is silly. Not at all like Adam Smith's day when costs were more or less dtracable to units of output. Sorry for the delay: my computer at home just bombed and this one at work is not very swift. Also, I don't know if this is going to Pen-L or just you. If you think it has a general interest, please re-post it for me. Many thanks. -- Laurence Shute Department of Economics California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Tel: (909) 869-3850 Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xrates, AS-AD, & comparative advantage
Wait! maybe I'm slow, but I didn't understand Peter this time. It seems there are two possible results: (1) exchange rates reflect the current account quickly, so that international prices change quickly, so that a US price rise does not induce an "international substitution effect" -- so one reason for the downward-sloping aggregate demand curve (in price-real GDP space) does not apply. In this case, comparative advantage dominates absolute advantage. OR: (2) prices do not reflect the current account quickly, so that the international substitution effects do occur and there is a reason for the AD curve to slope downward. This also implies that absolute advantage dominates comparative advantage, at least in the short run. I think (2) is accurate, but the point is you can't have "your Kate and Edith too" as a famous Country & Western song put it. If you see absolute advantage as dominating comparative advantage, then the AD should slope down due to international substitution effects. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacadINTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
Re: Xrates, AS-AD, & comparative advantage
Wait! maybe I'm slow, but I didn't understand Peter this time. It seems there are two possible results: (1) exchange rates reflect the current account quickly, so that international prices change quickly, so that a US price rise does not induce an "international substitution effect" -- so one reason for the downward-sloping aggregate demand curve (in price-real GDP space) does not apply. In this case, comparative advantage dominates absolute advantage. OR: (2) prices do not reflect the current account quickly, so that the international substitution effects do occur and there is a reason for the AD curve to slope downward. This also implies that absolute advantage dominates comparative advantage, at least in the short run. I think (2) is accurate, but the point is you can't have "your Kate and Edith too" as a famous Country & Western song put it. If you see absolute advantage as dominating comparative advantage, then the AD should slope down due to international substitution effects. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacadINTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
Chomsky (LOOT-2/94): Free market my (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Mon, 14 Mar 94 22:51 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Green) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Chomsky (LOOT-2/94): Free market my /* Written 10:44 am Feb 25, 1994 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in web:chomsky.views */ /* -- "Chomsky (LOOT-2/94): Free market my" -- */ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Aske) Subject: Chomsky (LOOT-2/94): Free market myths SOME TRUTHS AND MYTHS ABOUT FREE MARKET RHETORIC The following letter by Noam Chomsky was published in: Lies of Our Times (LOOT), February 1994 and it's reprinted here with their permission. According to its publishers, _Lies of Our Times_ is "a magazine of media criticism. "Our Times" are the times we live in but they are also the words of the _New York Times_, the most cited news medium in the United States, our paper of record. Our "Lies" are more than just literal falsehoods; they encompass subjects that have been ignored, hypocrisies, misleading emphases, and hidden premises - all of the biases which systematically shape reporting." _Lies of our Times_ (LOOT) is published by Sheridan Square Press, Inc. Produced and distributed by Institute for Media Analysis, Inc. Subscription rate: $24 (US); $32 (Canada, Mexico, W. Europe); $36 (Other). Payable to the order of Sheridan Square Press. 11 issues a year (combined July-August issue) of 24 pages each, except December issue is 28 pages -- includes yearly index. Lies Of Our Times, 145 West 4th Street, New York, NY 10012, (212) 254-1061, Fax: (212) 254-9598 = Lies of Our Times Letter from Lexington Jan. 7, 1994 Dear LOOT, Hardly a day passes without acclaim for the exciting new idea of the New World Order: free market capitalism that will liberate the energies of active and creative people, for the benefit of all. Euphoria peaked as Clinton savored his Nafta triumph at the Asia-Pacific summit in Seattle, where he expounded his "grand vision for Asia," bringing leaders together "to preach the gospel of open markets and to secure America's foothold in the world's fastest growing economic community." This "may be the biggest rethinking of American policy toward Asia" since World War II, David Sanger observed. Clinton outlined the "new vision" before a "cheering throng...inside a giant airplane hangar at the Boeing Company," "a model for companies across America" with its "booming Asian business" -- and its plans for "multimillion-dollar job-creating investments outside the United States on a scale that would terrify Nafta's opponents" (R.W. Apple, Thomas Friedman, Sanger _NYT_, Nov. 21, 1993). Unmentioned is another fact: Boeing is also the model for radical state intervention to shield private profit from market discipline. It would not be America's leading exporter, nor probably even exist, were it not for a huge public subsidy funneled through the Pentagon and NASA, institutions in large part designed to serve that function for high tech industry generally. Clinton's gospel, then, is that the taxpayer should provide massive welfare payments to investors and their agents, safely protected within their totalitarian institutions from interference by public or workforce, pursuing profit and market share as they choose, by "job-creating investments" abroad if that suits their interests. "China alone now buys one of every six of [Boeing's] planes," Sanger continued. And lofty rhetoric aside, Clinton's one achievement at the summit was to open the door to more exports to China, expected to be "the magic elixir that can cure many of the ills of the American economy" (Apple). Clinton arranged for sales of supercomputers and nuclear power generators; the manufacturers (Cray, GE) are also leading beneficiaries of the state-subsidized private profit system, and the items sold can be used for nuclear weapons and missiles, Pentagon officials and other experts observed. A problem, perhaps, because of a ban on such exports imposed last August "after American intelligence agencies produced conclusive proof" that China was engaged in missile proliferation, while also continuing "nuclear cooperation" with Iran, probably weapons production. But the problem was only superficial: Secretary of State Warren Christopher informed China that Washington would "interpret an American law governing the export of high technology to China to allow the export of two of the seven sophisticated American-made satellites banned by sanctions imposed on China in August, senior Administration officials said," adding that "there was no linkage" between the supercomputer and nuclear generator sales and the issue of proliferation (Elaine Sciolino, _NYT_, Nov. 19). These decisions illustrate the "very different notion of national security" to which Clinton "is drawn...with the Communist threat having receded," reported by Thomas Friedman in an adjacent column: "promoting free trade and stemming missile proliferation." There was al
Chomsky (LOOT-2/94): Free market my (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Mon, 14 Mar 94 22:51 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Green) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Chomsky (LOOT-2/94): Free market my /* Written 10:44 am Feb 25, 1994 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in web:chomsky.views */ /* -- "Chomsky (LOOT-2/94): Free market my" -- */ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Aske) Subject: Chomsky (LOOT-2/94): Free market myths SOME TRUTHS AND MYTHS ABOUT FREE MARKET RHETORIC The following letter by Noam Chomsky was published in: Lies of Our Times (LOOT), February 1994 and it's reprinted here with their permission. According to its publishers, _Lies of Our Times_ is "a magazine of media criticism. "Our Times" are the times we live in but they are also the words of the _New York Times_, the most cited news medium in the United States, our paper of record. Our "Lies" are more than just literal falsehoods; they encompass subjects that have been ignored, hypocrisies, misleading emphases, and hidden premises - all of the biases which systematically shape reporting." _Lies of our Times_ (LOOT) is published by Sheridan Square Press, Inc. Produced and distributed by Institute for Media Analysis, Inc. Subscription rate: $24 (US); $32 (Canada, Mexico, W. Europe); $36 (Other). Payable to the order of Sheridan Square Press. 11 issues a year (combined July-August issue) of 24 pages each, except December issue is 28 pages -- includes yearly index. Lies Of Our Times, 145 West 4th Street, New York, NY 10012, (212) 254-1061, Fax: (212) 254-9598 = Lies of Our Times Letter from Lexington Jan. 7, 1994 Dear LOOT, Hardly a day passes without acclaim for the exciting new idea of the New World Order: free market capitalism that will liberate the energies of active and creative people, for the benefit of all. Euphoria peaked as Clinton savored his Nafta triumph at the Asia-Pacific summit in Seattle, where he expounded his "grand vision for Asia," bringing leaders together "to preach the gospel of open markets and to secure America's foothold in the world's fastest growing economic community." This "may be the biggest rethinking of American policy toward Asia" since World War II, David Sanger observed. Clinton outlined the "new vision" before a "cheering throng...inside a giant airplane hangar at the Boeing Company," "a model for companies across America" with its "booming Asian business" -- and its plans for "multimillion-dollar job-creating investments outside the United States on a scale that would terrify Nafta's opponents" (R.W. Apple, Thomas Friedman, Sanger _NYT_, Nov. 21, 1993). Unmentioned is another fact: Boeing is also the model for radical state intervention to shield private profit from market discipline. It would not be America's leading exporter, nor probably even exist, were it not for a huge public subsidy funneled through the Pentagon and NASA, institutions in large part designed to serve that function for high tech industry generally. Clinton's gospel, then, is that the taxpayer should provide massive welfare payments to investors and their agents, safely protected within their totalitarian institutions from interference by public or workforce, pursuing profit and market share as they choose, by "job-creating investments" abroad if that suits their interests. "China alone now buys one of every six of [Boeing's] planes," Sanger continued. And lofty rhetoric aside, Clinton's one achievement at the summit was to open the door to more exports to China, expected to be "the magic elixir that can cure many of the ills of the American economy" (Apple). Clinton arranged for sales of supercomputers and nuclear power generators; the manufacturers (Cray, GE) are also leading beneficiaries of the state-subsidized private profit system, and the items sold can be used for nuclear weapons and missiles, Pentagon officials and other experts observed. A problem, perhaps, because of a ban on such exports imposed last August "after American intelligence agencies produced conclusive proof" that China was engaged in missile proliferation, while also continuing "nuclear cooperation" with Iran, probably weapons production. But the problem was only superficial: Secretary of State Warren Christopher informed China that Washington would "interpret an American law governing the export of high technology to China to allow the export of two of the seven sophisticated American-made satellites banned by sanctions imposed on China in August, senior Administration officials said," adding that "there was no linkage" between the supercomputer and nuclear generator sales and the issue of proliferation (Elaine Sciolino, _NYT_, Nov. 19). These decisions illustrate the "very different notion of national security" to which Clinton "is drawn...with the Communist threat having receded," reported by Thomas Friedman in an adjacent column: "promoting free trade and stemming missile proliferation." There was al
Re: request for assistance
Is anyone on the list familiar with a book, Managerialism by W F Enteman Univ of Wisconsin Press, just out. I'd appreciate any comments on this work. Difficult to get in the UK and I'd like to know if it is worth it. Cheers Penny
Re: request for assistance
Is anyone on the list familiar with a book, Managerialism by W F Enteman Univ of Wisconsin Press, just out. I'd appreciate any comments on this work. Difficult to get in the UK and I'd like to know if it is worth it. Cheers Penny
No Subject
Dear reader, I understand that you are working on a petetion to limit the use of clipper chips in electronic communication. This issue interests me and I would like to hear your position Thanks Erik
No Subject
Dear reader, I understand that you are working on a petetion to limit the use of clipper chips in electronic communication. This issue interests me and I would like to hear your position Thanks Erik
LTV defense, part 4
Back to Steedman [Note: I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome too rapidly. I think it will take about 10 messages in all, of roughly this length, to get the position I'm peddling "out into the open" -- perhaps Michael P can tell me to shut up if necessary.] 1. What does one need to know in order to calculate labor-values? The input-output structure of the economy, including intersectoral technical coefficients and direct labor coefficients. With this knowledge, one can invert the "Leontief matrix" (or perform an iterative approximation of same) and derive the full set of labor-values. (With the same information, and by means of the same computations, one can determine the vector of gross outputs required to support any given vector of final demand -- a basic planning problem.) 2. What does one need to know to calculate Sraffian prices? Basically the same: the full set of input-output coefficients, plus a distributional variable -- either the (uniform) wage or the (uniform) rate of profit. 3. Is it in any way necessary to calculate labor-values as a step on the way to calculating Sraffian prices? No. This is one of Steedman's key points, and of course he is right. In this sense there is no "transformation problem". *If* one's object is to derive the set of Sraffian prices or "prices of production," one does not have to go via labor-values. That would be an awkward detour. And the question "What is the correct mathematical relationship between labor-values and prices of production?" would seem to be of interest only if one has some prior commitment to labor-values. Why should one have any such commitment? Labor-values seem to be analytically redundant. 4. But this argument loses its force if, as I have claimed, it turns out that labor-values and prices of production are about equally good as predictors of actual prices in capitalist economies. Labor-values are a "detour" only if one's theoretical terminus is prices of production/Sraffian prices -- but why should *that* be one's theoretical terminus if one's ultimate object is to analyze real economies and their laws of motion? End of posting the fourth. == Allin Cottrell Department of Economics Wake Forest University [EMAIL PROTECTED] (910) 759-5762 ==
LTV defense, part 4
Back to Steedman [Note: I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome too rapidly. I think it will take about 10 messages in all, of roughly this length, to get the position I'm peddling "out into the open" -- perhaps Michael P can tell me to shut up if necessary.] 1. What does one need to know in order to calculate labor-values? The input-output structure of the economy, including intersectoral technical coefficients and direct labor coefficients. With this knowledge, one can invert the "Leontief matrix" (or perform an iterative approximation of same) and derive the full set of labor-values. (With the same information, and by means of the same computations, one can determine the vector of gross outputs required to support any given vector of final demand -- a basic planning problem.) 2. What does one need to know to calculate Sraffian prices? Basically the same: the full set of input-output coefficients, plus a distributional variable -- either the (uniform) wage or the (uniform) rate of profit. 3. Is it in any way necessary to calculate labor-values as a step on the way to calculating Sraffian prices? No. This is one of Steedman's key points, and of course he is right. In this sense there is no "transformation problem". *If* one's object is to derive the set of Sraffian prices or "prices of production," one does not have to go via labor-values. That would be an awkward detour. And the question "What is the correct mathematical relationship between labor-values and prices of production?" would seem to be of interest only if one has some prior commitment to labor-values. Why should one have any such commitment? Labor-values seem to be analytically redundant. 4. But this argument loses its force if, as I have claimed, it turns out that labor-values and prices of production are about equally good as predictors of actual prices in capitalist economies. Labor-values are a "detour" only if one's theoretical terminus is prices of production/Sraffian prices -- but why should *that* be one's theoretical terminus if one's ultimate object is to analyze real economies and their laws of motion? End of posting the fourth. == Allin Cottrell Department of Economics Wake Forest University [EMAIL PROTECTED] (910) 759-5762 ==
Re: 75th Anniversary
Re: Winnipeg General Strike It is really too bad that in many places labour laws drawn up to protect workers really only work in principle and not in practice. Here in Kentucky an employer still can terminate a worker for any reason whatesoever. I have an acquaintance who until recently was a supervisor at a local healthcare company. Due to budget problems she was instructed by her superiors to tell her subordinates that they would not be paid for overtime work done in performing critical medical tests. When she questioned the legality of such instructions they promptly found a reason to terminate her employment without warning. One would expect such behavior at a fast food restaurant, but this was a hospital with professional staff. Do our labour laws in Canada have more teeth than the laws down here? I know this situation could not have happened in BC. HEU, HSA and the BC government employees union would have shut the province down overnight. Liberty and justice for all? I think not. ;-) Reginald Smith Lexington, Kentucky
Re: 75th Anniversary
Re: Winnipeg General Strike It is really too bad that in many places labour laws drawn up to protect workers really only work in principle and not in practice. Here in Kentucky an employer still can terminate a worker for any reason whatesoever. I have an acquaintance who until recently was a supervisor at a local healthcare company. Due to budget problems she was instructed by her superiors to tell her subordinates that they would not be paid for overtime work done in performing critical medical tests. When she questioned the legality of such instructions they promptly found a reason to terminate her employment without warning. One would expect such behavior at a fast food restaurant, but this was a hospital with professional staff. Do our labour laws in Canada have more teeth than the laws down here? I know this situation could not have happened in BC. HEU, HSA and the BC government employees union would have shut the province down overnight. Liberty and justice for all? I think not. ;-) Reginald Smith Lexington, Kentucky
Clinton touts his "reemployment act" (FWD)
Dear Penners: From time to time I have forwarded stuff to this list. I believe this is the first time I ever thought it worth while to forward you something from the Clinton Administration. I would be curious if this "reemployment act" is really just another version of the Robert Reich "wish" that just merely creating more educated workers will "create" the good jobs with high pay that such workers on the average get --- or if there is something positive in this that progressives can support. My own predilections within the capitalist framework is to insist on a full employment program supported (as I've said many times) by a simultaneious commitment to monetary expansion in the "Bit Three" (Japan, Germany, US) in order to create a little "reflation". However, I am interested in knowing if this proposal actually is more BAD than GOOD and should be actively opposed. The entire text follows: Mike Meeropol THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ___ For Immediate Release March 9, 1994 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT PRESENTATION OF THE REEMPLOYMENT ACT The East Room 2:26 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, John, for that introduction. Mr. Vice President, Secretary Reich, thank you for your wonderful work on this project. Lane Kirkland and Larry Perlman, thank you for being up here with us and for representing the American business and labor communities in the partnership we hope to build. And I want to thank John Hahn from Niagara County, New York -- I met him last month -- as he said he was laid off after 28 years at Bell Aerospace. And he learned new skills after 28 years as a biomedical technician. He and Deb Woodbury and Donald Hutchinson were all on our panel. It was a good one and I learned a lot listening to them. This morning when we were going over the day, early morning in the White House, Mack McLarty mentioned to me, he said, we're going to talk about two things today that you ran for President to do something about because it helps all the people we grew up with. When I started out on the long quest which led all of us to this particular moment, and I talked to a lot of my fellow governors and friends who are mayors, and others, it seemed to me that this country was really at some risk of being thrown into the 21st century not being able to preserve the American Dream and keep going, and that there were at least three huge problems for ordinary Americans. One was that more and more Americans were working harder and harder for stagnant wages and falling closer and closer to the poverty line. That's why we announced today the initiative on the earned income tax credit and how it was going to impact working families with children to lift them out of poverty. Another was that no matter how low unemployment gets in some areas, so many Americans are left behind -- by education and location, normally. But it means that when we have a 6.5 percent unemployment rate, as we do today, it's in fact quite a misnomer; that the unemployment rate today among people with a college degree is 3.5 percent; and among people with some education after high school, at least two years of further training, is a little over 5 percent; and among high school graduates a little over 7 percent; and among high school dropouts about 12 percent; and in many inner cities it's 20 percent; and among minority youths in many inner cities it's over 50 percent. So the number doesn't mean anything. There are huge pockets where no investment is made in people. And the Vice President and Henry Cisneros and Secretary of Education who is here, the Secretary of Labor and others are working on this whole community empowerment initiative to try to focus on that. The third big problem is the one we come here to address today -- the problem represented by these three fine people. And that is that the average American will change jobs seven or eight times in a lifetime whether he/she likes it or not. And what we have to do is to make sure that they can like it; that these changes will add to people's security, not to their insecurity. And we know that unless we do that, that all of our bigger policies will not have a big impact on the ordinary lives of the people that sent us all here in the first place. I'm proud of the fact that the efforts that we've made to bring the deficit down and get interest rates down have led to big increases in investment and over two million new jobs in the last year. But there are lots of people who can't access those jobs. And as the Secretary of Labor said, there's still a huge amount of turnover in this economy. That's wh
Clinton touts his "reemployment act" (FWD)
Dear Penners: From time to time I have forwarded stuff to this list. I believe this is the first time I ever thought it worth while to forward you something from the Clinton Administration. I would be curious if this "reemployment act" is really just another version of the Robert Reich "wish" that just merely creating more educated workers will "create" the good jobs with high pay that such workers on the average get --- or if there is something positive in this that progressives can support. My own predilections within the capitalist framework is to insist on a full employment program supported (as I've said many times) by a simultaneious commitment to monetary expansion in the "Bit Three" (Japan, Germany, US) in order to create a little "reflation". However, I am interested in knowing if this proposal actually is more BAD than GOOD and should be actively opposed. The entire text follows: Mike Meeropol THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ___ For Immediate Release March 9, 1994 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT PRESENTATION OF THE REEMPLOYMENT ACT The East Room 2:26 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, John, for that introduction. Mr. Vice President, Secretary Reich, thank you for your wonderful work on this project. Lane Kirkland and Larry Perlman, thank you for being up here with us and for representing the American business and labor communities in the partnership we hope to build. And I want to thank John Hahn from Niagara County, New York -- I met him last month -- as he said he was laid off after 28 years at Bell Aerospace. And he learned new skills after 28 years as a biomedical technician. He and Deb Woodbury and Donald Hutchinson were all on our panel. It was a good one and I learned a lot listening to them. This morning when we were going over the day, early morning in the White House, Mack McLarty mentioned to me, he said, we're going to talk about two things today that you ran for President to do something about because it helps all the people we grew up with. When I started out on the long quest which led all of us to this particular moment, and I talked to a lot of my fellow governors and friends who are mayors, and others, it seemed to me that this country was really at some risk of being thrown into the 21st century not being able to preserve the American Dream and keep going, and that there were at least three huge problems for ordinary Americans. One was that more and more Americans were working harder and harder for stagnant wages and falling closer and closer to the poverty line. That's why we announced today the initiative on the earned income tax credit and how it was going to impact working families with children to lift them out of poverty. Another was that no matter how low unemployment gets in some areas, so many Americans are left behind -- by education and location, normally. But it means that when we have a 6.5 percent unemployment rate, as we do today, it's in fact quite a misnomer; that the unemployment rate today among people with a college degree is 3.5 percent; and among people with some education after high school, at least two years of further training, is a little over 5 percent; and among high school graduates a little over 7 percent; and among high school dropouts about 12 percent; and in many inner cities it's 20 percent; and among minority youths in many inner cities it's over 50 percent. So the number doesn't mean anything. There are huge pockets where no investment is made in people. And the Vice President and Henry Cisneros and Secretary of Education who is here, the Secretary of Labor and others are working on this whole community empowerment initiative to try to focus on that. The third big problem is the one we come here to address today -- the problem represented by these three fine people. And that is that the average American will change jobs seven or eight times in a lifetime whether he/she likes it or not. And what we have to do is to make sure that they can like it; that these changes will add to people's security, not to their insecurity. And we know that unless we do that, that all of our bigger policies will not have a big impact on the ordinary lives of the people that sent us all here in the first place. I'm proud of the fact that the efforts that we've made to bring the deficit down and get interest rates down have led to big increases in investment and over two million new jobs in the last year. But there are lots of people who can't access those jobs. And as the Secretary of Labor said, there's still a huge amount of turnover in this economy. That's wh
Re: Guaranteed Basic Income
Sally Lerner writes: > I would appreciate comments on: 1) the idea of a basic guaranteed income > for individuals, linked to distribution of available paid work via a much > shorter work week, incentives for education, community service, > environmental restoration, etc., other ideas, and 2) realistically, how > such an income program might be financed (combine current transfer > programs, taxation, other ideas.) > > Sally Lerner Futurework Project U. of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada > I agree totally that every individual should have a guaranteed minimum income, at least. However, I disagree that this should be accomplished via some sort of "program" that leaves capitalist property rights intact. Rather property rights should be defined so that *everybody* has a stake in the social product, not just those who are lucky enough to have the wherewithal to make the right investments in (human) capital. Roemer has suggested one way of accomplishing this, via a "clamshell" economy, but there are lots of possibilities out there, many of which are likely to work better both on efficiency and fairness grounds than capitalism. You wonder if I'm being "realistic". No less so than a proposal for guaranteed minimum income accomplished through taxes, transfers, and public provision of services, given the existing property regime is left intact. The lesson seems to be that, unless one is in a country like Sweden, where individuals are relatively inclined to think "there but for fate go I", and create the social programs to correspond, the tax and transfer approach just doesn't work--too much political opposition, too much wasted resources, too little autonomy left to the "beneficiaries" of such programs. There is something inherently cockeyed about an approach which allows people to think of income as "theirs" (via private property rights, pre-tax), and then taking it away from them and giving it to someone else, with strings attached. California and New Jersey provide two dramatic recent examples of what happens when the public is required to contemplate any significant redistribution of income in this manner, e.g. through spending on public education. The result in both cases, a backlash which impoverished the public sector and precluded any meaningful redistribution. As Jim Devine's recent post indicates, people would rather spend money on prisons than public education--somehow not seeing that stinginess in the latter department eventually translates into greater burdens in the former. Thus, if you're going to contemplate a significant program of income redistribution, I say might as well do it right. The political opposition would be the same in either case, and if you redefine property rights, there's less chance that your basic income program will be trashed when the next Reagan is elected. Some sources on the issue: Ellerman, _Against Capitalism_, Cambridge U Press; Van Parijs has a new book on Basic Income, Routledge Press, I think; John Roemer has a book coming out on market socialism, I forget the name or the publisher. Gil [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Re: Guaranteed Basic Income
Sally Lerner writes: > I would appreciate comments on: 1) the idea of a basic guaranteed income > for individuals, linked to distribution of available paid work via a much > shorter work week, incentives for education, community service, > environmental restoration, etc., other ideas, and 2) realistically, how > such an income program might be financed (combine current transfer > programs, taxation, other ideas.) > > Sally Lerner Futurework Project U. of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada > I agree totally that every individual should have a guaranteed minimum income, at least. However, I disagree that this should be accomplished via some sort of "program" that leaves capitalist property rights intact. Rather property rights should be defined so that *everybody* has a stake in the social product, not just those who are lucky enough to have the wherewithal to make the right investments in (human) capital. Roemer has suggested one way of accomplishing this, via a "clamshell" economy, but there are lots of possibilities out there, many of which are likely to work better both on efficiency and fairness grounds than capitalism. You wonder if I'm being "realistic". No less so than a proposal for guaranteed minimum income accomplished through taxes, transfers, and public provision of services, given the existing property regime is left intact. The lesson seems to be that, unless one is in a country like Sweden, where individuals are relatively inclined to think "there but for fate go I", and create the social programs to correspond, the tax and transfer approach just doesn't work--too much political opposition, too much wasted resources, too little autonomy left to the "beneficiaries" of such programs. There is something inherently cockeyed about an approach which allows people to think of income as "theirs" (via private property rights, pre-tax), and then taking it away from them and giving it to someone else, with strings attached. California and New Jersey provide two dramatic recent examples of what happens when the public is required to contemplate any significant redistribution of income in this manner, e.g. through spending on public education. The result in both cases, a backlash which impoverished the public sector and precluded any meaningful redistribution. As Jim Devine's recent post indicates, people would rather spend money on prisons than public education--somehow not seeing that stinginess in the latter department eventually translates into greater burdens in the former. Thus, if you're going to contemplate a significant program of income redistribution, I say might as well do it right. The political opposition would be the same in either case, and if you redefine property rights, there's less chance that your basic income program will be trashed when the next Reagan is elected. Some sources on the issue: Ellerman, _Against Capitalism_, Cambridge U Press; Van Parijs has a new book on Basic Income, Routledge Press, I think; John Roemer has a book coming out on market socialism, I forget the name or the publisher. Gil [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Re: New system
Mr Doug writes: > On the old PEN-L system, PINE used to distinguish between the "From:" and > "Reply to:" fields, and it would ask "Use reply to instead of From?" That > no longer happens - apparently the Reply to: field is empty now. I have > other mailers to choose from here, but I'm habituated to PINE, and like > all old farts, reluctant to change. So is there some way to fill the reply > field? Or can some Unix junkies offer some advice? _Exactly_ the solution I asked for, Doug. Leave the from line as the sender, and make "reply to:" the pen-l address. The best of all worlds. And don't be feeling ashamed of Pine, there, Doug. :) It and Elm are becoming something of default standards on most commerical connections I know of. As to Marsh's comment: > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, > > the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved > > in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes > > from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by > > a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for > > Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed > > by those of us with more capable mail processing software. Pine does all this. It just needs the "reply to:" part filled in. The current set-up change prevents me from sorting incoming mail into folders (like one for PEN-L and one for PSN, etc.), instead flooding my personal mailbox with messages that _seem_ to be to me directly. Ken. -- "Don't HATE the media... | K.K.Campbell beCOME the media!" --*--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - J. Biafra | . . . . cum grano salis
Re: New system
Mr Doug writes: > On the old PEN-L system, PINE used to distinguish between the "From:" and > "Reply to:" fields, and it would ask "Use reply to instead of From?" That > no longer happens - apparently the Reply to: field is empty now. I have > other mailers to choose from here, but I'm habituated to PINE, and like > all old farts, reluctant to change. So is there some way to fill the reply > field? Or can some Unix junkies offer some advice? _Exactly_ the solution I asked for, Doug. Leave the from line as the sender, and make "reply to:" the pen-l address. The best of all worlds. And don't be feeling ashamed of Pine, there, Doug. :) It and Elm are becoming something of default standards on most commerical connections I know of. As to Marsh's comment: > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, > > the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved > > in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes > > from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by > > a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for > > Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed > > by those of us with more capable mail processing software. Pine does all this. It just needs the "reply to:" part filled in. The current set-up change prevents me from sorting incoming mail into folders (like one for PEN-L and one for PSN, etc.), instead flooding my personal mailbox with messages that _seem_ to be to me directly. Ken. -- "Don't HATE the media... | K.K.Campbell beCOME the media!" --*--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - J. Biafra | . . . . cum grano salis
Re: New system
On the old PEN-L system, PINE used to distinguish between the "From:" and "Reply to:" fields, and it would ask "Use reply to instead of From?" That no longer happens - apparently the Reply to: field is empty now. I have other mailers to choose from here, but I'm habituated to PINE, and like all old farts, reluctant to change. So is there some way to fill the reply field? Or can some Unix junkies offer some advice? Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) On Tue, 15 Mar 1994, Marshall Feldman wrote: > > >Posted on 14 Mar 1994 at 10:59:09 by Uriacc Mailer (002033) > > > >New system > > > >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 07:57:23 -0800 > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >It's confusing not to have PEN-L listed as the source of a message; the > >new software makes everything look like pseudo-personalized direct mail. > >And, at least on this system (PINE 3.05, on a Sun UNIX), you can't reply > >to PEN-L; a reply goes to the author. > > > >Can this be fixed? Or is this the price of progress? > > > >Doug > > > >Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Left Business Observer > >212-874-4020 (voice) > >212-874-3137 (fax) > > > > > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, > the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved > in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes > from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by > a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for > Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed > by those of us with more capable mail processing software. > > Marsh Feldman > Community Planning Phone: 401/792-2248 > 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 > University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Kingston, RI 02881-0815
Re: New system
On the old PEN-L system, PINE used to distinguish between the "From:" and "Reply to:" fields, and it would ask "Use reply to instead of From?" That no longer happens - apparently the Reply to: field is empty now. I have other mailers to choose from here, but I'm habituated to PINE, and like all old farts, reluctant to change. So is there some way to fill the reply field? Or can some Unix junkies offer some advice? Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) On Tue, 15 Mar 1994, Marshall Feldman wrote: > > >Posted on 14 Mar 1994 at 10:59:09 by Uriacc Mailer (002033) > > > >New system > > > >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 07:57:23 -0800 > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >It's confusing not to have PEN-L listed as the source of a message; the > >new software makes everything look like pseudo-personalized direct mail. > >And, at least on this system (PINE 3.05, on a Sun UNIX), you can't reply > >to PEN-L; a reply goes to the author. > > > >Can this be fixed? Or is this the price of progress? > > > >Doug > > > >Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Left Business Observer > >212-874-4020 (voice) > >212-874-3137 (fax) > > > > > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, > the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved > in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes > from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by > a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for > Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed > by those of us with more capable mail processing software. > > Marsh Feldman > Community Planning Phone: 401/792-2248 > 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 > University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Kingston, RI 02881-0815
problems signing off this list
I realize this is not the proper channel for signing off a list but I have tried to do so several times and was successful for about a month. However, suddenly I'm overwhelmed with mail again. Please take my name off this list! Kathy Werner
problems signing off this list
I realize this is not the proper channel for signing off a list but I have tried to do so several times and was successful for about a month. However, suddenly I'm overwhelmed with mail again. Please take my name off this list! Kathy Werner
Census gopher
Apologies if you've seen this elsewhere, but the Census Bureau is opening a gopher site later this week that should house reams of data. Its address is gopher.census.gov. Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax)
Census gopher
Apologies if you've seen this elsewhere, but the Census Bureau is opening a gopher site later this week that should house reams of data. Its address is gopher.census.gov. Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax)
Re: New system
>Posted on 14 Mar 1994 at 10:59:09 by Uriacc Mailer (002033) > >New system > >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 07:57:23 -0800 >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >It's confusing not to have PEN-L listed as the source of a message; the >new software makes everything look like pseudo-personalized direct mail. >And, at least on this system (PINE 3.05, on a Sun UNIX), you can't reply >to PEN-L; a reply goes to the author. > >Can this be fixed? Or is this the price of progress? > >Doug > >Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Left Business Observer >212-874-4020 (voice) >212-874-3137 (fax) > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed by those of us with more capable mail processing software. Marsh Feldman Community Planning Phone: 401/792-2248 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815
Re: New system
>Posted on 14 Mar 1994 at 10:59:09 by Uriacc Mailer (002033) > >New system > >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 07:57:23 -0800 >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >It's confusing not to have PEN-L listed as the source of a message; the >new software makes everything look like pseudo-personalized direct mail. >And, at least on this system (PINE 3.05, on a Sun UNIX), you can't reply >to PEN-L; a reply goes to the author. > >Can this be fixed? Or is this the price of progress? > >Doug > >Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Left Business Observer >212-874-4020 (voice) >212-874-3137 (fax) > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed by those of us with more capable mail processing software. Marsh Feldman Community Planning Phone: 401/792-2248 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815
