Imperialism
Let me repeat what I sent to a Canadian colleague about the offensive posting on this network. " Sorry if I am unrepenetant, but I am sick and tired about American Liberal "holier than thou"sim and -- "do as I do, not as I say". When you look at the cesspool of the American justice system, what bloody right have they to come and criticize our system that, with all all itss wars and arbuncles, in infinately better than theirs? Why is supression of evidence for a period of time until a full and proper hearing can be held a matter of censorship -- except to those who want to get their sexual thrills out of what may be totally misleading leaks. Why should we cate to such sexual thrill-seekers? What is wron with Ameng with America that they have to grovel to the level of sesual perversion to get "truth". Given the level of morality of the Congress, the Senate and the White House, it is hard to believe they have to reduce their scum-bucket to rural Ontario. It is bloody disgusting. Paul Phillips, U of Manitoba. For a healthier society!
Stigler & 93% LTV
A CRITIQUE OF STIGLER INTERPRETATION OF 93% LTV IN RICARDO By Ajit Sinha In my opinion George Stigler has made a SERIOUS mistake in interpreting Ricardo in his 'Ricardo and the 93% Labor Theory of Value'. He is quite right when he says: "Did Ricardo have a labor theory of value--did he believe that the relative values of commodities are governed exclusively by the relative quantities of labor necessary to produce them? A considerable number of historians of economics have given a flat affirmative answer to this question-- ... Presumably these writers did not have access to Ricardo's PRINCIPLES." However, in my opinion, he is quite WRONG when he says: "there is no doubt that he [Ricardo] held what may be called an EMPIRICAL labor theory of value, that is, a theory that the relative quantities of labor required in production are the DETERMINANTS[emphasis added] of relative values" The mistake is in the use of the word DETERMINANT in the above quotation. Ricardo did not hold the proposition that relative values or prices are determined solely or almost solely by the relative labor (direct & indirect) content of the commodities. This would happen when there was no capital or when, in Marx's rerms, the organic composition of capital happened to be the same for all commodities. In the case of differences in organic composition of capitals (o.c.c), relative values would diverge from relative labor contents to insure equal rate of profit accross sectors. This is Ricardo's first modification; and the divergence in relative values from relative labor contents, due to differences in o.c.c, can be "considerable". As Ricardo says: The difference in value arises in both cases from the profits being accumulated as capital, and is only a just compensation for the time that the profits were withheld. It appears then that the division of capital into different proportions of fixed and circulating capital, employed in different trades, introduces a CONSIDERABLE MODIFICATION [emphasis added] to the general rule,..." So how could great scholars like Stigler and others misinterpret Ricardo so blatently? Let me explain. In my opinion, Ricardo is not much interested in suggesting that labor DETERMINES relative values or prices. He is more interested in isolating what CAUSES a CHANGE in relative values. Once these modified values are determined, which is identical to Marx's 'prices of production', the question is what will cause these equilibrium prices to change. Now, if the o.c.c were same for all commodities, the sole cause of a change in relative values could be attributed to changes in production process or the labor content of the commodity. But since eq. prices or values diverge from relative labor contents, or in other words, o.c.c are not the same, a change in wage rate would cause relative values to change, independent of any changes in labor content of commodities. At this point Ricardo suggests: "The reader, however, should remark, that this cause of the variation of commodities is comparatively slight in its effects. With such a rise of wages as should occasion a fall of one percent in profits, goods produced under the circumstances I have supposed, vary in relative value only one percent, they fall with so great a fall of profits from 6,050l. to 5,995l. The greatest effects which could be produced on the relative prices of these goods from a rise of wages, could not exceed 6 or 7 per cent; for profits could not probably, under any cercumstances, admit of a greater and permanent depression than to that amount." Note here that the reason given for slight impact on relative prices of a rise in wages is SOCIAL--the capitalist class will not allow profits to fall considerably, which would be needed for a considerable effect on prices. However, as far as the first modification is concerned, which is the appropriate case for DETERMINING relative values, the reason was TECHNICAL--the differences in o.c.c caused relative values to diverge from relative labor contents--and they could be considerable. It is, of course, a different matter that after Sraffa's PCMC, we know that Ricardo was wrong about 6 to 7% maximum divergence because of changes in wages or rate of profit. As Samuelson says: "Two years later, after Stigler could have read Sraffa (1960), he could discover that we can pick for Ricardo a non-bizarre numerical example in which a change in the profit rate from 6 per cent to 6.1 per cent could easily alter P1/P2 from 1.0 to 10 to the power 6 or 10 to the power -6." Any comment would be highly appreciated. Cheers, Ajit Sinha
worker participation
Can anyone give me some leads. A colleague who is looking at the impact of work er participation (profit sharing, esop, worker involvement ect.) on productivity wants to know if there are any national (comparative) surveys of the extent of worker part- icipation and othe forms of involvement in economic decision making. If anyone can give me leads as to any references on these points, I would appreciate it. Paul Phillips, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Imperialism
Why is it that Americans feel that their (perverted?) values are superior to all others that they feel they must use the cyberspace to defeat what Canadians feel are the proper values of equity and access to just treatment? The recent comments on the invasion of the Canadian system of justice disgusts me. American freedom of speech seems to equate with freedom of inquisition! Paul Phillips U of Manitoba
Re: Reality Check: Canada Checks in!
On Thu, 7 Apr 1994, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > Whee! First attacks on Economists as have genetic tendencies then the > Barrows Hall gang at Berkeley tossing barbs at we friendly World Series > Loving Canadians. Sorry to have to set the record straight re WIRED. > > WIRED was not banned in Canada. I have a perfectly good copy of it here > on my desk with the other Mister Bill (Gates not Clinton) on the cover. > W, not exactly perfectly good. It is missing pages 27/28 and > 29/30. Canada didn't ban the book, only those pages with the "Paul and Karla > Hit the Net" article which those lurking behind Sproul Hall had the gall > to send here in violation of Canadian law. Thanks for the correction, Sam. I'm glad the censors in Canada have the surgical precision of a smart bomb, wiping out civil liberties and the free press in careful measure. The censoring of USENET groups seems to have been slightly less surgical. I am curious. Do you approve of this censorship, especially the attacks on direct e-mail messages on the Internet? I know the right to a fair trial is important, but it is chilling to give the government the ability to completely shutdown coverage of legal trials. I can imagine that the government would have loved to shutdown coverage of the Rodney King LA Police trials in the name of a "fair trial." It also brings up the interesting issue of how an international communication system like the Internet is going to interact with national laws and censorship. --Nathan Newman, squirming with a bit of pride over the US First Amendment
Moscow, May:last chance
Anybody still interested in the study trip to Moscow which Eastern Michigan University is sponsoring from 19 May-18 June should contact me immediately for details because it is closing in a few days. The subject is Russia's political, economic and social situation. You don't have to be a "student," and you don't have to be from North America. /ex
Reality Check: Canada Checks in!
Whee! First attacks on Economists as have genetic tendencies then the Barrows Hall gang at Berkeley tossing barbs at we friendly World Series Loving Canadians. Sorry to have to set the record straight re WIRED. WIRED was not banned in Canada. I have a perfectly good copy of it here on my desk with the other Mister Bill (Gates not Clinton) on the cover. W, not exactly perfectly good. It is missing pages 27/28 and 29/30. Canada didn't ban the book, only those pages with the "Paul and Karla Hit the Net" article which those lurking behind Sproul Hall had the gall to send here in violation of Canadian law. (Look out your window, those are Mounties massing on the other side of Strawberry Creek.) Through some fluke which the Clipper Chip would no doubt prevent, I also have pages 27/28 and 29/30 sitting on the other side of my desk so I can confirm, for research purposes of course, that the illegal version Newman sent across the boarder is identical to the illegal version on the banned pages. I should say that at least I think that is what I see on my desk since it might be dangerous for me to be definite about these things. BEYOND THAT THE APRIL 1994 ISSUE OF WIRED IS WORTH READING. It has a good and long impressionistic article on the economy of Moscow and an article on the Antitrust case against Microsoft, the article written by Wendy Goldman Rohm. The virtual workspace may not be just where the work is done, it is where the reportable action is as well. I think I have to go now, I seem to hear a man in uniform pounding on my door with a billy club. Sam Lanfranco, True North Proud and (Information) Free. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Press Release by WIRED Magazine on banned issue
Subject: WIRED's Press Release Regarding the Ban - 3/23/94 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Taara Eden Hoffman 544 Second Street Director of Publicity San Francisco, CA 94107 USA +1 (415) 904 0666 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cyberspace Cannot Be Censored * WIRED Responds to Canadian Ban of Its April Issue Wednesday, March 23, 1994, San Francisco WIRED's April issue has been banned in Canada. WIRED's offense? Publication of a story called "Paul and Karla Hit the Net," a 400-word article about how Canadians are getting around a Canadian court decision to ban media coverage of details in the Teale-Homolka murder case. This article does not reveal details of the case. Instead, the article explains why the media ban has proven unenforceable and reports how information on the case is readily available to Canadians. According to a survey conducted by the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, 26 percent of those polled said they knew prohibited details of the trial, because they are continuously leaked by Canadian court witnesses, police, and others to the international media. Once this information is published, it pours back into Canada via fax, videocassettes, magazines and photocopies of articles, e-mail, Internet newsgroups, and other online services. In the United States, People magazine, and the TV show, A Current Affair as well as the New York Times and other publications and shows have covered the story and the ban. As WIRED's story and the action of Canada's Attorney General make clear, the ban is not only a waste of time and money,but has actually had the opposite effect of what was intended. Rumors and sensationalized accounts of the case abound, and the Teale-Homolka trial is one of the hottest topics of discussion among Canadians. "Banning of publications is behavior we normally associate with Third World dictatorships," said WIRED publisher Louis Rossetto. "This an ominous indication that the violation of human rights is becoming Canadian policy." According to Rossetto, the Canadian Government's recent seizure of gay and lesbian periodicals under the guise of controlling "pornography" and its behavior in the Teale-Homolka case have made Canada a leading violator of free speech rights, and have set a scary precedent for other nations that would like to control what its citizens read and think. "Information wants to be free," said Jane Metcalfe, WIRED's president. "At the end of the 20th century, attempts to ban stories like this one are condemned to be futile. That WIRED's criticism of the ban has itself been banned is supremely ironic and utterly chilling." Since WIRED supports free speech, WIRED is making the text of its "banned" story with details on how readers can get more information on the case available on the Internet. Canadians and people around the world can discover exactly what the Canadian government is trying to keep hidden.
WIRED Magazine Banned in Canada-- Serious Reality Check
To all,
The following text led to issue 2.04 of WIRED MAGAZINE being ordered off
magazine stalls all over Canada. The following post is the press release
by WIRED about their being baneed.
--Nathan Newman
===
Subject: WIRED Text Banned in Canada - Revised 4/4/94
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-=-=Copyright 1993,4 Wired Ventures, Ltd. All Rights Reserved-=-=-=-=
-=-=For complete copyright information, please see the end of this file=-=-
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WIRED 2.04
Electric Word
*
Paul and Karla Hit the Net
^^
Recent events in Canada have proven once again that - for better or
worse - the information genie has escaped into cyberspace and can't be
put back in the bottle. When an Ontario judge issued an order barring
media coverage of a sensationalized murder trial, Canadians used the
Net to break the ban.
The case concerns Paul "Bernardo" Teale and his wife, Karla Homolka
Teale, who were each charged in the grisly murders of two teenagers.
Paul Teale now stands accused of 48 sex-related charges, while Karla
Homolka entered into a plea bargain: She pleaded guilty to
manslaughter and is expected to testify against Paul.
The nonstop press coverage prompted Paul Teale's lawyer to ask for a
media gag order until the conclusion of his trial, on the grounds that
it would be impossible to impanel an impartial jury. Faced with the
concurrence of the Crown, the Court and Karla, Paul Teale's lawyer
switched camps. But it was too late!
Despite legal intervention by several major Canadian media outlets,
the court imposed a ban on the publication of the details of the
crimes.
At first the ban had its desired effect. When the US television show A
Current Affair featured the case, it was banned in Canada, and
Canadian cable stations blacked out CNN coverage of the case.
With the conventional media halted, the infosphere took over. First,
two BBSes in Toronto began to post daily details of the trial. In
August, an irregular posting directly to newsgroup "control"
("approved" by "Justice Kovacs") created alt.fan.karla-homolka.
By December, after phone calls by law-abiding Net surfers to systems
managers, the Usenet group had been banned by systems managers and
university officials at sites all over Canada.
After the banning of alt.fan.karla-homolka, two new Usenet groups were
created: alt.pub-ban and alt.pub-ban.homolka.
Some Net users theorized that if they cross-posted all over the Net,
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would be in the impossible position
of scrambling through cyberspace plugging leaks. One Net dweller
jokingly proposed the ideal tactic: "The solution is obvious. Take the
discussion to rec.sport.hockey. You silly Canadians would never ban
that group."
Other curious Canadians searched the pay-per-view news and magazine
databases on Nexis and CompuServe for stories published by US
newspapers. Most of the banned articles were re-posted verbatim to
alt.true-crime, a group overlooked by the Mounties.
As the infosphere grows to encompass the planet, the question is no
longer whether certain information is too sensitive to be made public.
The real question becomes whether it is even possible to keep certain
information out of cyberspace. In the Teale-Homolka case, the ban was
not so much broken as rendered irrelevant by the voracious online
community: It is estimated that one in four Canadians knows the banned
facts.
- Anita Susan Brenner and B. Metson
* * *
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=WIRED Online Copyright Notice=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Copyright 1993,4 Wired Ventures, Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article may be redistributed provided that the article and this
notice remain intact. This article may not under any circumstances
be resold or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior
written permission from Wired Ventures, Ltd.
If you have any questions about these terms, or would like information
about licensing materials from WIRED Online, please contact us via
telephone (+1 (415) 904 0660) or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
WIRED and WIRED Online are trademarks of Wired Ventures, Ltd.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: the real interest rate
Addendum to my last post... An early case of commodity price indexed bonds meant to assure lenders against inflation risk comes from 19th Century US history. In 1863 the Confederate States of America issued bonds denominated in bales of cotton! Although hedged against inflation of the confederate currency, the bonds were not secure against the demise of the confederacy. John Parsons Graduate School of Business Columbia University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: indexed bonds
Ellen Frank recently posed the following question: Dear Penners -- Can anyone out there shed some insight on why lenders do not index nominal interest rates and thereby ensure a stable real return? and received a number of replies. Here's mine. 1. The question has been around for a long while. Irving Fisher advocated them (Stable Money, 1934) and persuaded the Rand Kardex corporation to issue one version back in 1925. Many others have followed in his footsteps. Some good references are in Stanley Fischer's article on "The Demand for Index Bonds," Journal of Political Economy, 1975, v. 83. Several countries do sell such bonds. 2. There is a real problem for non-governmental institutions issuing these types of bonds. The government's fiat money authority requires that all US debts be payable in dollars. Any debt payable in other units, say gold for example, can always be extinguished by making payment in dollars. Hence, the holder always had an option to pay in whichever was of less value and this made issuing the instrument costly. In fact, the government had specifically prohibited such commodity based contracts until recently. It has now carved out some room for them and issues of such instruments have increased modestly since the start of the 1980's. Lynn Turgeon mentioned the Brazilian inflation indexed bonds. The earlier Brazilian history on other indexed instruments is a good example of the problem I am getting at. There used to be futures traded in Brazil with prices indexed to the inflation rate. But the Brazilian government at one time used its authority to force settlement of these contracts without the agreed upon index. Since then the indexed contracts no longer trade. Brazil's action was a sort of devaluation. And of course the state always has the ultimate right to devalue. The danger of this means no instrument is truly indexed against inflation--except as it is sold abroad, like Eurodollar instruments and the like. 3. There are a host of possible things against which one could index. Inflation is just one, and not always the ideal one for hedging against risk. Robert Shiller is currently advocating a grand scheme for creating securities that can guarantee a return tied to aggregate national income. He has a book coming out from Oxford University Press. The commodity price indexed instruments mentioned above are another. There are a convenient tool by which certain countries dependent upon a single export good can reduce the variability of their export earnings net of debt service payments. Corporations in the business of extracting or producing the commodities--oil companies, copper companies, etc--use them for the same purpose. A good introduction to these sorts of commodity based bonds is T. Priovolos and R. Duncan, Commodity Risk Management and Finance, The World Bank, 1989. In his reply to Ellen's question, Bob Ages mentioned the mortgage market. One failed indexation scheme was a proposal by F. Modigliani and D. Lessard to create Inflation Proof Mortgages designed to assure a homeowner that the payments on the mortgage generally matched the real purchasing power of their income--see "Inflation and the Housing Market," in New Mortgage Designs for Stable Housing in an Inflationary Environment, Conference Proceedings of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1975. Although the idea never flew here in the US, in Mexico a mortgage instrument with payments tied to the average real wage has been operating for some time. John Parsons Graduate School of Business Columbia University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: natural rate
On Thu, 7 Apr 1994 10:49:02 -0700 Peter.Dorman said: >hypothesis, let's get to the central question: is there any basis for the view >that changes in NAIRU are associated in a systematic way with identifiable >changes in the labor force? I thought, for example, that David Gordon zapped >that claim a few years ago. The alternative view that most of us hold (I Peter, what's the reference on David's work? Even though I don't think that demographic changes *have* had an effect on the NAIRU, it seems possible some day in the future. Everything is possible, no? >assume) is that NAIRU is a rate of unemployment whose disinflationary effect >exactly offsets the inflation-accelerating effects built into the economy at a >particular point in time. If monopoly power or some other such factor should >change, so then would NAIRU. What is the weight of the evidence on these two >views? Even if one believes in the lab0r-market determines NAIRU perspective, one has to accept the hysteresis effect (something I left out of my recent missive on the NAIRU). That is, if unemployment is high for a very long time, then structural unemployment tnends to increase, and if labor-market conditions affect teh NAIRU, that rate tends to increase, too. Of course, if we enjoy sustained lwo (low) unemployment that tends to undermine structural unemployment and lower the NAIRU. Though I think on the latter than direct anti-poverty programs help speed up the process. (Low unemployment and anti-poverty programs (e.g., training) are complementary.) 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 if bitnet address fails, try [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: re:single payer and NHS
Penny C's point is well taken about the apparent illogic of this attack on the middle class. But why are they doing it? Is it out of pure ideological love of markets? Or is there some real material reason for it? Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) On Thu, 7 Apr 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The second point is that salaries for the both the working and middle > class (and employer costs of production) are based on government > provision of health care, broadly understood. It is not a true insurance > system but the reforms are turning it into one with bad effects. Moreover > for the middle class free health care at the point of delivery and free > higher education are integral to their class position. They cannot maintain > their class position on the salaries they are paid if they have to fork out > for tuition for their kids and the panoply of insurance products (disability, > health) which are the normal forced savings of US middle class people. > This is why both NHS and no tuition universities are sacred cows, even > for the Tories. So the reforms are as much an ideological intervention > as an effort to limit costs; and learning to love the market is being > paid for. I suppose one could get into how this all fits smoothly with > the "logic" of capitalism but I find that a cliche in search of a target > in this context. There is such a strong element of myopic irrationality > to the reforms, as so much incompetence in the implementation of nutty > initiatives that the word "logic" seems inadequate, forced and > unsatisfying. > > Dare I close with the usual "Cheers?" > Penny Ciancanelli > Manchester University, UK >
Re: re:single payer and NHS
the Tories' myopic self-interest and agressive greed fits well with the "logic" of capitalism. However, such policies can be bad for capitalism in the long run or even fr for the capitalist class as a whole even in the short run (ignore the first "even"(). One of the reasons to reject the rhetoric of "the logic of capital" is that the laws of motion of capitalism are sometimes or even often contradictory. The word "logic" evokes images of formal logic, etc. Sorry, Penny. I guess I'm in a pedantic mood today. I'm waiting for the electrician or someone like him. 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 if bitnet address fails, try [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: natural rate
By the way, now that we are getting more serious about the natural rate hypothesis, let's get to the central question: is there any basis for the view that changes in NAIRU are associated in a systematic way with identifiable changes in the labor force? I thought, for example, that David Gordon zapped that claim a few years ago. The alternative view that most of us hold (I assume) is that NAIRU is a rate of unemployment whose disinflationary effect exactly offsets the inflation-accelerating effects built into the economy at a particular point in time. If monopoly power or some other such factor should change, so then would NAIRU. What is the weight of the evidence on these two views? Peter Dorman
Woodrow Wilson Fellowships (October 1 Deadline)
>Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 21:55:40 -0300 (EDT) >From: Benjamin Turover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - ANNOUNCING: FELLOWSHIPS IN THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES 1995-6 AT THE WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS - Located on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., the Center awards approximately 35 residential fellowships each year for advanced research in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Men and women from any country and from a wide variety of backgrounds (including Government, the Corporate world, and Academia) may apply. Applicants MUST hold a doctorate or have equivalent professional accomplishments. Fellows are provided offices, access to the Library of Congress, computers or manuscript typing services, and research assistants. The Center publishes selected works written at the Center through the Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Fellowships are normally for an academic year, but exceptions may be made for shorter or longer-term stays (in no cases for more than 12 months). In determening stipends, the Center follows the principal of no gain/ no loss in terms of a Fellow's previous year salary. However, in no cases can the Center's stipend exceed $59,000. In the case of foreign scholars, enough money is provided for comfortable living in the D.C. area. Travel expenses for Fellows and their immediate dependents are provided. The Application deadline is OCTOBER 1, 1994. For application materials, write to:The Fellowships Office Woodrow Wilson Center 1000 Jefferson Drive, S.W. SI MRC 022 Washington, D.C. 20560 Tel.: (202) 357-2841 - If anyone knows of a qualified candidate not on this Listserv, please feel free to pass along this information to him/ her. Also, I apologise for any cross-postings. Please note: The Woodrow Wilson Center DOES NOT posess an e-mail service. I am affiliated with them, and am therefore doing this as a service to them and to you. While you may feel free to contact me with specific questions which I will do my best to answer, all other queries/ responses should be directed to the above address/ phone number. Thank you. -B.P.T.
Re: the real interest rate
Here's a guess - lenders care most about their spread between the cost of funds and loan interest rates. So if rates on both sides float, then the lender is protected. I think they'd prefer to make all loans floaters before they'd index them - much simpler than choosing a method for indexing (which price index, over what period?). Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) On Wed, 6 Apr 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Dear Penners -- > > Can anyone out there shed some insight on why > lenders do not index nominal interest rates > and thereby ensure a stable real return? > > > Ellen Frank > > > >
Re: natural unemployment
I think Weiner's "logic" was as follows: you figure the "natural" rate for a demographic group on the basis of historical averages. Since blacks have a higher average rate of unemployment, it follows that their "natural" rate is also higher. Therefore, as the workforce's complexion darkens, the higher share of groups with higher "natural" rates will pull up the population's average. Further proof of Keynes's observation concerning "natural" rates of interest - that the natural rate is one that preserves the status quo, something we have no particular interest in preserving. Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) On Wed, 6 Apr 1994, Peter.Dorman wrote: > In reply to Ellen F's question about why blacks have a higher "natural" rate > of unemployment than whites, I too have wondered about this. Here is one > possibility. As we know, supporters of the natural rate hypothesis sometimes > fall back on a mismatch story to provide microfoundations. Perhaps blacks are > just more likely to be mismatched to jobs in companies run by whites. > > Peter Dorman >
Re: natural unemployment
Genetics has nothing to do with it. Weiner proved it using econometrics. As Larry Summers said in a very different context (specifically, the wisdom of dumping toxic waste in Africa, where incomes are low), the logic is "impeccable." Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) On Wed, 6 Apr 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Did you know that nonwhites are predisposed to > higher unemployment rates than whites? Such is the > theory of Start Weiner, economist for the Federal Reserve > Bank of Kansas City. To explain why the "natural rate > of unemployment" may be as high as 6.5% -- March's rate, > Mr. Weiner theorizes that nonwhites tend to have a higher > unemployment rate in the US. So as the US becomes more > ethnically diverse, the natural unemployment rate is likely > to rise. > > Is this genetic, do you think? > > > Best, Ellen Frank > > >
Re: re:single payer and NHS
With regard to the NHS, I think it is important to add to Grob's observations that underfunding of the NHS by the Tories has occurred even though the proportion of GNP it consumes is half that of medical costs in the US (circa 7%) and that the so called reforms have redistributed the funds away from patient care to an ever growing army of accountants, managers, factotum and FOT's (Friends of Tories; lots of MP spouses on boards of directors, etc) What's going is the public health/national health "amenities" whose prevention of various diseases is the main reason the system was so economical (there are other reasons of course) but tis true that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I find the whole development truly disturbing, for all the obvious reasons. The second point is that salaries for the both the working and middle class (and employer costs of production) are based on government provision of health care, broadly understood. It is not a true insurance system but the reforms are turning it into one with bad effects. Moreover for the middle class free health care at the point of delivery and free higher education are integral to their class position. They cannot maintain their class position on the salaries they are paid if they have to fork out for tuition for their kids and the panoply of insurance products (disability, health) which are the normal forced savings of US middle class people. This is why both NHS and no tuition universities are sacred cows, even for the Tories. So the reforms are as much an ideological intervention as an effort to limit costs; and learning to love the market is being paid for. I suppose one could get into how this all fits smoothly with the "logic" of capitalism but I find that a cliche in search of a target in this context. There is such a strong element of myopic irrationality to the reforms, as so much incompetence in the implementation of nutty initiatives that the word "logic" seems inadequate, forced and unsatisfying. Dare I close with the usual "Cheers?" Penny Ciancanelli Manchester University, UK
