fabulous prize
Trond Andresen, Thank you, thank you! Somehow the glory of winning is only slightly dimmed by my sneaking suspicion that I was the only contestant. Now, how do I e-mail myself to Norway? For multilingual internationalism, Walter
Re: income dist
I may be wrong, but 1993 income and poverty data won't be available for a few months, since the Census Bureau only recently collected that data as part of the March Current Population Survey (which surveys for the previous year). Generally they publish an advance report sometime in August or September. Since the Census how has a gopher site as well as a bulletin board of some type, they can be reached through internet. Of course, as I think about, one can always phone them, too. Check the census gopher for names and numbers.
Re: Bosnia
> Yugoslavia has for
> some time been the target of a covert policy waged by the West and
> its allies, primarily Germany, the United States, Britain, Turkey,
> and Saudi Arabia, as well as by Iran, to divide Yugoslavia into its
> ethnic components, dismantle it, and eventually recolonize it." (p. 41)
> If you still have any doubt, read the article and the US state
> department documents that support it and then tell me that the US
> and Germany did not have the dismemberment of Yugoslavia *on ethnic
> lines at the expense of Serbia* long before the crisis arrived.
Sorry, but all this sounds like utter nonsense (conspiracy theory).
I personaly do know enough people from former Yogoslavia to be sure about
one thing: That they (Slovenians and Kroatians) wanted to be free from
what they saw (rightly or wrongly) as Serbian opression since long and
independently from what Germany or the US were aiming at. The aspiration of
the Slovenian and Kroatian people are the final cause of the
desmemberment of Yugoslavia.
> Thirdly, the Yugoslav constittution proved the *obligation* of
> the Yugoslav army to protect the unity and territoriality of
> Yugoslavia. Therefore, it had the constitutional obligation to
> prevent the breakaway of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia
That's nice. Was it a democratic constituition? The peoples of
Yogoslavia were asked about it? What about the obligations of the former
constituition of South Africa?
> When it did so
> the US, Germany and the UN (under US/German domination) objected
> and in the case of Bosnia forced the Yugoslav army to withdraw --
> leaving the irregulars and the militias of the right-wing neo-fascists
> to represent Serbian interests and prevent incursions on Serbian
> interests and properties.
Where do they get their arms from? No precence of "regular" Serbian
troops in Bosnia?
> The first "atrocity" committed in
> the subsequent period was, in his account, the ambush of the
> peaceful withdrawel of Yugoslav troups by the Bosnian (Muslim)
> army. Nor was this the first atrocity practiced on the Serbs --
> ethnic clensing had already been practiced in Croatia against the
> resident Serb population, long before whatever happened in
> Bosnia (This is not an apology for subsequent Serb atrocities --
> it is merely to point out that the press accounts that Serbs are
> responsibly, and solely responsible, for atrocities or even the
> initiators of atrocities is factually wrong.
How do you explain what Serbs are doing in
Kosovo? Defending themselfs from Albanian atrocities?
> If you want more?
Definitly no!
I'm surley not especialy well informed about the situation in former
Yugoslavia. But as much of what I read in our newspapers is confirmed by a
great number of people I personly know and who one way or the other
have better access to (independent) information, I don't think there is
any reason to doubt:
- That Serbian politicians are the main responsibles for the
atrocities commited in Bosnia.
- That Serbia is guilty of a systematic and gruel policy of ethnic
cleansing and genocide for which there are *no* justifications. (Whatsoever
others do or did).
To try to defend such policies, and to make the victims of such criminal
and brutal war responsibel for it ("first atrocitiy commited by Bosnians
(Muslims)") is in my eyes a inadmissable piece of propaganda. (And BTW I
don't know what something like this has to do with the lable "progressive".)
Nothing from what I said want to imply:
- That I personaly thougth it a wise desicion by Slovenia, Kroatia and Bosnia
to seek independence. (Rather to the contrary: The identification of state
and nation seems to me very dangerous and irrational.)
- That I would think a military intervention a good thing to do.
Sorry, this missive is somewhat strongly worded, but the killing is going on!
Andreas Goesele
Mannheimer Str. 12
D-80803 Muenchen
Re: IBM
Re: Bosnia-4
Paul Phillips suggests that the media has essentially fabricated the portrait of Serbian aggression against muslims, and that this gives advantage to some American plot in Yugoslavia. I've spent my adult life opposed to much of U.S. foreign policy, but I don't see the evidence here for manufactured serbian aggression, as opposed to real aggression. What exactly is this American plan for exYugoslavia? I've read nothing but vague, fanciful suggestions that there must be a plot in there somewhere. What's the plan, and what's the EVIDENCE of the plan? Phillips quotes Amnesty International as saying rapes and atrocities are being committed by both sides. We would expect nothing else. Paul -- what does your Amnesty source say about the *proportion* of atrocities committed by both sides? Phillips states some atrocity reports were inaccurate. We would not expect all reports to be accurate. The bulk of reports say Serbs have the upper hand militarily and are pressing it, and that the Muslims are the losers, so we would expect more crimes to be committed against Muslims. To suggest otherwise requires either a great body of evidence no one else has seen, or great conspiratorial imagination. The U.S. media does not naturally side with Muslims over Christians. What is this overarching hegemonic imperative that compells the media to support the muslims? In the Vietnam war, the civil religion of freedom and the hysteria of anticommunism had a systematic mind-bending effect on the media and many peoples perceptions of the nobility of the cause. I see none of this mythology greatly apparent in Bosnia. It is seen as distasteful anarchy in some forgotten corner of Europe. Sketch for us this great ideological blinder that creates such wrong reporting. Something a little more concrete than that catch-all incantation, service to U.S. capital. Until I see evidence, not rhetoric, to the contrary, I think these defenses of the Serb war represent the crudist caricature of progressive thought: if Washington is doing it, it must be wrong. Let's proceed from the situation there, not from what Washington is doing. Last I heard, it wasn't just the U.S. press that was reporting Serbs beseiging Sarajevo. Another of Paul's verbal acrobatics just came to mind -- he stated the media was ignoring examples of Muslim ethnic cleansing. This is a misuse of terminology. Ethnic cleansing is a specific term used by Serb chauvanists to gain support. Muslims I'm sure have killed civilians. But the specific term "ethnic cleansing" should not be applied to Muslims unless you present EVIDENCE that this terminology is being introduced into Bosnian nationalist discourse. There's a great difference between fighting a war and occassionally committing civilian atrocities, and having a developed ideology of racial superiority. I think Paul's post displays more serbian agenda than evidence. The U.S. involvement in the region seems more marked by hesitation than anything else. I think Washington would prefer the issue went away. They want an orderly new order and no doubt wish the serbs and muslims acted more like Poles and East Germans. I'm happy to find evil motives on the part of Washington. Just give me an explanation why the West would give a *shit* who won. I'll consider it, but give me a reason. I think the West's actions are best explained by the preference for order, not some vague plot to favor one side.
B-H
Response to Paul Phillips #4, (4 items, about 3 pages): 1) I shall not claim that there has been no misreporting of the situation. However, you still have not shown (maybe you will tomorrow) that atrocities of various sorts by other groups exceed or even come remotely close to those committed by the Serbs. 2) Another unfortunate side effect of current US/UN/NATO policy is that it probably will encourage the Bosnian Muslims to keep fighting thereby prolonging the agony. A settlement along current battlelines is probably awful. But at the current time, what is both better and achievable? The lines after the Serbs "cleanse" Gorazde? There probably will be more war, no matter what. 3) Perhaps this is all revealed in _Covert Action_ or wherever, but I fail to see what interest "US capital" had or has in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. Although technically (ah, a dicey term to be sure) neutral, Yugoslavia was long a de facto anti- Soviet nation in Europe and thus "on the US side" in the Cold War. Indeed the US armed Tito. Maybe some bright idiot thought US capital would have even more access than it was getting in the late 1980's by breaking the country up, but if so, this was certainly not rational. Certainly all public discussion in Washington up until very recently emphasized the dangers and instabilities potentially arising globally from such a breakup, and the current mess is a sign that such a forecast was indeed accurate. Indeed, as you have noted, the US has gone out of its way until recently to avoid military involvement on its own. 4) One of the reasons, widely reported at the time, that Warren Zimmerman was skeptical of Serb promises at Lisbon, was that Milosevic had already broken several agreements in Croatia. He had already shown his true colors, a lying murderer. But then, I suppose this is all just misrepresentation by the press and he is really Mohandas Gandhi in disguise, if only we would let him have his way. In sadness, too. Barkley Rosser James Madison University
Re: FUTUREWORK
Looking through the contribution by Sally it struck me that there was a danger of attributing to technical change a growth in unemployment that is more likely to be due to quite other causes. The developement of new technology has been an unvarying feature of capitalism for a least two centuries. This has taken hold successively of new branches of production, revolutionised them and greatly increased the productivity of labour. In the process some branches of production have declined but others have expanded. Whilst there has always been a reserve army of labour the size of this has ebbed and flowed with the tides of capital accumulation. Were technical change a significant cause of unemployment we would expect to see lonng term secular declines in employment on the scale of centuries, which clearly has not been the case. Instead with each cycle of capital accumulation the employed proletarian population is higher than the last. This is just as true now as it ever was. What has changed is the global distribution of the proletariat, away from Europe and North America towards Asia and Latin America. This is becausem capital has moved towards the areas with the largest reserve armies of labour - newly proletarianised rural populations. In such countries the historical element of the value of labour power is conditioned by the low standards of living available in peasant agriculture. If this is the primary cause of the growing reserve armies in the former metropolitan areas, then the only way in which a long term tendancy to cause local unemployment can be halted is by these economies being withdrawn from the circuit of international capital. This is possible in two broad configurations: 1) The establishment of socialist economies in these areas. 2) As a reformist alternative, the introduction of strict controls on the movement of capital probably combined with restrictions on international trade. These are the sort of measures undertaken by British Labour governments after the last world war. In both cases there would also be some greater of lesser leveling of incomes. I would suggest that were either of these courses followed, it would soon become apparent that shortages of labour rather than superfluity of it were the principle obstacle to economic development. Paul Cockshott ,WPS, PO Box 1125, Glasgow, G44 5UF Phone: 041 637 2927 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bosnia 3
On Thu, 14 Apr 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > unilateral independence (over the objection of the Serbs who had > refused to take part in the phony referendum organized by the > Muslim-Croat coalition. First, my information (from a "usually > reliable source" with the CBC who had contacts in the German > Foreign Office) is that even Izetbegovic was reluctant to call > the referendum knowing what the result would be. But he > succomed to the pressure of Genser who pressured Izetbegovic > *over the contrary advice of his own staff*. The staff knew > what would happen and advised him but Genser "was completely > blind to advice". Why? I am told he was from, or had family from > the east and was not rational when dealing with what he considered > to be the old "communist" regimes. Whether this was the case or > not, he persisted and Izetbegovic gave in. You make it sound like offering the people a referendum is an evil and demagoguic affair. How is it then that nearly 70% of the population voted for an independent, multi-ethnic Bosnia? How could that be phony? Was there intimidation at the polling booths? Did every Musilm vote yes and every Serb vote no? Did every Serb boycott the election? I admit you raise an interesting question, namely if two groups in one community are clearly opposed, does that make them a divided community or two communities. Still, I fail to see how going against the wishes of the majority overcomes that problem... For an independent Freedonia, Tavis
Re: Bosnia
On Thu, 14 Apr 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Let me first quote from Sean Gervasi "Germany, US, and the > Yugoslav Crisis" _Covert Action_ Winer 1992-93. Yugoslavia has for > some time been the target of a covert policy waged by the West and > its allies, primarily Germany, the United States, Britain, Turkey, > and Saudi Arabia, as well as by Iran, to divide Yugoslavia into its > ethnic components, dismantle it, and eventually recolonize it." (p. 41) > If you still have any doubt, read the article and the US state > department documents that support it and then tell me that the US > and Germany did not have the dismemberment of Yugoslavia *on ethnic > lines at the expense of Serbia* long before the crisis arrived. I'm afraid I don't respond very well to posts that say "I'm right and this article proves it if you go read it." However I would ask you to explain, then, why James Baker breezed through Yugoslavia in the summer of 1992 and declared that the US policy was "to preserve the federation of Yugoslavia at all costs"? (Not an exact quote but I think pretty close) Whatever documents were written they couldn't really have the same effect as the visit of a secretary of state (or even as in a similar situation a state department official like April Glaspie declaring "We have no position on your border dispute...") The US State Department bears responsibility for any signals it gives the Serbs regardless of any previous conspiracies. > Thirdly, the Yugoslav constittution proved the *obligation* of > the Yugoslav army to protect the unity and territoriality of > Yugoslavia. Therefore, it had the constitutional obligation to > prevent the breakaway of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia despite the > international interference of the US and Germany. When it did so > the US, Germany and the UN (under US/German domination) objected > and in the case of Bosnia forced the Yugoslav army to withdraw -- > leaving the irregulars and the militias of the right-wing neo-fascists > to represent Serbian interests and prevent incursions on Serbian > interests and properties. And those militias carried out activities that the Yugoslav army could only have dreamed of. Why would Milosevic choose to use his own army instead of supplying a proxy force when he coudl be held responsible for the former? I suppose because he was too concerned with his untarnished reputation of obeying the Yugoslav constitution to the "t" > The first "atrocity" committed in > the subsequent period was, in his account, the ambush of the > peaceful withdrawel of Yugoslav troups by the Bosnian (Muslim) > army. Why do you call the Bosnian army "Muslim"? Its leadership -- and membership -- consisted of Muslims, Serbs, Croats, Yaks, and red-headed Tanzanians, among others. What were the atrocities? Did the Bosnian army hunt down these people's homes, rape their families, burn their centuries-old village birth records, destroy their churches, and mine their farmlands? Or is my imagination getting carried away? > As a final point > in this first post, why did the US army fight the South when it > declared unilateral independence? Obviously, if the UN had > been in existence, Britain would have sent in its Navy to defeat > the North since it had no right to defend the integrity of the US. > MY god I hate hypocrisy! The Brits wanted cheap cotton. The North wanted cheap labor. Nobody knows what the South wanted since the slaves couldn't vote. I suppose you could make a case in 1860 that they were all uncle toms and therefore the Brits were acting in their interests of self-determination. Events by 1865 wouldn't have borne that out tho YE!! WE WANT MORE!!! (Sorry, just getting excited as usual... :) ) Fahrvergnuegen, Tavis
Re: China and Russia
On Thu, 14 Apr 1994, Paul Bowles wrote: > My > reading on the subject indicates that there is in fact a wide variation > in the way that collective ownership rights are exercised. In some cases > it does appear though that the township and village governments which own > them do finance an array of social services from the profits of TVEs and > that employment practices sometimes involve hiring one member from each > household in order to equalise household incomes. In other cases, TVEs > appear to be no more than private ents in disguise. What the balance is > between these two extremes is seems impossible to tell at this point. > However, it seems to me that TVEs do represent something different and > indeed this has puzzled many neoclassical economists who have argued that > well defined private property rights are needed for efficiency and > growth; the Chinese TVE sector provides one example where this is not > true but where economic success has been accompanied by vaguely defined > collective ownership. Pardon my ignorance here (I know next to nothing about China), but are there any studies discussing the effects of ownership styles (e.g., percentage of indigenous capital, management structures, distribution of earnings across households) on productivity or even output per village? If not it seems some serious and difficult quantitative studies with some intital confused, haphazard regressions would be in order before one could make any real definitive statements about TVEs as representing a possibility opened up by this or that mode of production -- otherwise we're just a bunch of blind folks looking at a moving elephant, trying to figure out if it has a V-6 or a V-8. Just wondering, Tavis
Bosnia-4
Pen-ners, This is about reporting and its effects on perceptions of what is really going on in Bosnia. But first a footnote to yesterdays post on the effect of US intervention in Bosnia. This is a short quote from Paul Koring's article in todays _Globe and Mail_ "The statement by British Lieutenant-Gerneral Sir Michael Rose, the UN's Bosnian commander, that the air strikes were solely to protect peacekeepers seems little more than a fig leaf to hid a vastly changed international posture that can no longer sustain the pretence of UN impartiality The danger is that limited Western intervention will ruin the prospects for a wider peace settlement but allow existing front lines to harden first into ceasefire lines and eventually into new boundaries. (which would) leave Bosnia unworkable as a patchwork of miserable enclaves and surrounded cities. The smouldering inequities of such a settlement would, perha;s in a few years, rekindle the next Balkan war." It should be noted that Koring has generally taken an anti-Serb stance. Now as to the media distortion of what has been going on. This account is taken from Minneapolis Star Tribune (Dec 17, 1993) which was originaly taken from _Foreign Policy_ , a journal publised by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. I will paraphase for brevity. Despite the apparent overwhelming evidence of Serb "grave offenses" the Serbs have always claimed that the evidence of grave offenses against Serbs has been covered up in the media and the Serbs have been denied the right to present their side of the case. Peter Brock, the author of the artical goes on to document the flagrant misinformation that was spread by the western media. Including: 1. pictures of the damage in Vukovar being used on western TV to be a picture of damage to Dubrovnik 2. BBC film of an ailing, elderly " Bosnian Muslim porisoner-or-war in a Serb concentration camp" being a Yugoslav Army prisoner-of-war in a Muslim concentration camp. 3. reports of Muslim children killed by Bus shooting turning out to be Serbian children 4. Newsweek photos of "serbian atrocities in Bosnia" being the same photos ov Serb victims of Croatian atrocities in Vukovar a year earlier 5.CNN repots of massacres of Muslims which turned out to be massacres of Serbs (CNN did not correct its stories) 6. NYT picturs of croats being killed by "Serb attacts" were actually Croats who had been killed by Muslim attacks 7. the most famous picture of the amaciated "muslim" prisoner of war in a prison camptwas in fact a Serb who was imprisoned for looting and, according to his sister in Vienna, looked emaciated because he suffered from TB. and so on. What about the reports of widespread rape etc. UN commision on human rights report (Feb 10, 1993) mentioned a figure of 2,400 victims -- including Muslims, Croats and Serbs though the biggest number had been Muslims while "Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross concurrently declared that all sides were committing atrocities and rape." What has not been reported widely is either the atrocities, ethnic cleansing of Serbs, rapes of Serb women, the number of Serb refugees in Serbia resulting from ethnic cleasing, the accounts of Serbs, including children, who were having operations (including amputations, etc.) in Serbia without anesthetic because of the embargo which, while supposed to allow food and medicine in, has in fact delayed or prevented medicine and anesthic from arriving. Let me conclude this sorry tale with Brock's conclusion: "In the wake of the negligence and pack journalism that have distorted the cover a distored the coverage of the Yugoslav civil war to date, the media would be well-advised to gaze into their own mirrors and consider their dubious records. At some point, historians or an official international investigation will determine the true culpability of all the actors in the Yugoslav tragedy. But one of those actors is the media itself. Let me also add that as academics we also have an obligation to become properly informed and not be stampeded into supporting US capital's goals on the basis of distorted media propaganda not backed by the facts. Tomorrow, I will address the claim that Serbs are the aggressors, have seized all this territory, and peace will only reward aggression. In search of a balanced response, Paul Phillips
income dist
Dear Penners, Has anyone seen the 1993 U.S. income distribution by households (and families), Gini coefficients, percent of households (families) in poverty etc.? I can't find in my (small) library, although I have everything I need through 1992. Any help (data) appreciated. Thanks. Brian Eggleston Augustana College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rastafarianism (in Barbados)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 09:45:18 -1000 (HST) From: Richard Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Rastafari (Barbados) Aloha to you all from Hawai'i: This is an urgent request to find more information on contact persons on the island of Barbados in the Caribbean who knows, or was intimately involved with the resistance and Rastafarianism in the Caribbean: Jamaica, or other islands, but particularly on Barbados where I will be from April 25 to May to attend the UN Conference on Island Nations development. I am a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Hawaii-Manoa in Honolulu, Hawaii. I come from the island of Belau (Palau) which has been struggling to free itself from the entanglements of US military expansionist policies into the Pacific. Palau is an extremely small island with a small population but after the devastation of war (WWII) not of their making, they finally wrote 19 79 the world's first nuclear-free Constitution--against the wishes and policies of the US military. Since then, the people of this small Pacific island nation has fought and struggled to keep its Constitution. Through it all our first president fell victim to assassins' bullet for daring to oppose the US, the father of the opposition's attorney followed in an assassination that was intended for his lawyer son. Now the women of Palau are carrying on the struggle after men were either killed, bought out or met their doom. The second president's problem was that he went too far trying to implement the US military plans that be took unbelievably large amounts of bribe money, intimated more, but finally shot his own head. I want to understand the resistance in terms of how others, maybe even radical fringe groups have been successful or not successful elsewhere against colonial regimes. Therefore, getting a chance to visit Barbados, and possibly Jamaica after the conference, I would like to locate key individuals of the Rastafari and resistance movement in the Caribbean. If you can, please relay this message to other listserves. I thank very much in advance of your most kind assitance. Mahalo very much again, and Aloha, Richard N. Salvador Department of Political Science 2424 Maile Way, Porteus #640 Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 ph (808) 956-8141, fax (808) 956-6877
Bosnia-Herzegovina (not 'and')
Response to Paul Phillips' Messages #'s 2 and 3 (this will not be a short message): Again Paul is right about many things and has highighted some stupid and reprehensible aspects of the Balkan tragedy on the parts of many actors (PS: Paul, can you send me a copy of the Covert Action article you referred to, please? Am curious). Nevertheless I feel the need to comment, correct, and respond to a number of points that he has made. Although I think the bombing may be "justified", my sense is that it will not achieve its desired results and will probably only make a bad situation worse. 1) The role of US policy: I may be dead wrong, but I do not believe that any organ of the US government was plotting "long before the crisis began" to dismember Yugoslavia. Indeed in Message #3 you emphasize that what happened in Feb. 1992 was a _reversal_ of US policy when the US began to take such a course. It was widely reported in the Washington media that the CIA had forecast such a breakup, but this was not accompanied by any glee but with foreboding. 1914 had not been forgotten. Indeed the breakup has fully lived up (down?) to everybodys' worst expectations. If it leads to the revival of a US-Russia Cold War, it can only get worse. 2) Helsinki Treaty: You are technically correct that US policy in Feb. 1992 was in violation of that treaty. But that treaty was a dead letter by that time. Two months before, the Soviet Union had dissolved by means that were also essentially in violation of the treaty. Would you have supported the Soviet army rampaging through Ukraine or Estonia in order to preserve the FSU? (I am more willing to believe that US organs supported and long plotted that breakup.) The unification of Germany was also a violation, if you want to get technical. The more recent breakup of Czechoslovakia was also and apparently was not even supported by a majority of the population in either section of that former nation. 3) The ambush of retreating Yugoslav troops from Bosnia-Herzegovina (henceforward, B-H, in this message) was stupid and reprehensible. But it occurred after Serbs had already engaged in mass atrocities in Croatia and is in no way comparable to the mass murders, torture, and expulsions carried out on civilians in both Croatia and B-H by the Serbs. I find it interesting that you identify "Serb interests" with "Yugoslav". I fully agree that in Croatia, the Croats "started it" and that the Tudjman regime did not guarantee Serb minority rights. But do you deny that the scale of Serb atrocities is at least an order of magnitude greater than that committed by all other Yugoslav groups put together? This is the view of Amnesty International. Are they "biased media"? Speaking of mass murder, torture, and expulsions, just what do you think the Bosnian Serbs are going to do if (probably when) they take Gorazde? What will be the breakdown of the above three categories? 4) Your point about the US Civil War is well taken. Of course the British did aid the Confederacy, although not as fully as they might because it was clear fairly early on that the Union would win (especially after Gettysburg). I might also note that the South was defending its right to slavery. What are the Serbs defending? Greater Serbia, which includes large chunks of territory previously inhabited by other ethnic groups, now murdered, tortured, or expelled (sounds like US policy towards Native Americans). Speaking of "plots", what about that of Milosevic to assert Serb control over the other ethnic groups of Yugoslavia? This was a major reason for the secessions. Perhaps they were "paranoid" (so were the Jews in Hitler's Germany), but there was strong evidence of his intentions after he suppressed Albanian autonomy in Kosovo in the late 1980's (oops, sorry, I know, there are no "Albanians", you do not recognize them as "an ethnic group"). So, the efforts of outsiders to prevent Milosevic's scheme from coming to pass is the cause of its coming to pass? Sounds like blaming the Holocaust on Clemenceau (which, in effect, Keynes did). 5) Tito's Boundaries: Your point here is plain wrong, except of course that there were lots of Serbs in other republics (they weren't the only ones scattered outside "their" borders). With a few minor adjustments, Slovenia's border with Croatia is identical to the one existing in the Austro-Hungarian Empire between the Austrian and Hungarian zones of control. Modern Serbia lost Macedonia, which it had grabbed in 1912 from Turkey, but was granted the former Hungarian territory of Vojvodina (and, oh boy, they want Macedonia back!). Otherwise the modern borders of Serbia are what they were in 1914 (including Kosovo). Bosnia-Herzegovina was the third province (after Austria and Hungary) of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, WITH EXACTLY ITS CURRENT BOUNDARIES (Herzegovina is in the south and is heavily Croat). Of course in 1914, the Serb
Anne Mayhew request to Sally Lerner
FROM: MAYHEW " ANNE " SMC Sorry that I forgot to give a mailing address. It is Department of Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0550. Thank you. -- Anne Mayhew
Anne Mayhew request to Sally Lerner
I cannote-mail to Anne Mayhew at the address given. Please supply your mailing address, and I'll ail you the material. Sally Lerner >FROM: MAYHEW >" ANNE >" SMC >This is a response to Sally Lerner and a request to all others: 1) Sally, >would you resend the long messages about the conference on education and >income distribution in Canada. That is, send it to me as I inadvertently wiped >it out in the process of trying to download to WP. 2) To Sally and everyone >else, a request: A graduate student and I have been trying to figure out how >to think about how new jobs are created. Both political and scholarly focus on >the need for new jobs in this country and elsewhere has been on the skills of >workers. Proposals for retraining, for improved education, and for reforms >that will provide greater incentives to workers are based on the assumption >that chronic unemployment is a consequence of a lack of appropriate skill and >prepreation. On the demand side the focus has been primarily macroeconomic. >Job creation is analyzed as a consequence of variation in macroeconomic >variables. > >Our question is very microeconomic but not one that can be answered by >standard microeconomics. What we are wondering about is how new jobs are >created. What do we know about how this has happened in the past? What is the >process whereby household/community/volunteer labor becomes paid labor in an >increasingly commercial society? What do we know about the way in which >bureaucratic organizations--in both the public and private sectors--create new >job classifications. Our interest is not so much in classifying jobs by pay or >skill level as in understanding the processes at a very micro level that lead >to the creation of a new job, meaning a new kind of job. While it is easy >enough to understand that increased sales will cause employers to add workers >in an existing category, it is not so obvious how wholly new categories of >paid work are created. Yet such job creation is required if present patterns >of income distribution (that is entitlemenet through work) are to continue. >There must be literature that deals with this but we do not know much about >it. Can anyone out there help us. > Thanks-- Anne Mayhew > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terms in gobalization debate + EU news
As a non-native English speaker I need some help with correct terms. I want to distinguish between two forms of international regimes: THE FIRST one I would tentatively label SUPRANATIONALITY. An example of a supranational system is the EU. A supranational regime has the right to pass laws and make legislation on a very broad area of issues, and these rules are binding and above correponding nationally decided laws and rules. The main point in distinguishing supranationality compared with what will be described below, is that s. implies 1) the general right to make binding decisions without beforehand having specified the issue that shall be regulated, and 2) Such decisions are binding for a given nation within the system, even when it is against them. THE SECOND international regime is what I would tentatively call "voluntary issue-oriented binding cooperation" ( VIOBC, but I am asking you guys if there exists a specific term for this in English). VIOBC implies that a nation voluntarily decides to abide by an international agreement which regulates a (more or less) specific problem/issue/field. Examples are Interpol, the Montreal protocol to fight CFC gases, the international agreements for Post and Telecommication systems. There exists a very large number of such agreements/organs/rules. The UN has elements of both supranationality and VIOBC. The same holds for GATT. But I would say that the new GATT agreement with the WTO (World trade Organization) to implement it, is a step towards more supranationality and less VIOBC. My view in brief is that I am generally against supranationality, but very much for more VIOBC as a way to solve problems that does not stop at the national border. A problem in the discourse here in Norway is that the supporters of EU membership do not distinguish between the two above defined qualitatively different ways to meet the needs for international coordinated action. They simply say that those who oppose EU membership are against "international cooperation". To some degree calculated demagoguery, but also lack of clear thinking on their behalf. I would like comments to my definitions and distinction between the two terms, and especially help with the sought-after term for what I have had to call VIOBC. BTW, latest opinion polls (yesterday and the day before) re EU membership in Norway are (in percent): YES NO poll 1 :27 45 poll 2 :33 48 More news are that the EU membership referendum will take place on Nov 28., this was announced by Ms Brundtland (the PM) on Tuesday. This is just two weeks after Sweden. The EU supporters in Norway by this procedure hope that a possible YES in Sweden will influence the undecided in Norway to vote YES. We NO people in Norway look at this as a dirty trick, comparable to using loaded sentences in opinion polls to get a biased result. Our proposal was to hold the referendums on the same date, which would have been perfectly possible. This was of course ignored by the power elite in Norway. Our second proposal was that if it came to Norway's referendum being after Sweden's, then the only fair solution would be to wait a couple of months, to eliminate the possibility of bias due to bandwagon effects in the weeks after a possible Swedish YES. This was also turned down. It should, however, be pointed out that the EU-supporters in Norway are taking a chance. Their tactics may backfire: Today there is still a NO majority in the Swedish polls, albeit with a smaller margin than in Norway. If this keeps and Sweden says NO, everybody in Norway agrees that a referendum in our country two weeks later will result in an overwhelming NO vote. Cheers, --- | Trond Andresen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | | Department of Engineering Cybernetics | | The Norwegian Institute of Technology | | N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY| | | | phone +47 73 59 43 58 | | fax +47 73 59 43 99 | ---
Re: Competition with a fabulous prize
In Norwegian: Jeg synes dere anglo-amerikanske kulturimperialister skulle skrive paa norsk paa pen-l! :-) :-) The English translation: I think that you Anglo-American cultural imperialists should write in Norwegian on pen-l! :-) :-) Not too difficult was it, but all the same: Congratulations to Walter Daum, who won first prize in the contest! Welcome to my humble home in Trondheim, Norway! To be serious for a moment. Summer holiday seasons is coming, and I propose that we penners have a standing rule (just as the international Esperanto movement has) that we, if practically possible, are willing to host a travelling fellow penner for a few days. I myself would really like to meet some of you guys in the flesh! Btw, greetings to Harry Cleaver! We were acquainted through pen-l, and met for one hectic hour on the railway station cafe in Trondheim early on a Sunday morning, before he had to board the "Hurtigruten" (a ship travelling along the coast) again. Cheers, --- | Trond Andresen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | | Department of Engineering Cybernetics | | The Norwegian Institute of Technology | | N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY| | | | phone +47 73 59 43 58 | | fax +47 73 59 43 99 | ---
Re: *You* can definitely do better!
Okay, from Johannesburg here's a contribution to `What is to be done?' Read the daily feed that we generate each AM on the degeneration of SA capitalism; I'm expanding the posting list (which we started about eight months ago -- back issues available), so if anyone is interested in following the situation in this crucial fortnight prior to elections, RSVP to the personal account ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and I can sign you up... In return, keep up the excellent PEN-L commentary (especially on value theory) which several of us devour here, notwithstanding our silence. A sample of our work, plagiarised from the main business daily, follows -- (the `Marxists' advising the urban social movement include yours truly)... Patrick Bond, Planact... NEWSBRIEFS, April 12 - Financial rand collapses by 14%, to R5,7 to $; dual currency down to lowest rate ever, with discount of 38% to commercial rand; panic grips financial markets; commercial rand drops to R3,6 to $; - Flitestar airlines shuts down; 950 workers to be fired; airline was founded in 1991; complaints of unfair competition from SAA; also a casualty was Luxair, which had flown between Jo'burg and Luxemburg for 40 years; (THIS CORRESPONDENT WAS ON FLITESTAR'S LAST-EVER FLIGHT, TO CAPE TOWN LAST NIGHT; PILOTS I TALKED TO CLAIM AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS THEIR KILLER, AS THEBE'S SA EXPRESS NEEDED A COMPETITIVE VACUUM TO OPERATE); - Foreign mediators arrive; - The South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO) releases "Making People-Driven Developent Work" report (authored by Joe Hanlon) and calls for much higher subsidy for housing (R17 500, not R12 500); repeats call for retail housing bank; 5% of GDP should be invested in housing; - ANC continues probe into Winnie Mandela finances; earlier report implicating her in hundreds of thousands of rands of misplaced funds is termed by Ronnie Mamoepa authentic but incomplete; - FAWU and major agribusiness set up another forum, the Wheat Forum; at least this links to consumers, as stated aim is to provide bread at lowest price; - Investigation into Eskom begins, concerning potential arms-to-Inkatha by renegade employees; - Zevenfontein squatters in NW Johannesburg get Diepsloot land from TPA; cost of development is R6 500 per site, with subsidy from National Housing Board; residents also receive R6 500 for materials, to be repaid at R40 per month; white neighbours "bitter" and strongly opposed; - Sanlam says financial markets not likely to settle down for next three to six months; - Violence flares again in Bekkersdal; - Johannesburg violence is scaring off tourists; Australia and Canada telling residents to stay the hell away; - Significant increase in police suicides and depression; - Zimbabwe to lose preferential trade terms today when GATT is signed; exports hurt include tobacco, ferroalloys, coffee, flowers, beef and sugar; but developing nations must wait ten years before industrialised world dismantles textile protection. NEWSBRIEFS, April 13 - ANC releases final Reconstruction and Development Programme; ANC's Trevor Manuel says R39 billion will be spent on the RDP over next five years from government (and Eskom), without raising government spending as a % of GDP or increasing taxes; deficit will actually reduce to international norms; secret defence account to get the axe; further cuts in nuclear programme too; end of rent boycotts at local government level would also help; RDP could still change; no decision yet on ministry-level position or on commission; Naidoo: "It is a national programme. It has hegemony"; 1994-95 budget deficit will be 6,25%; - Terms of reference agreed for international mediation between Inkatha, ANC and government; Henry K.: "They have invited us to close the remaining gaps"; (STILL CRAZY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS); - TEC calls for moratorium on public service strikes until after election; strikes by nurses, ambulance workers, teachers and police now underway in Natal, Venda, Lebowa and Transkei; police strike in KaNgwane ending; Joe Slovo says TEC still has sympathy for "justified grievances"; Cyril Ramaphosa says he hopes trade unions will take call to end strikes "very seriously"; - Mandela tells grassroots supporters in Bophuthatswana to stop harassing local chiefs; reinstating other more popular chiefs who were deposed by Mangope will be subject of inquiry; - SA Housing Trust to set up special retail bank as per SANCO recommendations, says Wallie Conradie; Conradie "pleased" to have been recognised by SANCO for "our achievements and abilities as well as confirming certain areas of current shortcomings" (THAT'S PUTTING IT MILDLY); new retail housing bank should start with SAHT funds plus interim subsidy, says SANCO; - SANCO invites bank representatives to join it at a New York workshop on "the importance of sound relationships between banks and communities"; SANCO's Mzwanele Mayekiso said the workshop, arranged by Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsiblity, will take place within a few
