EU result - Sweden
Here are the results from Sunday's Swedish EU referendum, which came out as I predicted last week: 52.2 % YES and 46.9 % NO, 0.9 % blank votes (also a legal option in the Swedish EU referendum. This means Sweden joining the EU.Turnout was 82.4 %. Comment: The difference between YES and NO is 5.3 %. The possiblity of a NO victory was then clearly within range. The group of people being undecided until the last days was approx. 25 - 35 % of the voters. The rest were firm on either side. The final campaign was then of course exclusiveley targeted against those still unsure. Those are per definition possible to move in either direction through different campaigning tools. Therefore it is relevant to discuss the distribution of campaigning resources beteeen the two sides. The resources in Sweden was extremely maldistributed: 2% (!) of newspaper circulation on the NO side, 98% on the YES side. The largest papers were clearly YES-biased not only in editorial pieces but also in ordinary reporting (source: Investigation by the conservative YES paper Svenska Dagbladet). Nearly all figures in the political establishment are YES, from the conservative carl Bildt (former PM) to the new social democrat PM Ingvar Carlsson. In the last week their main point was: trust us your leaders, vote YES, accompanied by an extremely massive ad campaign on boards, in papers, on some TV nets. The NO side had no chance to match this. Economic reources on either side has been calculated to about 10 to 1 in favour of YES. Since the difference in spite of this was just 5.3% of the voters it is perfectly fair to say that this was a victory for those with the biggest money bag and those in positions of power. This was a referendum , yes, but it was not true democracy. Btw, the latest poll here in Norway _before_ the Swedish vote was 48% NO and 29% YES (saturday). I don't think the Swedish result will give a YES lead in Norway, the resistance is to strong. but the NO lead will be much smaller. We'll see. Trond --- | Trond Andresen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | | Department of Engineering Cybernetics | | The Norwegian Institute of Technology | | N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY| | | | phone (work) +47 73 59 43 58 | | fax (work) +47 73 59 43 99 | | private phone +47 73 53 08 23 | ---
Re: CBC documentary on New Zealand
The transcript of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.'s report on
the neo-liberal revolution in New Zealand now appears in the
econ/incoming directory of csf.colorado.edu. ("econ" is also
known as "heterodox economics.")
sincerely,
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
Re: Election results
Jim -- was that small government before or after capitalism had withered away? -- From: pen-l Subject: Re: Election results Date: Saturday, November 12, 1994 3:15PM At least according to Hal Draper's exhaustive survey of Marx's political ideas (kARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION, Monthly Review Press), old Karlos wanted a small govt with the governmental delegates subordinate to civil society. Sounds a bit like what USA voters want, though I doubt that they would go along with his idea that capitalism should be al abolished at this point. But maybe I read the polls wrong... in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
Re: principal/agent and social conscience
In an earlier message Gil Skillman said that while he could not endorse my call for a vision with an economy with zero markets in the limit, that he could certainly endorse a call for having n-1 markets if we have n right now. That amounts to saying that some sort of market socialism would be an improvement over capitalism, which few on pen-l have disputed, and I have explicitly agreed with. But I have yet to hear an answer to a problem I posed for advocates of market socialism a while back, and Gil's posting brings the issue up clearly. I assume that the 1 market Gil would eliminate is the labor market, and I assume that the reason is that a labor market does not distribute income equitably in Gil's view [which I would share]. So the logic is eliminate the labor market, set income differentials through some sort of political process that is more equitable than free market labor outcomes that pay even middle talented professional baseball players millions per year while paying hard working garbage collectors less than $25,000 per year. Or, the example that catches my attention at the moment, the basketball coach at the University of Maryland -- who I like as an avid Terps fan -- negotiating a multi-million dollar multi-year salary that will pay him $250,000 annualy with- out endorsements while no faculty member at this institution of higher earning [a truly Freudian slip] earns over $100,000 -- no matter how wise and famous. But the problem is if we set wages and salaries fairly, and if that means out- comes different from marginal revenue products -- otherwise what's the point? - then what does that imply about the price structure in the other n-1 markets that Gil is considering retaining? I once saw an estimate that on average two thirds of costs are labor costs. In which case, on average two thirds of the cost of all final goods would be miscalculations of true social opportunity costs. To make a long story short, how can one pretend to eliminate the labor market and keep the other n-1 markets without recognizing that the highly vaunt ed, and highly over estimated, efficiency properties of the pricing mechanism in all those other markets would go completely by the wayside? In Solidarity, You Can't Have Your Cake and Eat It Too!
Re: Marx's view of government
concerning Karl Marx's view of the ideal government, Nancy Breen asks: Jim -- was that small government before or after capitalism had withered away? In my reading of Marx (and of Draper's volumes), Marx favored a small government even before capitalism had been fully abolished. Or rather, he wanted to end the distinction between the state and civil society. His ideal (as usual, based on a real-world case) was the Paris Commune, under which delegates were easily recalled by their electors, were paid salaries very similar to those earned by citizens, and had both legislative and executive functions. (see his CIVIL WAR IN FRANCE) Maybe Marx idealized the Commune, but it does give us some idea of what he favored. It seems to me that this kind of government would be hard to keep going if attacked militarily by capitalist countries (as the Commune was). It also might not work very well if it had to run an entire country rather than simply a (politically mobilized) city. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
Re: Left wing Democrats ?
We progressives have two favorite sports, it seems. Freaking out at how incredibly neanderthal the right really is, especially when they do well in elections and remind us that they have a solid base among the masses. [Solid probably doesn't mean even 25%, but who are we to knock it, right?] Our other sport is gossiping about how totally unreliable even those who are portrayed as liberal Democratis are when it comes down to what they deliver as opposed to what they talk about when they are trying to get elected and need progressives to bother to turn out. As in, what did we get from a Democratic president and Congress the past two years? No econ- omic stimulus package, no health care reform -- much less single payer -- and a right wing crime bill and NAFTA -- oh boy! Both are good sports -- and we have the right attitudes on both subjects. But the real problem is they are spectator sports because there is no left analagous to a real right. This has been increasingly true over the past ten years. The situation was reversed last during the McGovern candidacy -- though I don't think the right was as demobilized and non-existent as the left is today. Which brings me to one of my favorite Chomsky observations: Why does the left spend so much time talking (more often pissing and moaning) to itself? Is it because thinking things trough more clearly is such a high priority? According to Chomsky it is NOT because the answers are so difficult or unknowable. It's that the only thing that really needs doing is to organ- ize -- and that is just very hard work. So we talk, debate, piss, and moan because the alternative is hard work. That theory has all the characteristics that make sense to me! Want to talk about it?
*draft* op-ed on elections
Here is a draft for a forum piece I'm writing for the local newspapers. Used a lot of pen-l stuff -- thanks! Comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course feel free to modify and use. Reuse, recycle! (As usual the first draft is a little wild. I start out moderate and get wound up...this is why we have drafts and show our writing to others... :) ) --- NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR COOPERATION President Clinton's advisers are debating how much to cooperate with the new Republican Congress. If they care anything for the future of this country, or if they want Bill Clinton to be re-elected in 1996, the choice is clear. Now is not the time for cooperation. First, the Republican Congress has no right to demand cooperation. How much did Newt Gingrich or Bob Dole cooperate with Bill Clinton in the last two years? How much did they cooperate to reform the nation's health care insurance system? How much did they cooperate with his plans to stimulate the economy and create new jobs? How much did they cooperate to reform campaign financing (9 of 10 races won by the candidate with the most money) or bar the hiring of permanent replacement workers during labor disputes? That's how much cooperation they should get from him now. Second, Newt Gingrich's claim of a mandate for his "Contract on America" is absurd. The voting-age population has not swung to the Right. Among those who voted in House races on Election Day, only 50% voted Republican. The turnout was about 39%, 52% of whom voted Republican, which means only about 20% of the eligible electorate actually voted for Republican candidates. Many of those defeated on Tuesday were not leaders of the party's Left, but of its Right. The head of the right-wing Democratic Leadership Council (aka Democrats for the Leisure Class) lost his seat, as did Rep. Cooper of Tennesee, a major opponent of Clinton's attempt at health care reform. The important thing that happened on Tuesday was that Republicans turned out and Democrats didn't. Why? Republicans turned out because the Christian Right is well-financed and well-organized. Clinton is just liberal enough on some social issues to give 30 million listeners of right-wing talk radio someone to hate. He believes that a woman's right to have an abortion is protected by the U.S. Constitution and that gay Americans are human beings with human rights. And why didn't Democrats turn out? Because fear and loathing of Republicans is not usually enough to get Democratic voters to the polls. Democratic voters are motivated by the promise of expanded economic opportunity. And the national Democratic party has largely abandoned that promise, because it is too beholden to financial contributions from large corporations. Bill Clinton the candidate campaigned against the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it was a threat to workers' rights and environmental standards. Bill Clinton the President staked his reputation on passing it after tacking on weak side agreements that his Labor Department refuses to enforce. The idea that the election represents "the repudiation of an arrogant cultural elite" is likewise absurd. Of those voters who had less than a high school education, 68% voted Democratic. Of those with only high school education, 52% voted Democratic. As usual, the electorate was skewed towards those with more income (and hence more education). If Tuesday's electorate were representative of the voting-age population, Democrats would have won. What now? Rank-and-file Democrats have to take back their party from Republican wannabees. Democrats should learn how to fight like the right-wing Republicans fight. Like it mattered. Not just at election time. Year round. Democrats have to stop thinking that if we act like Republicans, Republicans they're going to be nice to us. They aren't. It just makes them think we're weak, and makes rank-and-file Democrats think that it doesn't matter if they vote. Democrats can't win by trying to be "tougher" in race-code arguments about crime and welfare. Democrats have to play to their strength, which is their ability to expand economic opportunity for the majority of Americans who work for a living. At the local level, the Champaign County Republicans, unsatisfied with an 18-9 majority, bought themselves a couple of extra seats. Does this entitle them to cooperation from the Democratic minority? Absolutely not. It entitles them to a vigorous opposition, and from this County Board member at least they're going to get it. Bill Clinton still has a great deal of power to advance a progressive agenda, through his appointments and through his access to the media. To paraphrase Lincoln, if you will not use your Presidency, Mr. Clinton, may we borrow it?
Re: Greenfield strategies
Posted on 14 Nov 1994 at 15:25:44 by TELEC List Distributor (011802) Greenfield strategies Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 12:23:59 -0800 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can someone guide me to references on the "Greenfield" practice of a company threatening to transfer production to an existing plant in an area with low union rates and/or high unemployment? Thanks to all respondents! Jesse Vorst*** The Revolution Knows No Time Zones! *** University College, University of Manitoba Winnipeg R3T 2M8 CANADA w: 204-474-9119 h: 204-269-1365 f: 204-261-0021 time: central time (GMT-UTC -6 winter, -5 summer) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Greenfield practices are only one of several ways of using space as an instrument of class struggle. Alternately, some greenfield practices are not directly related to class conflict (e.g., moving somewhere because it's cheaper to build new than rebuild). Bluestone and Harrison's _Deindustrialization of America_ is old but still a very good discussion of such practices. Paul Knox's textbooks, _Urbanization_ (Prentice Hall 1994) and _The Geography of the World Economy_ (with John Agnew, Edward Arnold 1994) are excellent entries into the literature. Also see Doreen Massey's _Spatial Divisions of Labor_ and Allen Scott's _Metropolis: From Division of Labor to Urban Form_ and his _New Industrial Spaces_. 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 "Marginality confers legitimacy on one's contrariness."
Re: Left wing Democrats ?
Thanks for allaying my fears about the right. I guess it just scares me that so many people actually enjoy right-wing talk shows, and it's frightening that at the grassroots tons of financial support goes to local rightist politicians. People in Colorado seem to like having Democratic governors (Lamm was gov for a long time) but outside of Boulder and Aspen the electorate is either conservative or radical right. What can we make of this voting? I wouldnt've expected Colo to be one of the few places left with a Dem governor! As for Perot and individualist westerners-- I heard that all the candidates he supported lost-- can anyone confirm this ? Who did he support? H. Grob
Colorado election question
Colorado had a question on the ballot regarding workers compensation. Can anyone in Colorado quickly find out for me what the result was or give me the name/number of someone who would know? Thanks in advance. Heather Grob Center to Protect Workers' Rights (202) 962-8490
Contract on America
I don't know if people still need this, but here it is: REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives. That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print. This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family. Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves. On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government: * FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress; * SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse; * THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third; * FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs; * FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee; * SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public; * SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; * EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting. Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny. 1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. 2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. 3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. 4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. 5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. 6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. 7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. 8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. 9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of
Re: principal/agent and social conscience
Robin Hahnel's post raises two issues: 1) What market should be considered the primary target for elimination in a move toward market socialism? 2) Given elimination of said market, what's the use of allowing the other "n-1" markets to continue? Wouldn't their efficiency properties, such as they are, be eviscerated? On the first issue, Robin is right to suggest that equity is the primary consideration. But if he'll allow a vision of market socialism that includes a) a progressive income tax with a "negative" component, b)significant inheritance and gift taxes, and c) significant and more equally allocated educational spending, I'd say the market which is the primary target for either elimination or significant restriction is not that for labor, but for capital. My argument is that unrestricted capital markets, such as those in the US, create socially unjustified differentials in access to income, decision rights in production, and macroeconomic power. Exactly how capital markets should be restricted depends on how one weighs the foregoing concerns. To take an example for the sake of argument, creation of a labor-managed economy would be a significant improvement over the status quo, and would require severing the connection between capital supply and decision rights in production. But suppose for the sake of argument that achieving socialist equity goals requires elimination of labor markets resulting in expected (increased) divergences in wages and marginal products. Is it true, as Robin suggests, that no net efficiency advantages can be expected from allowing all other (primarily commodity) markets to continue? I disagree, and our difference here has much to do with the distance between traditional neoclassical economics and modern (information- and game-theoretic) economics. The static efficiency properties of complete and competitive markets, on which neoclassical economics obsesses and which Robin insists would be lost, are certainly the least important allocative aspects of markets. The decentralization and (imperfect) competition provided by market allocation arguably promote effort incentives, product quality, adaptability to changing microeconomic conditions, and innovation better than any other mechanism we know of. [To take a concrete example, compare the development of computers in the US and in the former USSR.] The Eastern European economies didn't collapse because they failed to equate marginal revenues and marginal costs; they collapsed because nobody worked, the goods produced were crappy, supplies didn't respond to changes in needs, production methods were outmoded and dangerous, and incentives for innovation were miniscule to nonexistent. In solidarity, Yeah, But at Least I Have a Cake!
Forward from publabor Prop 187 in perspec
Pen-llers might be interested... H.Grob -- Forwarded Message -- From: David Kettler, INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TO: HEATHER GROB, 74762,1427 DATE: 11/10/94 9:21 PM RE: Re: Prop 187 in perspec Talk of building power on public employee unions underestimates their vulnerability and presupposes a concrete political program that I have not read in any of the vituperations against the centrists or celebrations of labor and progress, at least not yet. I think that union activity in defense of objectors of conscience against implementing 187 is exactly the right first response--and social uses of law are not excluded. The issue is then personalized without sentimentalism or rhetoric: solidarity first of all with the teacher or social worker or health worker who will not in conscience heed the unjust law. Things follow from such campaigns, but they are sustainable and do not ignore where people's heads are. David Kettler On Thu, 10 Nov 1994, Paul Johnston wrote: On the dark side: true, implementation of the measure is likely to be delayed through the courts. But in the long run that's a loser. The movement behind Proposition 187 is in part "anti-government", and using legal mechanisms to frustrate "the will of the people" will fan the flames. If we rely on lawsuits alone still more ominous measures will come down the road. On the bright side: whatever elese it is, progressive power in California (and elsewhere) must be built on cross-cultural solidarity, and organizing resistance to prop 187 is an excellent opportunity to build that. We're a long ways from progressive power (whether we define that as Feinstein/Clinton or something more...), but the organization and cross-cultural solidarity and humanitarian values and spirit of resistance built here could be an important building block. Also on the bright side: public sector unions are at the best--and their members' morale highest--when they're fighting for public needs that reflect the values of their members. Sentiments like Steve Sloan's are powerful. What an opportunity to tap into the values and ideals of teachers, social workers, health care workers and others trying to work in public service! On the dark side: defining the battle over public services in California as "do illegals get them" was a brilliant and dangerous move from the right, and it's a trap. It isolates the interests of immigrants from those of natives, and diverts attention from the long-term assault on public services (as well as worker rights, jobs, etc.) for everyone in the state. Is there any way to redefine the issue a way that will embrace a viable majority? It may be that on this issue we're bound to be a minority. If that's the case, so be it: the issue is too important. To avoid the trap, though, we've got to stop letting the enemy define the terms of the fight, but define the issues on our own terms. Where are the campaigns for public services that can do this? P.S. Does anyone know of 187-related listservs or bulletin boards? Pro OR con?
Re: Greenfield strategies
Jesse Vorst asks: Can someone guide me to references on the "Greenfield" practice of a company threatening to transfer production to an existing plant in an area with low union rates and/or high unemployment? ___ For a discussion of the involvement of government at the state level in encouraging this corporate practice through use of tax incentives/subsidies see: Otis Graham, _Losing Time_, (Harvard Univ. Press: 1992). Graham describes the history of "buffalo hunting" or destructive zero-sum game states compete in to woo business relocation and the shift to the entrepreneurial state (see next), Peter Eisinger, _The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State_ (Univ of Wisconsin Press, 1988). And recently, someone posted the publication of a recent book on the subject, _No More Candy Store: States and Cities Making Job Subsidies Accountable_, author?, Federation for Industrial Retention and Renewal, Chicago, 1994. Cheers, |~~~| Brent McClintock| | Economics | | Carthage College| THERE IS NO WEALTH | Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140| BUT LIFE| USA | | Phone: (414) 551-5852 | John Ruskin | Fax: (414) 551-6208 | | Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | ~
** GATT - How to get the GATT full-text ** (fwd)
~Subject: Easiest Way To Obtain Clinton's GATT Bill The absolute easiest way to obtain GATT implementing legislation: Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can leave everything else blank. [Shortly thereafter it will return in your e-mail. It is 880K.--BJP] Enjoy! Kai Mander [EMAIL PROTECTED] We owe a great debt to Kai, Mark Ritchie and the other people who send us the nafta and gatt materials. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: social security query
The most progressive way to save money is to tax the proceeds. To make it means tested will threaten its extinction as just another welfare program. What's the pen-l line on social security reform? Cut benefits? Increase taxes? Increase retirement age to 70? Other? Or is there less to the standard argument about the "baby boom bulge busting the bank" than meets they eye? -bob naiman -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: social security query
What's the pen-l line on social security reform? Cut benefits? Increase taxes? Increase retirement age to 70? Other? Or is there less to the standard argument about the "baby boom bulge busting the bank" than meets they eye? -bob naiman There's a lot less than meets the eye. Last year I attended a seminar given by C. Eugene Stuerle, author of a well-respected book on the so-called crisis of the social security system. One of his graphs showed soc. sec. revenues and outlays, with the former exceeding the latter for the next ten years or so, then a ballooning deficit as baby boomers retire. I asked him, at what interest rate are you assuming the government will pay back the surplus it borrowed from the soc. sec. trust fund (last time I looked it was about $50 billion a year). He said he assumed that it wasn't going to paid back at all! What if it was? Well then the deficit wouldn't appear for another 20 years after the one shown on his graph. So, I suggested, the crisis is not really a crisis of the social security system, but a crisis of whatever the Federal government spent the trust fund's money on. His response: "It doesn't matter, the government is still going to have to raise taxes to pay social security benefits." The logic of this is incredible, even for a neoclassical economist (Steurle's work has been for Brookings and the American Enterprise Institute). It is often repeated in the media, which for years has pointed to social security (usually lumped with other "entitlements") as the biggest item in the budget, saying it is impossible to reduce the deficit without cutting the latter, neglecting to mention that social security itself has not contributed one dollar to the deficits of the last decade and a half, since it has been running a surplus. Steurle's seminar was a joke; I imagine the book is too, altho if any pen-l-ers have read it I would like to hear their opinion. The most these people can say is that sometime in the next 35 years the government will have to raise taxes to maintain the current level of benefits. So what? He has all kinds of wonderful suggestions to avoid this calamity, e.g. people live longer so we should raise the retirement age or limit the number of years after age 65 that people can collect. Sorry but I don't have much sympathy with those who are losing sleep over this far-off "crisis" which may force us to return to pre-Reagan concepts of progressive taxation sometime in the unforeseeable future. Mark Weisbrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
