[PEN-L:5090] Joke
Forwarded message: From @kate.ibmpcug.co.uk:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat May 13 00:25:36 1995 Date: Fri, 12 May 95 11:31:47 From: David Herron [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: For Your Amusement A Software Engineer, a Hardware Engineer and a Departmental Manager were on their way to a meeting in Switzerland. They were driving down a steep mountain road when suddenly the brakes on their car failed. The car careened almost out of control down the road, bouncing off the crash barriers, until it miraculously ground to a halt scraping along the mountainside. The car's occupants, shaken but unhurt, now had a problem: they were stuck halfway down a mountain in a car with no brakes. What were they to do? "I know", said the Departmental Manager, "Let's have a meeting, propose a Vision, formulate a Mission Statement, define some Goals, and by a process of Continuous Improvement find a solution to the Critical Problems, and we can be on our way." "No, no", said the Hardware Engineer, "That will take far too long, and besides, that method has never worked before. I've got my Swiss Army knife with me, and in no time at all I can strip down the car's braking system, isolate the fault, fix it, and we can be on our way." "Well", said the Software Engineer, "Before we do anything, I think we should push the car back up the road and see if it happens again." An economist (neoclassical) would have done the same as the software engineer, but rather than redoing it, he/she would have writen a computer programme to simulate the the accident, assuming no friction, and that the driver had perfect foresight about the car failure. He/she then would have found that it was irrational to drive the car given that the brakes were going to fail and the prescribed doing nothing, on the basis that there is no basis for believing that the problem exists. Peter Robertson
[PEN-L:5091] Re: Brits, NZ, and inequality
There is a discussion about growth and inequality by Burns and Oman. If it helps, I built an endogenous growth model with income inequality that shows that the worse the distribution (and its dynamics) the less the growth. The sequence is as follows, more inequality reduces incentives to save (or to accumulate human capital) to the less favoured by the distribution. The amount of savings and human capital that is lost is not compensated by the savings and human capital of the rich ones. Level and rate of growth fall. In fact, I used as an anechdotical reference the cases of US and UK,... Macario
[PEN-L:5093] Re: profit rate equalization
Ajit asks: As a member of that "crowd", do you believe that Marx's 'labor-values' are the satistical average of "real market prices"? where "crowd" here refers to the disparaging term that Ajit uses to describe those who have learned from Farjoun and Machover's LAWS OF CHAOS. My answer: No I don't see either values or prices of production as mere "statistical averages." Rather, I see them as theoretical constructs appropriate to higher levels of abstraction than the world of appearances we live in. NB: I do not think that these "theoretical constructs" are simply ideal categories in a theorist's (or Marx's) mind. Rather, they are theoretical constructs that capture real aspects of the real world that are not revealed simply by looking at statistical averages and the like. Values are appropriate to the abstract world of what I term "the social factory" of capitalism -- but this social factory is a part of the empirical world, i.e., the unified and socialized nature of the capitalist system (and its historical tendency to reveal that unified and socialized nature). Prices of production are appropriate to a less abstract world, where the heterogeneity of different capitals appears and profit-rates are equalizaed. This is an abstraction but reflects the real-world, empirical, tendency toward profit-rate equalization. The fact that there are also real-world, empirical, tendencies toward disequalization does not make prices of production irrelevant. In fact, they are very useful for understanding synchronic relations within capitalism, which contribute to our understanding of the diachronic tendencies. Footnote: Farjoun and Machover do not use the word "Chaos" in the way economists currently do. It is also interesting to note that (last time I heard) both were political activists in the same movement in Israel (MATZPEN, a socialist group) even though one is an Arab and the other a Jew. 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 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:5092] CARIBBEAN SYMPOSIUM ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (fwd)
completed and is availabe in ASCII format. The CSSD was organized by the Consortium Graduate School of Social Sciences and the Institute of Social and Economic Research, UWI in collaboration with the UNICEF Caribbean Area Office and the CARICOM Secretariat. It was held in Barbados 27-29 March 1995 as a follow up to the World Summit on Social Development held 2 weeks earlier in Copenhagen. The Caribbean Symposium on Social Development was attended by over 50 participants including Ministers of Government, senior officials of government ministries and of regional and international organizations, and representatives of NGOs. trade unions, private sector, and the academic community; all in their individual capacities. It was opened with a feature address by PRime Minister Arthur of Barbados. The Symposium addressed five themes arising out of the World Summit on Social Development held in Copenhagen earlier in March, viz. i. the interrelationship between social and economic development ii. the significance of empowerment to social development iii.the generation of productive employment iv. the alleviation and reduction of poverty v. the role of government, the private sector and NGOs in social development The report summarises the issues, conclusions and recommendations arising out of the discussion on these themes. To receive a copy of the Report, send an e-mail message to Kirk Meighoo Consortium Graduate School [EMAIL PROTECTED] We ask that in reproduction of this report, acknowledgement be given to the author and the Consortium Graduate School of Social Sciences, Mona, Jamaica.
[PEN-L:5094] Taking and Giving
This morning's NYTimes carries a couple of articles on the "Property Rights Bill" before Congress, which is designed to require taxpayers to compensate property owners for any reduction in the "fair market value" of their property (of 10% or more) resulting from any government regulation. The point is of course to gut environmental legislation, in particular, by extending the Constitutional protection of property owners against a governmental taking of entire properties (for which private owners have always had to be fully compensated) to the "taking" of just a portion of the market value of such properties (as a consequence of some legislation that restricts its use and thereby reduces its value). My question is this: Has anybody ever suggested that private property owners ought to fully compensate taxpayers for governmental actions which have the effect of *increasing* the value of their property? I know that Newt et al. are not known for the logical consistency of their reasoning; but one might expect that at least a few of their like-minded friends in academia would have wrestled with this question. Waiting to be better informed, Tom W Thomas E. WeisskopfE-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Economics Office\ (313)-763-3037 University of Michigan Phones/ (313)-764-2355 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1220 Fax:(313)-764-2769
[PEN-L:5095] Re: Brits, NZ, and inequality
On Mon, 15 May 1995 08:20:53 -0700 M Schettino said: There is a discussion about growth and inequality by Burns and Oman. If it helps, I built an endogenous growth model with income inequality that shows that the worse the distribution (and its dynamics) the less the growth Sounds like an interesting model. I want to toot my own horn a little here: in my recent article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, I built a very simple Harrod-Domar-style model that suggests that with increasing inequality (as measured by an increasing full- capacity-utilization rate of profit), it is possible to have a growing economy but the economy's growth becomes increasingly unstable. In fact, I used as an anechdotical reference the cases of US and UK,... My anectdotal reference was to the US experience in the late 1920s. 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 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:5096] Re: Taking and Giving
Thanks, Tom. I needed an additional component for my satirical
"Contract with Amurrica." Currently, I have three
constitutional amendments:
(1) (The Weisskopf Amendment) Every property owner
must be compensated for any loss of property value
that results from government activity of any kind
and must compensate the government for any gain of
property value that results from government activity
of any kind. A large government bureaucracy must be
created to enforce this law.
(2) Any property owner must be compensated for any
loss of property value that results from activity by
any other property owner. A large federal bureau-
cracy will be created to enforce this law, though
most settlements can be made on "The People's
Court."
(3) Not only must the government be forced by law to
balance its budget, effective immediately, but all
individuals, households, families, corporations,
partnerships, proprietorships, and non-profit
organizations shall be forced to balance their
budgets. In other word, no one will be allowed
to borrow money unless it is balanced by an
equal amount of lending. ("Borrowing" here
includes such activities such as a bank taking
deposits.) This law shall be effectively
retroactively and enforced by the "jackbooted"
agents of the FBI and BAFT.
If we can get this "Contract" through, the revolution will be here!
:-)
By the way, if I understand correctly, often businesses
do pay higher property taxes if government activities
lead to higher property values.
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
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:5097] Re: Brits NZ too
On Sun, 14 May 1995, Bruce Cronin wrote: A fascinating side of the neo-'liberal' crusade for 'freedom' in the NZ economy has been their systematic campaign to stamp out criticism of their programme. Alternative centres of policy advice and critique in govt and the universities have had their funds cut. Academics who stand up and try to say the emperor has no clothes on are threatened by their seniors and ridiculed by the press. I've heard this includes eliminating the Industrial Relations Centre at Victoria University, because, afterall, once you've achieved perfection in labour law reform, what more is there to know. Less tongue in cheek, an important part of the ECA was eliminating information keeping related to employment contracts and terms and conditions of employment. They argued it was a service taht could be provided by the private sector, and some there have taken it up. Could it be also that they jsut didn't want to know. Now all debate gets to take place based on incomplete information or anecdotes. Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696-
[PEN-L:5098] Re: Taking and Giving
Jim writes: By the way, if I understand correctly, often businesses do pay higher property taxes if government activities lead to higher property values. Yeah, but by the same token, property taxes (eventually) go down, if only by lawsuit or inflation-driven attrition, if property values take a hit, no? Why isn't that enough for the Newtsters? Gil
[PEN-L:5099] Inequality--ref for Devine Schettino
Devine and Schettino might want to look at: T. Persson and G. Tabellini, 'Is Inequality Harmful for Growth?' _American Economic Review_ vol. 84/3 (June 1994), 600-621 and World Bank, _World Development Report 1991_, especially page 137. Cheers, Peter Burns SJ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5101] Re: Americas Cup and Maiori Protest
May I also humbly apologise for consistently spelling "Maori" wrong in my last post. There are no excuses (for a Kiwi). Most of the time I have difficulty spelling my own name. sincere aplogies, Petre Rebertsen
[PEN-L:5102] Re: Taking and Giving
Henry George came close to this, starting a school of economics still hanging on today. Maybe those folks can spearhead this drive. Gene Coyle From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 15 10:51:31 1995 Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Tom Weisskopf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5094] Taking and Giving X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Progressive Economics List This morning's NYTimes carries a couple of articles on the "Property Rights Bill" before Congress, which is designed to require taxpayers to compensate property owners for any reduction in the "fair market value" of their property (of 10% or more) resulting from any government regulation. The point is of course to gut environmental legislation, in particular, by extending the Constitutional protection of property owners against a governmental taking of entire properties (for which private owners have always had to be fully compensated) to the "taking" of just a portion of the market value of such properties (as a consequence of some legislation that restricts its use and thereby reduces its value). My question is this: Has anybody ever suggested that private property owners ought to fully compensate taxpayers for governmental actions which have the effect of *increasing* the value of their property? I know that Newt et al. are not known for the logical consistency of their reasoning; but one might expect that at least a few of their like-minded friends in academia would have wrestled with this question. Waiting to be better informed, Tom W Thomas E. WeisskopfE-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Economics Office\ (313)-763-3037 University of Michigan Phones/ (313)-764-2355 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1220 Fax:(313)-764-2769
[PEN-L:5103] Re: Taking and Giving
Also, property taxes are on the assessed value, which is generally well below the market value, and of course do not tax the whole of any added value due to govt regulation or anything else. --Justin Schwartz On Mon, 15 May 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim writes: By the way, if I understand correctly, often businesses do pay higher property taxes if government activities lead to higher property values. Yeah, but by the same token, property taxes (eventually) go down, if only by lawsuit or inflation-driven attrition, if property values take a hit, no? Why isn't that enough for the Newtsters? Gil
[PEN-L:5100] Re: profit-rate equalization
A note of clarification: On 14 May 1995 (Pen-L:5081) 16:58:54.85, Paul Cockshott reported some statisitcal results and, interpreting them, referred to "the New Soln [New Solution] of the transformation problem is that advocated by Kliman ..." I, Kliman, am NOT an advocate of what is *generally* called the "new solution" to the "transformation problem," i.e. the interpretation of Dumenil, Lipietz, Foley, etc. I have been arguing for several years (in print, since 1988 _Capital Class 35, "The transformation non-problem and the transformation non-transformation problem," [with Ted McGlone]) that Marx's OWN account of the transformation is indeed logically consistent and appropriate to his purpose. The so-called "new solution" diverges from Marx in important respects. In particular, the rate of profit is not Marx's s/(c+v). I also believe it is misleading to view my work as advocating ANY sort of "solution" to the "transformation problem." Since I think there is no "problem" with Marx's own account, there is nothing to be "solved" by us moderns here. Andrew Kliman
[PEN-L:5104] Krause
Is Ulrike Krause's volume Money and Abstract Laobor worth the time, efford, and $6.75 a used copy I saw today would cost me? Justin Schwartz
[PEN-L:5106] Re: Taking and Giving -Reply
How about this for a country cousin to Tom W.'s suggestion for socializing the gains, not just the losses, caused by intervention of - not the state in this case - the collective will. The limited equity housing cooperative movement (also variously known and tied to community land trusts, mutual housing associations and the like, sometimes under the rubric `social housing') assumes that through collective activity the value of a housing project is more than the sum of the individual parts. Members get access to the collective surplus while living there. But if a member wants to cash out and move on, they lose the increase in the equity that can be attributed to the collective and take away only their own financial contributions (plus some i-related return). (Hence `limited equity.') In one of my favorite examples of this, near trendy Adams Morgan in Washington, DC, the collective surplus is enormous, since the limited equity co-ops in the area (several large buildings, many hundred units) have been the primary bulwark against gentrification. The excellent organizing/technical agency operating there - Washington Inner-City Self Help (WISH) - has done great work to concientize members of the coop about the degree to which their apparent windfall gain in property values over the years is actually a function of collective resistance to developer and landlord atomization (they'd otherwise have been out on the street). The political goal of _permanent affordability_ of the housing stock for low-income folk is sacrosanct. But there are other political payoffs. After redlining these comrades for several years, banks have succumbed to WISH's and its allies' (including United Mine Workers) pressure, so residents now get access to (market-rate) financing. With DC's crash though, I guess they can kiss the subsidized part of their financing goodbye. Now Doug, don't jump down my throat for promoting wishy-washy community development... there really is something here that _potentially_ represents new social relations of production. More on this if there is interest - or do we just wait 'til August URPE meetings in CN to duke it out?...
[PEN-L:5107] Re: Taking and Giving -Reply
Sorry, that last line in the preceeding advert should have read `social relations of consumption' not production. Though usually the sweat equity component of the rehab work is also socialized (and is gender and generationally sensitive too)...
