[PEN-L:5528] forwarded mail from gunder frank
-- From: "A. Gunder Frank" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue, 13 Jun 1995 16:00:57 -0400 (EDT) To: Harriet Friedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Martha Gimenez [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Lebowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: post to pen-l,psn, etc? Forwarded mail -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:09:03 -0500 (EST) From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michel Chossudovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Original message KINDLY POST THE FOLLOWING TEXT ON THE INTERNET FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Ottawa, 13 June 1995 THE FOLLOWING TEXT WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE SESSIONS OF THE HALIFAX INITIATIVE (CANADIAN MDB CAMPAIGN) HELD IN PARALLEL WITH THE G7 SUMMIT IN HALIFAX THE G7 POLICY AGENDA CREATES GLOBAL POVERTY by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa The first part of this text contains an overview of the global economic crisis focussing on issues of debt and macro- economic reform. The second part consists of a critical review and assessment of the Halifax G7 Summit Communiqu!. Sessions at the Nova Scotia Community College, Halifax, Nova Scotia June 13-15, 1995 THE GLOBALIZATION OF POVERTY At the dawn of the 21st century, the global economy is at a dangerous cross-roads. In the developing World, the process of economic restructuring has led to famine and the brutal impoverishment of large sectors of the population while contributing to the "thirdworldisation" of the countries of the former Eastern block. Since the early 1980s, the "macro-economic stabilisation" and "structural adjustment" programmes imposed by the IMF and the World Bank on developing countries (as a condition for the renegotiation of their external debt) have led to the impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people. Contrary to the spirit of the Bretton Woods agreement which was predicated on "economic reconstruction" and stability of major exchange rates, the structural adjustment programme has largely contributed to destabilising national currencies and ruining the economies of developing countries. Global Debt In the developing World, the burden of the external debt has reached 1.9 trillion dollars: entire countries have been destabilised as a consequence of the collapse of national currencies often resulting in the outbreak of social strife, ethnic conflicts and civil war... The restructuring of the World economy under the guidance of the Washington based international financial institutions increasingly denies individual developing countries the possibility of building a national economy: the internationalisation of macro-economic policy transforms countries into open economic territories and national economies into "reserves" of cheap labour and natural resources. The restructuring of individual national weakens the State, industry for the internal market is undermined, national enterprises are pushed into bankruptcy. Moreover, these reforms --when applied simultaneously in more than one hundred countries-- are conducive to a "globalization of poverty", a process which undermines human livelihood and destroys civil society in the South, the East and the North. Internal purchasing power has collapsed, famines have erupted, health clinics and schools have been closed down, hundreds of millions of children have been denied the right to primary education. In all major regions of the developing World, the economic reforms have been conducive to a resurgence of infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria and cholera. Structural Adjustment in the Developed Countries Since the early 1990s, the macro-economic reforms adopted in the OECD countries contain many of the essential ingredients of the "structural adjustment programme" applied in the Third World and Eastern Europe. These macro-economic reforms have been conducive to the accumulation of large public debts. Since the early 1980s, the private debts of large corporations and commercial banks have been conveniently erased and transformed into public debt. This process of "debt conversion" is a central feature of the crisis: business and bank losses have systematically been transferred to the State. During the merger boom of the late 1980s, the burden of corporate losses was shifted to the State through the acquisition of bankrupt enterprises. The latter could then be closed down and written off as tax losses. In turn, the "non-performing loans" of the large commercial banks were routinely written off and transformed into pre-tax losses. The "rescue packages" for troubled corporations and commercial banks are largely based on the same principle of shifting the burden of corporate debts onto the State Treasury.
[PEN-L:5530] RE: Clinton's balanced budget
From raypg Thu Jun 15 09:35:03 1995 Return-Path: raypg Received: by suntew.ua.ac.be (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08382; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 09:35:03 + Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: *Cinetic Mail Manager V2.1 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 09:48:25 wdt From: raypg@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (glenn rayp) content-length: 1393 I am very curious to see if *ANYONE* can offer me a reason why we need to balance the budget given the cost associated with balancing it? I have not yet seen a single argument for balancing the budget that was not easily refuted! If there are any conservative lurkers out there on this mailing list, please explain to me and the others why it is that balancing the US Federal Government's budget is so god aweful important. If I am correct that there are no really good reasons for balancing the budget, why cant we get this message across to the masses? If we understand this so well and we are educators, why are we so utterly unsuccessful in educating the general populus about this basic understanding? Please enlighten me. Loren Rice The University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma [EMAIL PROTECTED] Without being conservative and lurker, a good reason for reducing the US federal budget deficit would be the balance of payments deficit ( the second of the so called twin deficits), but which seems indeed totally absent in the debate. This is comprehensible though. As the U.S. can finance almost any BOP deficit it likes, it is mainly a problem for the rest of the world. As a matter of fact, by reducing the budget deficit, you're solving at your expenses Europe's, if not Japan's problems. Glenn Rayp University of Antwerp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Glenn Rayp University of Antwerp ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[PEN-L:5532] Re: Gil's aside re Republican class warfare!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As an aside on Mike's post, I'd like to comment on two code phrases in Bob Dole's "Republican response" to Clinton's proposal. They're interesting because one hears them a lot from right-wingers these days, and in taken in tandem they contradict each other in substance. # 1 omitted 2) "Return education to state and local control" As in, we statespersonlike Republicans want to get the Federal government off your backs and out of your wallet, so that you can have your children educated as you see fit. Translation: yeah, we know the US spends the smallest percentage of GDP (or close to that) among the developed countries on public education, the largest percentage on private education, and maintains the largest disparities in per-pupil spending. And that's fine with us (notice the absence of education provisions in the Contract on America, e.g.), so let's take steps to perpetuate these trends. In trying to figure out why class conscious "leaders" who represent (however haltingly) the interest of the ruling class would be willing to shrink the available pool of educated citizens in their own country, I've come to the conclusion that Robert Reich's hint at the "secession of the successful" in _The Work of Nations_ is really on the money. The ruling class is now (or becoming) state-less. EVerywhere in the world, the power of the state is aimed at preserving the rights of capital. CApital now has the ENTIRE WORLD from which to pick their labor force needs. It is NOT IMPORTANT anymore for a particular _country_ to be the home for the most important capital accumulation activities of any particular business --- they can more to where the (appropriately skilled) labor is. Perhaps even more important --- the highly skilled, creative, labor (what Reich calls the "symbolic analysts") can come from any part of the world. They don't have to be "home grown." In this context, a widely successful system of public education is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. --- the inequality in the US system may actually be a harbinger of the future. [sort of like Marx warning the Germans in Vol. I of Capital that the story he tells about Britain as the archetype capitalist social formation shows the future for the rest of the world!!] Reich's lame efforts to suggest that some kind of altruistic nationalism should conquer the "secession of the successful" suggests precious few reasons why any class conscious politician would resisit the transformations underway as exemplified by the promises (AND OMISSIONS -- good point, Gil!) in the Contract with America. As always -- we have to figure out a way to fight back. I agree with Loren, we ought to be kicking, yelling and screaming. And there ought to be a DEMOCRATIC _PARTY challenge to Clinton's reelection. I wouldn't have said this before his speech because I thought he might fight the Republican onslaught --- but he just joined them. I could have puked when I saw Laura Tyson THREE TIMES say, "WE _have_ to balance the budget!!" And of course leave it to MacNeil-Lehrere not to have ANYONE one who has a different point of view. We ought to call them and demand they have a Bob Eisner or even one of us on!!! More gnashing of teeth! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:5533] Re: Ajit's comment to Gil
DOLE SAID: 1) "Politics of class war" As in, Clinton's intention to avoid [further] tax cuts for the rich to go with tax cuts for the middle class promotes the politics of class warfare, which we statespersonlike Republicans wish to avoid... GIL TRANSLATED: Translation: yeah, we know that the very richest got obscenely richer, and the poor poorer, during the Reagan-Bush era (in significant part due to Reagan's tax "reforms"), and that the US has the most unequal income and wealth distributions of all developed countries. But that's fine with us, so let's not talk about it anymore. _ AJIT OFFERS OTHER TRANSLATION!__ No Gil! I think he means "that's why we call it America", and he wants you to be proud of it. America is for the people who want to "make it" so why tax them when they make it. Tax the poor who betrayed the "American dream". There is no class war fare, life is a race in which some win and some lose. And the loser should be appropriately punished. Having taught about poverty and income redistribution for over 24 years in a college where the students are for the most part children of working class people with "climbing" aspirations (it's a private college), I can't stress enough how pervasive is the view that "you can make it if you try" and anyone who's poor is probably too lazy or too dumb to have "made it." There is a PERVERSE class consciousness that would have done any Victorian proud --- success proves worthiness!! They may grudgingly support giving money to poor people who REALLY need it (and are "trying") but for the most part they have REALLY bought the 'blaming the victim' arguments. Part of the skewed nature of my sample is that my school is virtually lilly-white. AFrican American students are much more sensitive to the possibility that some people have the cards stacked against them. But the average student that I've taught has bought the "anyone can make it" ideology lock, stock 'n' barrel! I can't believe it's that bad at state supported institutions where there's more solidly working-class students. At least I hope not! Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:5534] RE: Clinton's balanced budget
The problem with federal budget policy in the U.S. is that the policy has very little to do with the economics of government budgets. A simple example illustrates this: In the Carter years federal deficits were a hot political topic. We needed to reduce "the deficit" (laughably small by today's standards), however, these federal deficits (16.1 billion) were more than offset by state and local surpluses (26.7 billion)! So the governmental sector was actually 10.6 billion in surplus. This illustrates that the problem continues to be one of perception. Both the public and politicians treat the federal budget as if it were an individual's checking account. Thus a deficit is the equivalent of an overdrawn checking account indicating poor management and possibly fraud. It is this moral response to this inappropriate analogy that drives the political debate and public response (which incidentally is encouraged by many politicians). Consequently economic argument it largely irrelevent on this issue. Bill Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5535] Financial power
About 30 years ago as today, financial power was much more concentrated in the few dominant financial institutions than in the top corporations, especially taking interlocking directorates into account. I've been amazed at the relative fall of US banks in international financial circles since the 70s--Monthly Review ( David Kotz I think) keep some track of this. Marianne Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5536] Re: With friends like this!!
Bill, you are completely right. The rusty cold warriors in the Pentagon have been lobbying hard for loopholes in any test ban treaty negotiated to exclude "low-yield" tests which are difficult to verify and laboratory testing with computer simulations. Even as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty negotiations have been going on, the US is still budgeting for the billion-dollar National Ignition Facility, a huge laser project at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory which will allow for the design of new classes of warheads. (Expanding US nuclear capabilities is sold to Congress as "stockpile stewardship"... who can vote against being a good steward of our nuclear stockpile?) For the US to condemn the French for wanting to conduct eight tests over the next year would be the pot calling the kettle black. The Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior (II) was in Auckland this week for a commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the bombing of the original vessel by French secret agents. Like its namesake was ten years ago, the ship has been dispatched to Moruroa to protest the testing. The International Peace Bureau has called for a boycott of French goods and services. If anyone would like press releases or more information, just email me. Gina Neff Economists Allied for Arms Reduction [EMAIL PROTECTED] 212-768-2080
[PEN-L:5537] Re: the rise of the central banks
At 3:17 PM 6/14/95, James Devine wrote: Is it correct to date the transition to banker power the fall of the Bretton Woods fixed-exchange rate system? I would guess that the rise of the US budget deficit (which also gives the central banks and money-lenders more power) was a later intensification of what has been happening since the early 1970s. (You also get a different story if you look at the underdeveloped nations: there, the early 1980s debt crisis is the turning point.) Bill Wolman, the chief economist of both Business Weak and CNBC, says frequently on the latter that we live in a world of weak governments and strong central banks. I think he's right (even though he was the guy responsible for BW's infamous "Death of Equities" cover around 1979, just before the great bull market of Aug 1982-? took off). We even have central bankers taking over governments, as in Italy. I think it took a while for the CBers to get their act together, however. The period from the beginning of the end of Bretton Woods to the ascendancy of Volcker was a time of great monetary instability. But starting with Volcker in late 1979, the CBers finally mastered the art of running a politically managed monetary system on a basis more flexible than gold in a crisis - witness how deftly they've handled the SL crisis, the 1987 stock market crash, the Mexican melodramas of 1982 and 1994, and probably many other near-meltdowns we don't even know about - but in non-crisis times, about as austere as gold. By the way, as Penny Ciancanelli put it, rather nicely I think, the Third World got a Fisher-style deflation, while the First World gets Minsky management. Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:5538] Re: value method
Of course both the scarcity and surplus approach appear. The surplus approach doesn't make any sense in the absence of scarcity. If there was no scarcity who would give a damn about surplus. -- Rod On Wed, 14 Jun 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Devine writes: Both the surplus approach and the scarcity/choice approach play a role in Marx's CAPITAL. (The surplus approach is clearly the main problematic after ch. 3 of vol. I and for the whole of vol. II. On the other hand, the scarcity/choice approach plays a role in the first three chapters of vol. I and vol. III. In vol. III, however, the surplus approach is always there.) After ch. 3 of vol. I, i.e., when he's dealing with capitalism, the surplus approach is dominant in the last instance. _ So I guess you agree with my thesis to a large extent. Now I'm a very happy man :-) Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:5539] RE: Clinton's balanced budget
OOPS, I sent the following only to the Rayp, though I think it's probably of more general interest. Glenn Rayp of the University of Antwerp writes: ... a good reason for reducing the US federal budget deficit would be the balance of payments deficit ... This is comprehensible though. As the U.S. can finance almost any BOP deficit it likes, it is mainly a problem for the rest of the world. As a matter of fact, by reducing the budget deficit, you're solving at your expenses Europe's, if not Japan's problems. I don't understand this last point. If the US has a deficit on the balance of trade and on the current account (not on the B/P which is usually close to balanced under floating exchange rates), then it's creating demand for the goods and services of the rest of the world. That is, the US is giving the world Keynesian stimulus, which seems pretty important in an era with so many recessionary impulses (including what I've called competitive austerity programs). If the US suddenly balanced its trade, it would push the world into depression. The non-US world then in effect lends money to the US and receives interest for this loan. The only complaint I can see is that the US fiscal and current account deficits impose unduly high interest rates on the world. But the non-US lenders gain from these interest rates. Maybe I'm leaving something out? Also, I'm not convinced that the US can finance any deficit it wants. The dollar might lose its status as the main world reserve currency. Finally, the question was about balancing the budget, not reducing the deficit. The latter is a more moderate version of the former. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
[PEN-L:5540] Cuba Embargo (fwd)
From: Carl Cuneo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cuba Embargo X-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-cc: Multiple recipients of list LABOR-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list LABOR-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am forwarding this message from Graeme MacQueen, Director of Peace Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Canada. Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 10:26:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Graeme MacQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Friends: As the rhetoric flies madly in the current U.S. hearings on legislation re the Cuba embargo, Canadian companies doing business with Cuba are being singled out for public attack. Seems to me that, whatever the motives of these companies, they need to hear that the Canadian public supports their right to do business with Cuba and even urges them on. The most maligned company currently is Sherritt Inc. based in Toronto, which is into nickel and oil business with the Cubans. Why not join me in phoning Sherritt and expressing support (you may have to leave your message on an answering machine): Phone: 416-924-4551 and ask for Public Relations. Feel free to copy this message to those who are supportive.
[PEN-L:5541] July 1st Labor On Line Conference in S.F. (fwd)
___ LaborNet Program Coordinator \ Voice: 415/442-0220 x128 Institute for Global Communications \ Fax: 415/546-1794 LaborNet*EcoNet*PeaceNet*\ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WomensNet*ConflictNet*\ Info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 18 De Boom Street \ Gopher: gopher.igc.apc.org San Francisco, CA 94107 USA\ Web:http://www.igc.apc.org/labornet/ ___ LABOR ON LINE A Hands On Educational Conference sponsored by LaborNet@IGC (Institute For Global Communications) San Francisco State University Labor Studies Department LaborVideo Project and the Holt Labor Library Saturday July 1, 1995 New College of California MultiMedia Center 777 Valencia St. (18th and Valencia) San Francisco, California The information and technological revolution is having profound effects for all workers in the world economy. It is time that labor get in gear to use this information revolution to build the trade unions and labor movement in general. Participants from Russia, Korea and other countries are planning to attend the conference. Presenters will be from locals, international unions and activists in the labor movement. The Following Workshops Will Be Offered: *Organizing Strategies on the Internet: How To Make the Most of the Technology *World Wide Web Pages: How to Make Them, How to Use Them *NAFTA, GATT, EU International Labor Networking *CD Roms Labor Education and History *Email and Labor Computer Conferences: How To Use Them *New Technology For Disabled Workers *Using The Internet For Research Cost of the conference will be $45.00 $25.00 For Students Seniors Make checks payable to Labor On Line Conf/Labor Video Project (LVP). Housing will also be available on the campus of SFSU. Reservations will be required by June 10, 1995. Space is limited so get your reservations in early! For Further Information: LABORNET COMPUTER CONFERENCE c/o LaborNet@IGC 18 DeBoom St. San Francisco, CA 94107 USA (415)442-0220 x128 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On-line registration Name:__ Organization:__ Address:__ City, State, Zip: Telephone: Major Areas of Interest: Referred By:__ * PLEASE SEND A CHECK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT TO LABORNET@IGC
[PEN-L:5542] Washington D.C. Conference (fwd)
Please distribute freely: 3rd Conference on Occupational Stress and Health: Announcement, Part A. WORK, STRESS, AND HEALTH '95: CREATING HEALTHIER WORKPLACES. The Third Interdisciplinary Conference on Occupational Stress and Health. Thursday - Saturday, September 14-16, 1995 Continuing Education Workshops: Wednesday, September 13, 1995 Hyatt Regency Washington Hotel, Washington, D.C. Presented by: American Psychological Association (APA) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) CONFERENCE TOPICS: The conference will include paper sessions, symposia, poster sessions, plenary addresses, and 10 continuing education (CE) workshops (APA CE credits are available), featuring the following topics: -Stress, health and the changing nature of work and organizations; -Social and environmental equity in the workplace; -Workplace violence; and -Health effects, policy, prevention, and intervention. CONFERENCE GOALS: - to identify model programs and applications to assist individuals and agencies in the prevention of occupational stress and the promotion of healthier workplaces; - to focus attention on the effects of occupational stress on productivity, worker health and mental health, and national costs; - to address policy issues; - to discuss emerging issues and research developments in occupational stress; - to bring together current research and theory on occupational stress and health and to identify important gaps in extant research, theory and practice; and - to provide a forum for interaction and problem solving with occupational stress and health specialists in industry, government, labor, academia and other key fields. WHO SHOULD ATTEND: The conference program is designed to benefit both practitioners and scientists, including managers, labor representatives, employee assistance personnel, employee benefits specialists, insurance claims personnel, human resource personnel, mental health professionals, health care workers, occupational safety and health specialists, educators, researchers, and trainers. ANNOUNCEMENT, TABLE OF CONTENTS: PART A: (Follows immediately.) - Preliminary Conference Agenda - Co-sponsors - Collaborators - Chairpersons - Coordinator - Planning Committee PART B: (In a separate file.) - Pre-conference Workshop Information and Enrollment Form - Conference Registration Form - Travel Information - Hotel Information and Reservation Form [PART A of the conference announcement follows.] PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AGENDA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1995: Pre-conference Workshops Morning Workshops: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon - Measuring Stress in Organizations; introductory workshop. - Psychology of Occupational Health and Safety; introductory workshop. - Roles and Models of Conflict Resolution in Creating Healthier Workplaces; introductory workshop. - Redesigning Workplaces: The Stressors of "New" Methods and How to Avoid Them; introductory workshop. Afternoon Workshops: 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. - Developing Self-Reliance for Stressful Workplaces; intermediate workshop. - Fundamentals of Job Stress; introductory workshop. - Medical/Legal Problems of Job Stress: Disability Issues and Determinations; intermediate/advanced workshop. - Evaluation and Treatment of Disability: Individual and Organizational Levels; intermediate workshop. Full Day Workshops: 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. - Preventing and Mitigating Workplace Violence: Practical Approaches, Model Programs; intermediate workshop. - Career Transition Services Workshop for Organizations Undergoing Reductions-in-Force; intermediate workshop. - Towards an International Psychosocial Job Stress Database: A Networking Session for Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) Users. (Special session - not for continuing education credit.) WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1995: Early Evening - Conference Opening Reception, to be held at The Embassy of Canada. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995: Opening Ceremonies Plenary Addresses: - Linda Rosenstock, M.D., M.P.H., Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. - Joseph A. Dear, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of
[PEN-L:5544] Re: query women in prison
can anyone send me a reference for the percentage of prisoners which are female in the 20th century? I would prefer something for Massachusetts or Boston, but US wide or any north eastern city will do. I am finding that circa 1830-40, the prison population in Boston was 37-45% female in any given year. I believe this is much higher than in the 20th century, but need some figures and their source. Thanks. Please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] maggie coleman
[PEN-L:5546] Re: language
Doug writes:
I'm still
wondering, though - what is gained by Stiglitz's use of mathematical
reasoning. Does it express something that can't be expressed in words? Does
it deepen the mystery surrounding the priesthood? Does it aim to persuade
an audience that would find mere word non-rigorous? Does it lend an aura of
precision to something that is by its very nature fundamentally imprecise?
Maybe I'm overestimating the rigor of real math, but my impression is that
a mathematical proof is pretty damn persuasive to the cohort of
mathematicians, whereas stuff in econ remains controversial despite the
appearance of mathematical proof.
I've been thinking about these and related questions too, partly as a
result of being asked to write the entry on "Mathematical
formulations of Marxian Economics" for an upcoming encyclopedia of
classical political economy. Following are some not-necessarily-
coherent comments emerging from this thought process.
I should mention that I'm more of a verbal type by aptitude and
background. It wasn't until 4 years into graduate school that I
began to think that mathematical argument had an important role to
play in studying political economic issues. Some of the blanks about
the nature of mathematical argument have been filled in by reading
George Spencer-Brown's LAWS OF FORM and Morris Kline's MATHEMATICS:
THE LOSS OF CERTAINTY. Both are amazing books which I recommend,
even though I don't fully understand them.
1) Does mathematics express something which can't be expressed in
words? Strictly speaking, no, since all of the primitives of a
mathematical system must necessarily be defined in words. In fact,
Spencer-Brown remarks, "One of the most beautiful facts emerging from
mathematical studies is this very potent relationship between the
mathematical process and ordinary language. There seems to be no
mathematical idea of any importance or profundity that is not
mirrored, with an almost uncanny accuracy, in the common use of
words, and this appears especially true when we consider words in
their original, and sometimes long forgotten, senses."
One could imagine, then, undertaking an essentially mathematical
argument in which none of the words have been replaced by symbols.
Two comments on such an exercise: first, it would be incredibly
tedious. The simplest equation system would become a royal chore
just to specify, and such things as the conditions for existence of a
(unique) solution to the system, or the actual derivation of a
solution (think of applying Cramer's rule in literary terms, e.g.)
would become a living nightmare. To put it the other way around, you
could think of mathematical symbols as a certain special type of
words. But this leads to the second comment: mathematical argument
involves a particular, highly restrictive use of concepts, in which
"that which is not allowed is forbidden", to quote again from Spencer-
Brown. That is, none of the ambiguity which makes literary prose
potentially so rich and multilayered (take FINNEGANS WAKE as an
extreme example) is allowed. Why not? This leads to the 2nd point.
2) Mathematical argument, understood in the sense of the latter
comment, permits certain types of conclusions which are beyond the
scope of prose argument, having to do with the necessary content, and
the necessary limits, of one's understanding. Thus, impossibility
theorems ("can't have both A and B"), characterization ("A if and only
if B") results and the like are the special province of mathematical
argument.
A related point: the process of mathematical argument, since it
requires the arguer to specify what s/he is talking about before s/he
talks about it, forces one to be conscious of lurking preconceptions
and ambiguities. Spencer-Brown again: "The discipline of mathematics
is seen to be a way, powerful in comparison with others, of revealing
our internal knowledge of the structure of the world, and only by the
way associated with our common ability to reason and compute."
A corollary: mathematics is necessarily different from, but a
companion of, dialectical argument. Broadly speaking, math is a
method of specifying the contents of a given entity. Elucidation of
these contents, however that process is understood, gives way
to the dialectic.
My favorite analogy here is jazz, since that has clearly been subject
to dialectical change in its history. Once a jazz musician discovers
new ground, s/he and others work to elucidate the content implicit in
it. A striking illustration of this comes from Ornette Coleman, one
of the originators of "Free jazz", a seemingly lawless permutation of
modern jazz: "I knew I was onto something when I found that I could
make mistakes." Alternatively, a jazz musician may, in discovering
the limits of a particular structure, go beyond those limits.
Thus Charlie Parker discovering bebop in that chili house in New
York, by taking the
[PEN-L:5547] Re: the rise of the central banks
ONE addition to Doug's restatement of Penny's comment: By the way, as Penny Ciancanelli put it, rather nicely I think, the Third World got a Fisher-style deflation, while the First World gets Minsky management. Doug And, the first world also gets a Steindl/Baran/Sweezy stagnation trend to go with its Minsky management! Mike -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:5548] Re: language
G. Skillman's little 'article' on mathematics in economics was about the clearest bit of writing I've seen here, or in the Marxism List yet (being a newcomer could have something to so with that). That others could be so focused... I especially enjoyed the example of Jazz used to give an 'organic' example of dialectical development. Now we at least have a _theoretical_ basis for understanding Ornette Coleman's caucaphony (no, really, I listen to him all the time!)...! __ Jim Jaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW Homepage: http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html __
[PEN-L:5549] Re: language math
In the midst of his very interesting and useful thoughts on math, Gil writes that "even if one doesn't agree with the premises of Okishio's theorem, who would have known that Marx's claim was inconsistent with those premises before Okishio's proof?" I think this example shows up some of the limitations of mathematics as often applied to economics, though they do not apply to math _per se_. The fact is that Okishio's premise (constant real wages) is _not_ the same as Marx's (constant rate of surplus-value), so that Okishio's theorem is not really a critique of Marx. Pen-l will be glad to hear that I am not criticizing Gil here, since I think he is familiar with the problems arising from the conflation of the two assumptions (with Marx's, real wages rise with productivity). What I'm commenting on is the fact that many or even most of the writings since Okishio ignored this confusion and even ignored John Roemer's generalization of Okishio to a case that approximates the constant rate of surplus-value assumption. The authors wanted to talk about, apply, and extend Okishio's math and how it "proved" Marx wrong. I hope that authors such as Dave Laibman (and Gil himself Frank Thompson) have gotten us away from the constant-real-wage assumption. The moral of the story is that one has to remember that math is a _means to an end_ (it's formalized logic) and should not become an end in itself, replacing scholarly discussion of the subject matter (such as actual reading of Marx) or other methods (such as dialectics). in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [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:5551] Re: language math
Jim writes: In the midst of his very interesting and useful thoughts on math, Gil writes that "even if one doesn't agree with the premises of Okishio's theorem, who would have known that Marx's claim was inconsistent with those premises before Okishio's proof?" I think this example shows up some of the limitations of mathematics as often applied to economics, though they do not apply to math _per se_. The fact is that Okishio's premise (constant real wages) is _not_ the same as Marx's (constant rate of surplus-value), so that Okishio's theorem is not really a critique of Marx. Pen-l will be glad to hear that I am not criticizing Gil here, since I think he is familiar with the problems arising from the conflation of the two assumptions (with Marx's, real wages rise with productivity). What I'm commenting on is the fact that many or even most of the writings since Okishio ignored this confusion and even ignored John Roemer's generalization of Okishio to a case that approximates the constant rate of surplus-value assumption. The authors wanted to talk about, apply, and extend Okishio's math and how it "proved" Marx wrong. I hope that authors such as Dave Laibman (and Gil himself Frank Thompson) have gotten us away from the constant-real-wage assumption. The moral of the story is that one has to remember that math is a _means to an end_ (it's formalized logic) and should not become an end in itself, replacing scholarly discussion of the subject matter (such as actual reading of Marx) or other methods (such as dialectics). Right on! One minor comment: Marx phrased his argument under the assumption that the rate of surplus value is held constant, but I don't read him positing this as the economically relevant condition--rather it's a simplifying assumption stipulated as a point of departure. The economically relevant condition on wages would have to be supplied by a separate story about the impact of technical changes on labor market outcomes. Roemer's argument is that there is (to him) an economically plausible story which supports the Okishio assumption, and he doesn't know of one which supports the constant-rate-of- surplus-condition. In a recent paper to which Jim refers (still in submission limbo), I establish market conditions --something like a stationary-state competitive equilibrium in a dynamic market--which support this assumption. But the point still holds: if one replaces Marx's simplifying assumption with a demonstrably market-relevant condition (long-run wages constant at the subsistence level), there is no "tendency" for the rate of profit to fall--and this is a useful result. Gil
[PEN-L:5552] urgent action (fwd)
EL SALVADOR *** URGENT ACTION *** EL SALVADOR *** URGENT June 14, 1995 MAQUILADORAS WORKERS UNDER ATTACK IN EL SALVADOR Dear Friends, The National Labor Committee in New York reports that women maquiladora workers are under attack in El Salvador at a plant producing for J.C. Penney, the GAP, Eddie Bauer and Dayton-Hudson. At Mandarin International, a Taiwanese-owned plant in El Salvador, 850 maquiladora workers, mostly women, are under attack. Goods are being assembled there for export to the U.S. under contract with major U.S. companies. On Monday, May 15, at 9:30 A.M., the union called a work stoppage to protest the mass of illegal firings. As the union leaders stood up to announce the work stoppage, company goons moved in and attacked the union leaders. At one point seven company guards were punching and kicking Dolores Ochoa. They broke her leg. Marta Rivas and Esmeralda Hernandez were also beaten. Elisio Castro Perez, General Secretary of the SETMI union, was beaten and detained for several hours by company security guards. Mandarin is located in the San Marcos Free Trade Zone owned by former Salvadoran Army Colonel Mario Guerrero who recently explained to foreign visitors that during the Bush Administration, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) provided the money to build his zone. In late January 1995, the women at Mandarin organized a union, the first one ever established in a free trade zone in El Salvador. The Salvadoran government and the Maquiladora Association pointed to Mandarin as living proof that workers' rights and unions are respected in El Salvador. Reality proved otherwise. Mandarin International immediately lashed out at the new union, first locking out the workers and then illegally firing over 150 union members. It hired two dozen ex-military, plain-clothed, armed "security guards". The women workers were told their union will have to disappear one way or another or "blood will flow." Groups of five workers at a time are now being brought before their supervisors and told to renounce the union or be fired. Union leaders are followed around the plant by company security guards. At work, the women are forbidden to speak to one another. Colonel Guerrero himself has told workers at the San Marcos zone, "I have no problem, but perhaps you do; ...either the union will behave, leave, or people may die." These women want their union and are struggling to keep it alive, but they are afraid. Along with the threats, the company is now systematically firing--a few each week--every union member and sympathizer. They cannot hold out much longer and are appealing for solidarity. The Salvadoran Ministry of Labor which could be fining Mandarin $5,700 a day for violating the Labor Code, has done nothing to reinstate the fired workers or demilitarize the plant. Mandarin produces clothing for J.C. Penney, GAP, Eddie Bauer and Dayton-Hudson. These companies have codes of conduct, which are supposed to govern their offshore operations, but the workers at Mandarin had never heard of or seen any of these codes. No codes of conduct are posted in the San Marcos free trade zone. As of Monday, May 15, Mandarin had fired around 100 union members. Every day more unionists were being systematically dismissed. Mandarin was picking up the pace in its campaign to wipe out the shrinking union. Mandarin responded by locking out all 850 employees, and firing 50 more union members, including the union's entire leadership. Another commission was formed and another agreement was reached with the company. At 8 P.M. Monday evening, Mandarin committed itself to reopen the plant the next morning and to reinstate all of the fired workers. This agreement turned out to be worthless. When the fired workers showed up on Tuesday morning, May 16, the armed guards refused to let them enter the plant. When the union protested, the guards again roughed up the women. At this moment, the union workers and their supporters--a majority of workers--have stopped working and have left the plant to stand in solidarity with their fired sisters and brothers. The workers are desperate and they are asking for our solidarity. BACKGROUND: Conditions at Mandarin/Why the Workers Are Struggling for a Union: For an eight-hours day at Mandarin, an employee earns $4.51, or 56 cents an hour- $24.79 for the regular 44-hour work week. However, overtime at Mandarin is obligatory, and if you do not stay for extra shifts whenever they demand it, even if it is at the last minute, you are fired the next day. A typical week includes at least eight hours of obligatory overtime. Conveniently for itself, Mandarin pays the workers in cash in envelopes which do not list regular hours worked or overtime hours, or at what premium it was paid. This makes it almost impossible for the young
[PEN-L:5553] Re: language
Addendum to my earlier post on this topic, a thought experiment. 1) Think of a non-definitional and radically critical claim about capitalism you believe to be necessarily true. 2) How would you establish this claim *is* in fact a necessary consequence of capitalism, rather than (say), an accidental but unfortunately persistent outcome of capitalisms to date? 3) If you can't establish the necessity of this consequence, what is your principled response to a liberal type (say, a new incarnation of Keynes) who suggests modifying the system without scrapping it? Example of a necessarily true claim about capitalism, and its (necessarily?) mathematical underpinnings: the "Fundamental Marxian theorem" shows that the rate of profit (or interest) is positive if and only if the rate of exploitation is positive. The proof involves use of the Frobenius theorem of matrix algebra. Speculatively, Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:5554] Re: language math
Gil, Other than as an exercise in gaining clarification concerning Marx's terminology and thus in extending his efforts, how is the Okishio Theorem relevant or "useful." Note that for Okishio not only is the real wage constant but all prices used in determining whether or not the rate of profit fall are "equilibrium" prices determined with the assumption that all capitals earn the same rate of profit. I find this result not only of little use but also one absent in Marx's CAPITAL. Note that the concepts of "market value" and of "market price" are both introduced prior to the discussion of "the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall." Thus, the question concerning the fall in the rate of profit should, at least, consider an "equilibrium" condition in which the rates of profit are not equal. In an earlier plan for the third book o CAPITAL, Marx actually planned to discuss the concept of rent prior to introducing the concept of the falling rate of profit. I realize that this may make mathematical exercises concerning the falling rate of profit somewhat more complex, but they may yield something that relates to Marx's work. Marx himself makes a slightly different point in Part III of Book III when he notes that if price reductions due to increases in productivity are uniform, the rate of profit will not fall. John
[PEN-L:5555] AFL-CIO Upheaval Heralds Renewal (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 08:51:20 -0500 From: Paul Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AFL-CIO Upheaval Heralds Renewal long, I confess, but suitable, I hope, for circulation. Please feel free to use/cannibalize/circulate/and-of-course-criticize: Paul JohnstonHard times make good unions. Department of Sociology Institute for Social and Policy Studies Yale University, on his way to CA (203)432-3255 fax (203)432-3296 [EMAIL PROTECTED] New Beginnings at the AFL-CIO? by Paul Johnston Is the current contest for leadership in the AFL-CIO merely a squabble over the bones of a dead labor movement? Or might the forced resignation of long-time AFL-CIO boss Lane Kirkland and the challenge to his chosen successor, Tom Donahue, open the door for a resurgence of unionism in the U.S? Labor's decades of decline started way back in the 1950s, as the carrot of postwar prosperity and the stick of McCarthy-era repression together transformed unions from social movement organizations into bargaining bureaucracies. The upshot was business unionism: less a social movement than a service provided by professional staff, emphasizing individual wages benefits over the social wage, and relying on the economic strike for bargaining power in less-than-competitive labor and product markets. Decline sank into crisis, as this model of the union proved unable to cope with deindustrialization and--with important exceptions--unable to organize a changing workforce. Yet those decades of decline and crisis may have produced the conditions for labor movement renewal. No new circle of leaders can single-handedly reverse four decades of failure. But if new more viable models of the union have already surfaced, and if they are kindled, fanned and harnessed by the challenging bloc, then this rupture may be a turning point. Several different models of unionism are indeed percolating in various segments of the American workforce. First of these is labor's great success in the midst of failure: public service unionism. Both in their own interest and as a reflection of their members' commitment to public service, public-sector organizations have emerged as the prime defenders of local government, public education and other public services against the current Republican assault. If they can avoid the pitfalls that haunt their history--embracing defending bureaucracy rather than leading efforts for anti-bureaucratic reform, and narrowly emphasizing self-interest rather than identifying their interests with a broader policy coalition--they are a potent new political force. Major public sector unions--including the American Federation of State, County Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)--are in the challenging camp, with SEIU President John Sweeney bidding to become the new AFL-CIO president. Among the possibilities implicit in their present coalition: a merger of AFSCME and SEIU's public sector jurisdictions into one state and local government union, which could unleash extraordinary political resources just at the moment that Republican cuts descend upon those levels of government. Second is a new surge of organizing among low-wage service-sector workers, like the "Justice for Janitors" campaigns conducted by SEIU under Sweeney. These campaigns generate social movements among low-wage and predominately non-white workers, rely heavily on local labor-community coalitions, and maneuver skillfully within networks of contracting and subcontracting firms. In city after city across the U.S., they have since the late 1980s accomplished the astonishing feat of rebuilding unions which had collapsed since the mid-1970s. Similar campaigns have surfaced among comparably low-wage, disproportionately immigrant workers in the hotel and restaurant and garment industries. Third is the response of manufacturing sector unions to the continuing agony of downsizing and plant closures. As employers continue to roll over them, manufacturing sector unions grope for ways to buttress or replace their bargaining position with political resources. The strategy championed for a decade by Kirkland and Donahue (labor-management cooperation to improve productivity) has proven insufficient to stem disinvestment. Here, matters are unlikely to change unless labor develops the political resources to restore the balance of labor-management power, and to strengthen capital's accountability to the community which creates it. The current challenge to Kirkland and Donahue is driven, in part, by a growing appreciation of the need for more effective political strategies. Increasingly, moreover, workforces and communities devastated together by
[PEN-L:5556] Re: language
On Thu, 15 Jun 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One could imagine, then, undertaking an essentially mathematical argument in which none of the words have been replaced by symbols. . . . would become a living nightmare. To put it the other way around, you could think of mathematical symbols as a certain special type of words. But this leads to the second comment: mathematical argument involves a particular, highly restrictive use of concepts, in which "that which is not allowed is forbidden", to quote again from Spencer- Brown. That is, none of the ambiguity which makes literary prose potentially so rich and multilayered (take FINNEGANS WAKE as an extreme example) is allowed. Why not? This leads to the 2nd point. For a related and complementary point see Calvin Schrag's *Radical Reflection (I forget the subtitle)*. He makes a simple, similar point (in the introduction or first chapter) about the meaning of mathematics but also makes it quite clear that use of mathematics does not privelege argument in any way. I realize Gil would agree but his well written defense left out some caveats. My favorite analogy here is jazz, since that has clearly been subject to dialectical change in its history. Once a jazz musician discovers new ground, s/he and others work to elucidate the content implicit in it. A striking illustration of this comes from Ornette Coleman, one of the originators of "Free jazz", a seemingly lawless permutation of modern jazz: "I knew I was onto something when I found that I could make mistakes." Alternatively, a jazz musician may, in discovering the limits of a particular structure, go beyond those limits. Thus Charlie Parker discovering bebop in that chili house in New York, by taking the givens of swing and extrapolating beyond them. The immediate critical reaction? That's not jazz! Subsequently, of course, bebop gets folded into an enlarged conception of jazz which establishes new limitsetc. I realize this is comletely off the economic topic and can see the dialectical movement of history in jazz and agree as well that you offer two good examples that elucidate your point about mathematics. However, in light of jazz's recent reactionary history in which bebop/rebop/bop has done far more to constrict the limits of jazz than establish any new limits, I must make a point. The jazz fascists of today thump the virtues of the once shunned bebop and jazz has probably had its most regressive 15 years in all its history (that is, if you allow the word "jazz" to stand in your way). There are innovations along free jazz lines (Charlie Hunter Trio/ T. H. Kirk) but my favorite innovations are in dancefloor jazz, "acid jazz", "trip hop", etc. areas and certainly all get a deafening "That's not Jazz" from the established community. This music is much more true to the original history of jazz (oppressed peoples out to have a wailing good time) than any of the Modern Jazz flavors (which suffers from either too much intellect or too much avant garde). Listen to 9 Lazy 9, United Future Organization, El Malo, Takemura's stuff, Wagon Christ, Snowboy, and on. Unlike other past movement's of the Jazz Dialect this will probably never become "jazz" simply because popular music is no longer "jazz." Let the reactionaries listen to their jazz, the rest of us will have a lot more fun and be able to establish new limits. Peace, Jim Westrich "Twenty years of kindness made her sad -- kindness never gave her enough to live so she sold the very last thing that she had" -- Paul Heaton
[PEN-L:5557] New Video: Efecto Tequila
"Quihubo Videos" currently has 4 independently produced videos available for English speaking audiences and is working on subtitling and narrating others for distribution in the US and Europe. Videos currently available: EL EFECTO TEQUILA (The Tequila Effect): Produced by COPAL, this video reflects on the meaning and effects of neoliberal policies in Mexico. "The Tequila Effect emerges from the virtual images of Mexican neoliberalism and has provoked an unexpected drunkness, as well as a political, economic and social hangover." Through clips of news reports, movies and footage from Chiapas, Pedro Infante, Marcos, Salinas de Gortari and Cantinflas "explore the contradictory landscapes of contemporary Mexico." English narration. $30.00 plus postage. CORRIDOS SIN ROSTRO (Ballads Without a Face): In this video produced by Othelo Khanh, Subcomandante Marcos narrates the "Legend of the Men of Corn," the "Band of the EZLN" sing corridos to rebel heroes, and indigenous peasants tell of their way of life and their struggles for "Democracy, Liberty and Justice." Mostly filmed in Zapatista territory between January and June of 1994. English subtitles. 53 minutes. VHS only (no TV airing allowed). $30.00 plus postage. TODOS SOMOS MARCOS: This video compiles images from four major protests in Mexico City following the military invasion of the Selva Lacandona in February 1995 (it is not the Canal 6 de Julio production by the same name). English narration and subtitles. 20 minutes. VHS or 3/4 inch for TV. PRADO PACAYAL: Recorded in the Zapatista territory of Chiapas on March 2, 1995, shows the destruction wrought by the military on this community. The video presents moving testimony by the inhabitants of Prado Pacayal as they return to find their village ransacked by the Mexican army. English subtitles. 26 minutes. VHS or 3/4 inch for TV. TODOS SOMOS MARCOS (TSM) and PRADO PACAYAL (PP) come in one tape only. To order, mail this form to: In Mexico City contact: Quihubo Videos c/o Leopoldo RodriguezElliott Young 4814 Ave G [EMAIL PROTECTED] Austin, Texas 78751 (512) 458-4492 or e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Order Form Videos: Efecto Tequila, VHS ($30.00 ea.) Corridos Sin Rostro, VHS only ($30.00 ea.)$_ TSM and PP in one VHS tape ($15.00 ea.) $_ TSM and PP in one 3/4 inch tape ($30.00 ea. )$_ Postage: Regular in the US ($3.00 each tape) Overnight in the US ($15.00 ea.) $_ Total $_ INSTITUTIONAL RATE (libraries and universities): Corridos Sin Rostro and Efecto Tequila $200.00 plus postage TSM and PP $50.00 plus postage All proceeds from the sale of these videos will be used to cover mailing and duplicating costs, as well as to help Mexican videographers continue their work. Name:___ Address:_ City, State:__ ZIP Code:__ e-mail address: "Quihubo Videos" (previously Imagenes de Mexico) is a non-profit video distribution network created for the dissemination of work by independent producers in Mexico. "Quihubo Videos" hopes to contribute to the democratization of communications and help counteract the misinformation deliberately promoted by the media conglomerates in Mexico and the US. In conjunction with a network of Mexican independent videographers, "Quihubo Videos" will continue to provide documentary videos about the struggles of indigenous people, women, workers, and students in Mexico. Our goal is to produce a regular half-hour video news program for distribution in Mexico and abroad.
[PEN-L:5558] Re:suburbs/housing and SSAs
Marsh Feldman writes (3) Because the homeowner has some equity to lose, the Bank is more willing to believe a homeowner will eventually catch up in payments. I see your point. Maybe a renter can get away without paying rent for 2 months while a homeowner might get by not making mortgage payments for 5 months. But still, the loss experienced by the homeowner would be much greater at the end of 5 months as all the equity is lost. I guess it depends on how the two factors (longer time to get away with not paying the mortgage + big loss if no job found after 5 months unemployed). FYI, during the golden age (1954-1964) the average time a job loser was without a job was about 5 1/2 months. This seems almost long enough for a homeowner to face foreclosure. And, as this is the average, many experience longer spells of job loss than this. In the Reagan/postReagan years the average spell of unemployment has been about 6 months for an unemployed job loser. I wonder how long the average time to foreclosure is after mortgage payments have been stopped? Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5559] Re: query women in prison
The Bureau of Justice Statistics puts out an annual called "Correctional Populations in the United States. I don't have a recent one handy, but it has tables on prisons -- State and Federal -- and jails, plus those on probation. A glance at a back issue suggests that women are around 5% -7%. Theree is a huge number of people on probation -- 1 million 900 thousand in 1985. Ahigher percentage of the women are on probation than are men in that year, 84% versus 61%. Of the grand total of probation, jail, prison and parole, women made up about 13% in 1985. Separetely , there is a Bureau of Justice Statistics "Special Report" titled "Women in Prison" which is a survey of State prison inmante for 1991. The authors are Tracy L. Snell, BJS statistician, assisted by Danielle C. Morton. This is only prisons, not jail. A note at the end says that data used in the report are available from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan, telephone (800) 999-0960..The data set is archived as the Survery of Inmates of State Correctinal Facilities 1991 (ICPSR 6068) It might be worth calling that 800 number to see if they can help. Gene Coyle
[PEN-L:5560] Re: AFL-CIO Uphe...
I have been a member of the CWA (Communications Workers of America) for roughly 17 years, and sadly, our very own Morton Bahr is one of the only major union leaders supporting Lane Kirkland. Since I know Bahr personally, it ain't any big surprise. While, like many union types who have been holding low level positions on the shop floor for years, I think the change over of leadership is over, over due, it is with great scepticism that I view any real renewal in the union movement coming from simply a change at the top. And one of the problems with seeing change is in the summary presented here. While I don't necessarily disagree with any of the facts, and certainly the organizers for 32 BJ (janitors) have been very active nation wide, the summary presented in fact illustrates the subtle problems which continue to dog the union movement. -- The summary mentions women and feminism only in the context of the community -- and ignores the fact that women are the only segment of the work force in the united states which has shown an increase in union membership! Aside from the government workers who have been unionized in the last 15 years -- into unions with male leadership (I guess we're smart enough to pay dues, but not smart enough to figure out how to spend the money), nurses have been organizing into unions all over the country. In 1986, while we were on one of our smaller strikes here in NYC with the phone co., my sister in law was striking her hospital in Buffalo to bring the CWA in as their union for the nurses in her hospital. Three years later, on long Island, she went on strike at another hospital to help bring in another union there -- just before the phone co. started its last long strike of 5 months in 1989. It became a family joke that my brother was running a strike fund for all the women in the family. In fact, the union movement for all its changes, and the left along with it, still thinks of unions in terms of men and organizing men -- totally ignoring the fact that women spend about 28.5 years in the wage labor force to men's just over 31 ... ignoring the fact that as a whole, women are a much higher percentage of those jobs which need to be unionized, as opposed to men who make the vast majority of management in this country. One argument I personally get sick and tired of hearing, is that women don't work in large groups, they tend to be more isolated. Well, then how the hell did carpenters get organized or all these other groups who work in isolation -- some one or group of ones saw these MEN as worth being organized. In 1833, 1500 women outworkers -- shoebinders who worked over a couple hundred square rural miles (individually on their farms), organized in Lynn Mass. protesting in kind (store orders) and low wages. Now, of course, they were not allowed into the male organizations, and after they won the end of payments 'in-kind' their organization was broken by black listing -- but, from that point on, women shoe binders were paid in cash. Another point, whenever new organizing tactics are presented, the word 'minority' is always invoked to show the progressiveness of 'new' organizers. Does anyone out there besides me know that African American males are a higher percentage union organized than Caucasian males (leaving aside all the lumping together problems with these categories)? Since the mid 80's many transit unions -- like new york's own twu, have had a significant portion of their leadership coming from minority males. I think that it is about time that we admit that unions in this country both have had large female and minority populations existing in racist and sexist unions since the very beginning of the movement. Since the American Federation of Labor was formed in protest as a split off from the Knights of Labor after the Civil War when the Knights voted to allow women members to vote and to admit non-white members. Since the Women's Trade Union Education League went down south and organized black women tobacco workers while the Cio was busy fighting with the Communist Party. Since the IBEW only admitted women telephone operators with half a vote paying half dues because with women outnumbering male technicians, there was a danger they would take over the union. .. Let's face it, shaking hands with a few community groups is not taking an active stand against, and dealing with the divisions which continue to exist in the working class in this country. As long as the Internation Ladies Garment Workers Union is run by mainly men, the CWA with over 55% female membership only has one woman at a national union level, and my very own Local 1101 (the largest CWA local in the country)-- with an over 50% female membership - - still actively keeps an all male leadership only promoting their own kind only -- then a couple of new faces at the top of the AFL/CIO is not going to change a whole hell of alot. As long as
[PEN-L:5561] Re: language
On Thu, 15 Jun 1995, Pamela Sue Fendt wrote: The jazz fascists of today thump the virtues of the once shunned bebop and jazz has probably had its most regressive 15 years in all its history (that is, if you allow the word "jazz" to stand in your way). There are innovations along free jazz lines (Charlie Hunter Trio/ T. H. Kirk) but my favorite innovations are in dancefloor jazz, "acid jazz", "trip hop", etc. areas and certainly all get a deafening "That's not Jazz" from the established community. This music is much more true to the original history of jazz (oppressed peoples out to have a wailing good time) than any of the Modern Jazz flavors (which suffers from either too much intellect or too much avant garde). ...like a lot of political-economic theorizing... (This may not have too much to do with economics at this point, but it DOES have _everything_ to do with being a concrete example of dialectical development in something most(?) of us are familiar with. THAT does INDEED relate to marxist economics, and having such a common 'benchmark' could be extremely useful in future economic discussion...) I know concretely what you speak of. I went to music school for one year, and believe you me, I was COMPLETELY turned-off by the dismissive, snotty air of the jazz 'establishment' there -- every bit as elitest as any 'classical' clique (of which I was too familiar as well...) This was also connected directly with the jazz 'establishment' of the city. They were the high priests of Bebop. It was at that point that I realized that jazz was 'not where it's at', and I drifted out of music-making altogether... A shame... Now I listen to 'World Beat' and 'jazz' music on the radio... Back to Economics 101... __ Jim Jaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW Homepage: http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html __
[PEN-L:5562] Re: Okishio vs. Marx
Gil has "one minor comment" on what I said about the Okishio theorem
vs. Marx: Marx phrased his argument under the assumption that the
rate of surplus value is held constant, but I don't read him positing
this as the economically relevant condition--rather it's a
simplifying assumption stipulated as a point of departure.
I guess it depends on what one means by "economically relevant",
no? Laibman, e.g., sees the constant RSV as an assumption of a
certain kind of truce in the class struggle ("class struggle
neutrality").
The economically relevant condition on wages would have to be
supplied by a separate story about the impact of technical changes on
labor market outcomes. ...
BTW, I'm one of those wierd ducks who (unlike the majority of the
Okishio literature) thinks that the capitalist accumulation process
involves more than mere technical change: it also involves investment
in fixed capital, which can have a positive impact on the demand for
labor-power just as labor-power-saving technical and institutional
change lowers the demand for labor-power.
(apologies to the fowl in the audience)
In a recent paper to which Jim refers (still in submission limbo),
I establish market conditions --something like a stationary-state
competitive equilibrium in a dynamic market--which support this
(constant RSV) assumption.
This can make sense as a secular tendency, though as Marx points out
the RSV tends to fluctuate with the cycle (countercyclically). This
tendency is not being realized these days, as the RSV seems to be
rising. Also, the story becomes much more complicated if one brings
in considerations of unproductive labor. The Okishio theorem
abstracts from the spending of profits on the wages of unproductive
labor.
BTW, it is easy to reconcile a constant RSV, which entails wages
rising with productivity, with notions of immiseration: capitalist
accumulation, by changing the social conditions of consumption,
increases working-class needs. It's possible, though not necessarily
true, that needs outstrip real wages, implying immiseration. With
constant real wages (Okishio's assumption), this immiseration is
guaranteed. Put another way, capitalist accumulation, by creating new
needs creates a pressure which encourages workers to struggle to
break Okishio's assumption. This is another way that the dynamics of
capitalist accumulation militates against Okishio's assumption.
I also agree with critics that comparative statics exercises such as
Okishio's have very limited use, especially given the assumption that
there are no realization crises and of a neoclassical kind of
competition.
In fact, I don't find the Okishio theorem surprising at all. In a
simple single-sector model with no depreciation, the rate of profit
is r = (1 - w/q)y where q is output per worker and y is output per
unit of means of production. If w is constant and q rises (as Okishio
assumes) then r rises. There are some details in Okishio that are
vaguely interesting, but the main story can be seen in this formula.
-- Jim Devine
