[PEN-L:2292] nz/ social insurance

[Mark Fenster]

Terribly sorry about my last flub.

Minor question in the greater discussion about NZ. One prominent
Torts (common law of civil remedies for personal injury) casebook 
(law school textbook) used to indoctrinate first year American law students
describes a New Zealand social insurance system as a potential alternative to
the "inefficiencies" and irrationalities of the American tort system.
The system as described, by guaranteeing compensation for income loss and
permanent disability without relation to fault, with funding coming (I
believe) from some combination of personal taxation, employers, etc., would
avoid the "lottery" system of tort awards and the slowness and costliness of the
court system.

Frankly, I'm interested more in how this is being taught in American
law schools than I am in the realities of American legal tort reform
(such as it is, given the terms of the debate). Specifically,
there is little discussion in the casebook to which I am referring
about such a program's popularity (instead, in the great American
tradition, it is lauded by its bureaucractic creators and criticized
by American law professors) nor was there, in a recent Torts class,
any recognition on the part of the professor of the tremendous
turmoil that the NZ political economic system has undergone in the
past decade (when questioned, he said, "I don't know" what's happened
to this system---nor did he seem to know much about New Zealand in
general). Instead, this was presented as a dreamy, utopian,
quasi-socialistic solution to the "real world" of American jurisprudence.
A "liberal" professor might laud the concept while "recognizing" the fact
that "it would never work" in the U.S.---thus being both "responsible"
to his "liberalism" and "realistic" in his "politics."

And so my questions to anyone with any knowledge: what *was* the general,
popular feeling concerning this social insurance system and has
(and, if so, how has) it been dismantled in the wake of the "NZ miracle"?

Thanks,

Mark Fenster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:2291] re: nz crisis/ social insurance

[Mark Fenster]

>PEN-L Digest 442
>
>Topics covered in this issue include:
>
>  1) NZ Experiment
>by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  2) Re: NZ Experiment
>by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood)
>  3) Re: NZ Experiment
>by bill mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>--
>
>Date:Sun, 07 Jan 96 11:00 CST
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: NZ Experiment
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>The NZ experience is, unfortunately, contagious.  What is interesting
>is that in Canada the process seems to have been modelled on the
>NZ experiment.  First, a (perceived) centre left government gets
>elected on a moderate, proactive economic program, then manufactures
>a phony credit crisis (deficit, debt, bankrupcy -- wail, wail),
>- a 'crisis' orchestrated by the multinationals, the monetarist
>central bank and the department of finance and right-wing think
>tanks (sic) -- which can only be solved by cutting social programs,
>lowering taxes to the rich, privatizing public enterprise, and
>firing civil servants.  The economic results are disasterous (more
>deficit, debt, bankrupcy, unemployment -- wail, wail, wail) so
>obviously, the cure is more cutting, slashing, destroying of programs
>and lives, etc.  What is most disgusting is that this is consciously
>planned and orchestrated by business and the sychophantic right-wing
>ideologues, usually misidentified as economists.
>
>For a detailed account of the neo-liberalization of the Canadian
>Liberal Party (comparable to the NZ Labor Party) see Maude Barlow
>and Bruce Campbell, _Straight Through the Heart: How the Liberals Abandoned the
>Abandoned the Just Society_ (Toronto: Harper-Collins, 1995).  Just
>as a footnote, it is interesting that the book was "printed and
>bound" in the United States.  (Not approved for reading by the IMF).
>
>Paul Phillips,
>University of Manitoba
>
>--
>
>Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 13:23:33 -0400
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: NZ Experiment
>Message-ID: 
>
>At 9:04 AM 1/7/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> First, a (perceived) centre left government gets
>>elected on a moderate, proactive economic program, then manufactures
>>a phony credit crisis (deficit, debt, bankrupcy -- wail, wail),
>>- a 'crisis' orchestrated by the multinationals, the monetarist
>>central bank and the department of finance and right-wing think
>>tanks (sic) -- which can only be solved by cutting social programs,
>>lowering taxes to the rich, privatizing public enterprise, and
>>firing civil servants.  The economic results are disasterous (more
>>deficit, debt, bankrupcy, unemployment -- wail, wail, wail) so
>>obviously, the cure is more cutting, slashing, destroying of programs
>>and lives, etc.  What is most disgusting is that this is consciously
>>planned and orchestrated by business and the sychophantic right-wing
>>ideologues, usually misidentified as economists.
>
>Not all debt crises are phony. The bigger your debts, the more power your
>creditors have over you. Keynesians & social democrats who are blase about
>running up debts get all bent out of shape when the creditors remind them
>of their power. Tax the rich, don't borrow from them.
>
>Doug
>
>--
>
>Doug Henwood
>Left Business Observer
>250 W 85 St
>New York NY 10024-3217
>USA
>+1-212-874-4020 voice
>+1-212-874-3137 fax
>email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>web: 
>
>
>
>--
>
>Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 08:54:35 +1100
>From: bill mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: NZ Experiment
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>Doug said in reply to paul on NZ debt:
>
>>Not all debt crises are phony. 
>
>in the NZ case, the debt crisis was not phony. NZ is not an industrial
>exporter and like OZ suffers large swings in prosperity due to exogenous terms
>of trade shocks in primary commodity prices.
>
>NZ is small (around 3.5 million people) with a subsequent small tax base. The
>external debt over the years had risen to huge proportions and was eating into
>their earnings. they also had a welfare state like OZ which is very
>substantial. with the terms of trade shocks inevitable the debt was growing and
>growing. further, given the income elasticities of primary commodities, the
>trend prospects for NZ were not looking good.
>
>so the conclusion is that they had to change.
>
>the question was how.
>
>i think they did it in exactly the wrong way.
>
>the method they chose has had some success though - in narrow economic terms.
>but the costs on the people are huge and i would think not worth it. one
>benefit which i have referred to before is that the maoris lost so much
>security in the changes that they have become politicised and very active and
>threatening.
>
>kind regards
>bill
>
>
> ##William F. Mitchell
>   ###   ##

[PEN-L:2290] Re: NZ Experiment

[bill mitchell]

Doug said in reply to paul on NZ debt:

>Not all debt crises are phony. 

in the NZ case, the debt crisis was not phony. NZ is not an industrial
exporter and like OZ suffers large swings in prosperity due to exogenous terms
of trade shocks in primary commodity prices.

NZ is small (around 3.5 million people) with a subsequent small tax base. The
external debt over the years had risen to huge proportions and was eating into
their earnings. they also had a welfare state like OZ which is very
substantial. with the terms of trade shocks inevitable the debt was growing and
growing. further, given the income elasticities of primary commodities, the
trend prospects for NZ were not looking good.

so the conclusion is that they had to change.

the question was how.

i think they did it in exactly the wrong way.

the method they chose has had some success though - in narrow economic terms.
but the costs on the people are huge and i would think not worth it. one
benefit which i have referred to before is that the maoris lost so much
security in the changes that they have become politicised and very active and
threatening.

kind regards
bill


 ##William F. Mitchell
   ###     Head of Economics Department
 # University of Newcastle
   New South Wales, Australia
   ###*E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ### Phone: +61 49 215065
#  ## ### +61 49 215027
   Fax:   +61 49 216919  
  ##  
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html   

[PEN-L:2289] Re: NZ Experiment

[Doug Henwood]

At 9:04 AM 1/7/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> First, a (perceived) centre left government gets
>elected on a moderate, proactive economic program, then manufactures
>a phony credit crisis (deficit, debt, bankrupcy -- wail, wail),
>- a 'crisis' orchestrated by the multinationals, the monetarist
>central bank and the department of finance and right-wing think
>tanks (sic) -- which can only be solved by cutting social programs,
>lowering taxes to the rich, privatizing public enterprise, and
>firing civil servants.  The economic results are disasterous (more
>deficit, debt, bankrupcy, unemployment -- wail, wail, wail) so
>obviously, the cure is more cutting, slashing, destroying of programs
>and lives, etc.  What is most disgusting is that this is consciously
>planned and orchestrated by business and the sychophantic right-wing
>ideologues, usually misidentified as economists.

Not all debt crises are phony. The bigger your debts, the more power your
creditors have over you. Keynesians & social democrats who are blase about
running up debts get all bent out of shape when the creditors remind them
of their power. Tax the rich, don't borrow from them.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: 

[PEN-L:2288] NZ Experiment

[PHILLPS]

The NZ experience is, unfortunately, contagious.  What is interesting
is that in Canada the process seems to have been modelled on the
NZ experiment.  First, a (perceived) centre left government gets
elected on a moderate, proactive economic program, then manufactures
a phony credit crisis (deficit, debt, bankrupcy -- wail, wail),
- a 'crisis' orchestrated by the multinationals, the monetarist
central bank and the department of finance and right-wing think
tanks (sic) -- which can only be solved by cutting social programs,
lowering taxes to the rich, privatizing public enterprise, and
firing civil servants.  The economic results are disasterous (more
deficit, debt, bankrupcy, unemployment -- wail, wail, wail) so
obviously, the cure is more cutting, slashing, destroying of programs
and lives, etc.  What is most disgusting is that this is consciously
planned and orchestrated by business and the sychophantic right-wing
ideologues, usually misidentified as economists.

For a detailed account of the neo-liberalization of the Canadian
Liberal Party (comparable to the NZ Labor Party) see Maude Barlow
and Bruce Campbell, _Straight Through the Heart: How the Liberals Abandoned the
Abandoned the Just Society_ (Toronto: Harper-Collins, 1995).  Just
as a footnote, it is interesting that the book was "printed and
bound" in the United States.  (Not approved for reading by the IMF).

Paul Phillips,
University of Manitoba

[PEN-L:2287]

[Ellen Dannin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

Thank you to the many of you who responded with clear explanations of the 
budget.  I passed them on and received many thanks to be conveyed back to 
you.

It's an amazing time, but one of the pluses is that sometimes expertise 
is a keystroke away.

ellen

Ellen J. Dannin
California Western School of Law
225 Cedar Street
San Diego, CA  92101
Phone:  619-525-1449
Fax:619-696-

[PEN-L:2286] Re: Official: NZ is the model

[Ellen Dannin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Sun, 7 Jan 1996, Rosenberg, Bill wrote:

> People interested in a thorough (critical!) description and analysis
> of what has happened in New Zealand over the last decade may like to
> read the recently published:
> 
>  The New Zealand Experiment: A World Model for Structural Adjustment?
>  Jane Kelsey
>  Auckland University Press with Bridget Williams Books
>  1995
> 
> It was also published in 1995 as "Economic Fundamentalism: The New
> Zealand Experiment - A World Model for Structural Adjustment?" in
> the International Labour Series by Pluto Press, London and East
> Haven, Connecticut.

The US version will not be distrbuted until April and, due to 
restructring in the industry, will be distributed by Inbook Distributors, 
1-800-243-0138.  It will be moving to Chicago soon and may get harder to 
track down.

I'm about 1/3 through it now.  Reading it will give many of us in many 
countries a sense of deja vu all over again -- only theKiwis are just a 
few years farther down the road.

ellen dannin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:2285] Windows MIME program -- does it all...

[Jim Jaszewski]

There seems to be a LOT of confusion and clutzing around with MIME
these daze.  And since it's only going to become MORE important, let me
bring to your attention something I found in PC WORLD magazine for January
`96 pg. 288 -- a Windows shareware MIME program that apparently does it
*ALL*. 

I found it at the site:

http://tinker.winsite.com/info/pc/win3/desktop/zrfw751.zip/index.html

-- though the magazine mentions version 6.4 and a site at:

http://home.aol.com/Jared10

Who knows what even _better_ bells and whistles version 7.51 has? 
The file_id.diz file sez that it does AVI, WAV, etc. -- so that you all
should be able to get around sending each other full motion video of each
other's lectures..!  ;>

My thoughts on a standing committee on `Technology and the Internet'
for the Marxism List I'll bring up later... :>



+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal   |
| if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig|
| more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm  |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Jim Jaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Public Key available. |
| http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html  |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

[PEN-L:2284] Re: Official: NZ is the model

[Rosenberg, Bill]

People interested in a thorough (critical!) description and analysis
of what has happened in New Zealand over the last decade may like to
read the recently published:

 The New Zealand Experiment: A World Model for Structural Adjustment?
 Jane Kelsey
 Auckland University Press with Bridget Williams Books
 1995

It was also published in 1995 as "Economic Fundamentalism: The New
Zealand Experiment - A World Model for Structural Adjustment?" in
the International Labour Series by Pluto Press, London and East
Haven, Connecticut.

Bill

> Date sent:  Sat, 06 Jan 1996 16:40:57 -0800
> From:   Robert Peter Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:[PEN-L:2281] Official: NZ is the model
> Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Heard on the radio, Republican congressman saying that
> the battle over reducing the public sector is now worldwide.
> New Zealand has done it, quoth he, and other countries are
> doing it, and if the US doesn't do it, we'll be left behind
> 
> Yeah, left behind in the race to the bottom.
> 
> Uugh!!
> 
> Peter
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
/-\
|  Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics,  |
|P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.   |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Phone:(64)(03)3252-811  Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 |
\-/

[PEN-L:2283] Re: Something completely different

[Jim Jaszewski]

On Fri, 15 Dec 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Louis N Proyect wrote:
> 
> > Louis: I regard university professors as a petty-bourgeois layer that is 
> > coming under the assault from the ruling-class.

> "Petty bourgeois", like "fascism", is a word that is often used 
> imprecisely by "Marxists" who should know better -- Like Louis. The petit 
> bourgeois, in Marx's sense, represents a social layer and class in 
> between the capitalist class and the working class and includes small 
> shopkeepers and farmers. The distinguishing characteristic of the 
> petty-bourgeois, such as a farmer, is that these individuals own their 
> own means of production and do not therefore have to alienate their labor 
> to capitalists in exchange for a wage.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that many/most professors (and
like `professionals') have a petit-bourgeois *sensibility* or *outlook*,
while technically being part of the workingclass.  False consciousness and
all that... 



+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal   |
| if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig|
| more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm  |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Jim Jaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Public Key available. |
| http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html  |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

[PEN-L:2282] Re: Now is the time...

[bill mitchell]

peter wrote

[deletions]

>if you believe increased government borrowing tends to force up interest 
> rates, why wouldn't you believe that increased private borrowing tends to 
> do the same?  In other words, if government debt raises interest rates, 
> private debt ought to do the same.  Wouldn't we then have grounds for 
> *opposing* increases in private investment, since it would tend to "crowd 
> itself out"?  

the argument is correct. anything that imposes pressure on the demand for money
in a model with exogenous money supply will have interest rate effects as long
as the demand for money is interest elastic and as long as the authorities
don't accomodate with increased money.

but the proponents of FCO would argue that private forcing out private is okay
b/c it would mean the most profitable (and therefore best) allocation of
resources was being achieved.

extending that - they argue that public spending is (by definition) less
productive than private spending (for many reasons most of which are
fallacious) and therefore FCO leads to a worsening in efficient w.r.t. resource
allocation.

the important point which you did not cover in your post peter is this:

you only consider the costs of borrowing. but an overwhelming amount of private
capital expenditure comes initially from retained earnings (being the cheapest
source of finance for business). 

further, the idea that there is a finite pool of savings which is either
available to the "inefficient" budget deficit spending or alternatively to 
private "efficient" investment is based on the loanable funds doctrine which
completely ignores the link b/tw savings and income. if the budget expands
income then savings rises and FCO is not a necessity.


kind regards
bill
--

 ##William F. Mitchell
   ###     Head of Economics Department
 # University of Newcastle
   New South Wales, Australia
   ###*E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   ### Phone: +61 49 215065
#  ## ### +61 49 215027
   Fax:   +61 49 216919  
  ##  
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html