[PEN-L:4126] Minimum Wage

[Eshragh Motahar]

Colleagues,

I'd be interested in your comments on the following paragraph.  Moreover, are
you aware of any *recent* critical work on the relationship (or lack thereof)
between raising the minimum wage, on one hand, and inflation, on the other? 

The following is from p. 133 of Joseph Stiglitz: Economics, Norton, 1993.

"Recent policy discussions on minimum wages have focussed on whether the
original intent of minimum wage legislation--to ensure that those who work earn
enough to support a family-- makes any sense.  While it may have been
reasonable back in the 1930s to assume that one man needed to earn a certain
minimum wage to support a wife and family, today's labor market often has both
spouses and even a teenage child or two working.  Surely they do not ALL need
to earn enough to support their own family.  In addition, a higher minimum wage
does not seem a particularly useful way to help the poor.  Most people earn
more than the minimum wage WHEN THEY ARE WORKING; their problem is not low
wages.  The problem comes when they are not working.  And this may be because
they cannot find a job, in which case the problem is the level of unemployment,
not the level of wages, and increasing wages may make it even more difficult to
find a job; or because they are not well enough to work.  Only about 10 percent
of people in poverty work at jobs that pay at or near minimum wage.  Thus, the
minimum wage is not a good way of trying to deal with problems of poverty. 
Other government programs need to be designed to address those problems."

Thanks in advance,

Eshi Motahar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

No Subject

[Max B. Sawicky]

Tim Stroshane wrote:
> 
> anyone have any information on privatization of health care in
> prisons?
> On prisons, see John Donahue, The Privatization Decision (book), and
his report for EPI.  A public administration prof, Van Johnston (can't
dance, as far as I know) at the Air Force Academy has done work that
is worth getting.  Also check into Janet Rothenberg Pack (U of P) for
non-ideological research.

I'm writing about privatization in local public education myself.
My book with Craig Richards (Columbia Teachers) and Rima Shore
will be out this summer, God willing.
 

Max B. Sawicky  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Economic Policy Institute   202-775-8810 (voice)
1660 L St., NW, WDC, 20036  202-775-0819 (fax)

[PEN-L:4124] Re: C.Eugene Steuerle onSocial Security

[Max B. Sawicky]

Mike Meeropol wrote:
> 
> I am glad to see Max Sawicky posting to PEN-L.

The check is in the mail.

>  Since I know he has done a
> lot in the area of social security,

Not too much, actually.  Dean Baker has dethroned me as EPI expert
on Social Security. Look for his new issue brief on the privatization
(try our home page on the Web, starting from epn.org.).
issue, and his chapter in EPI's new policy alternatives book
("Reclaiming Prosperity").  See also a chapter in my idol Bob Eisner's
"The Misunderstood Economy."  Also wait eagerly for a forthcoming
book by Burtless, Bosworth, and Aaron of Brookings.

> matter) could comment on the book by C.Eugene Steuerle and Jon Bakija
> _Retooling Social Security for the 21st Century_.  I just used it in my

I like Gene a lot and admire his body of work.  Like the Brookings
gang, I think he is so worried about capital formation that he
overemphasizes negative factors in the long term outlook.

My story on this is pretty simple.  Currently legislated benefits for
OASDI can be paid by non-trivial but unspectacular combinations of
higher taxes and lower benefits.  There are many different ways to
do this, but I would lean towards taxes.  After all, I'm the one
who's going to be old and broke.  Dean has shown that given
the Social Security Administration's 'medium' assumptions of mediocre
productivity growth, taxes could cover benefits and still leave after-
tax wages at a 30 percent or so higher real level.

Health care is just a bloody mess.  There is no comparison to the OASDI
problem.  The baby boom, according to Aaron, is not the main factor here.
I would argue that as the population's age changes, so should its con-
sumption:  less MTV and more Maalox.  Therefore, tax increases or cuts
in other public consumption should cover the aging factor.  The residual,
abstracting from aging, is usually said to be due to technological
innovation combined with the third party system of payments.  In any
case, there will have to be some system to curb the growth of costs.
Rationing according to social criteria, rather than, as now, rationing
by price, wealth, social standing (e.g., Mickey Mantle), etc.

> Any responses will be welcomed.  Particularly "reviews" of the
> Steuerle-Bakija book.

I've been hoping to tackle this problem myself this year.
I've read pieces of the Steuerle-Bakija book but besides
noting it is an essential document in the debate, I couldn't
say much more than I have here and in my papers on deficit
reduction and the Kerrey Commission.

Cheers.

[PEN-L:4123] Re: minimum wages

[Max B. Sawicky]

> Since I wrote a very positive review of their book, and had Card on my
> radio show, I asked him several times if he'd responded to his critics. I
> never heard from him. If anyone else has had better luck, I'd like hearing
> about it.

This is actually a pretty interesting story about the power of the Right to piss on 
objective, mainstream academic research it doesn't like.

My impression is that the authors were shocked and revolted at the way their work was 
treated and are loathe to talk about the affair very much.  I haven't spoken to them 
myself.  It reminds me of what happened to David Aschauer, a Chicago U-type 
macroeconomist who discovered that public capital augments private sector productivity 
and got roasted for it.

This is one reason I think many academics of a variety of political orientations 
prefer 
not to go anywhere near the public arena.  It requires some very unacademic and 
unscholarly traits, tastes, and faculties.  You have to enjoy crotch-kicking contests.

[PEN-L:4122] Re: the "new" AFL-CIO

[Max B. Sawicky]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> So how many hearings on the minimum wage did the Dems sponsor when they
> controlled Congress in 1993 and 1994? None. How hard did Clinton push the

Don't expect me to defend the incredible indefensible President.

In hindsight the m.w. should have been pushed by Congress.  They were preoccupied with 
a 
little thing called health care, particularly in trying to deal with the 
Administration's singular handling of the issue.  If you plan to impose mandates on 
employers, there is a case for premising m.w. legislation on the outcome of the health 
reform exercise.  When Clinton's stock reached its nadir there wasn't much hope that 
the 
m.w. had a chance.  God damnit! If only we had listened to you!

> m.w. when the Dems controlled Congress? Not at all. Who passed Nafta? The
> Democratic Congress? How many times does the AFL-CIO have to get kicked in

That's a surprising formulation -- 'the Democratic Congress' passing NAFTA. Many more 
dems in the House voted against NAFTA than for it.

If you want to inter the stinking corpse of social democracy, you'll have to better 
than 
that, bro'.

Regards,  Max

[PEN-L:4121] Re: minimum wages

[Max B. Sawicky]

Eban Goodstein wrote:
> 
> Any body familiar with the attempts to trash Card and Krueger's NJ study?

Talk to John Schmitt at EPI.  He's been keeping track of that stuff.

[PEN-L:4120] Re: subscription to pen-l

[Christopher Niggle]

My host server has been changed.  Can someone help this neo-luddite,
techno-nerd out and tell me how to resubscribe to Pen-l from my new
system?

Chris Niggle
Redlands

[PEN-L:4119] Re: Bogdan Denitch on Bosnia NYC 5-6

[D Shniad]

Bill,

Is there some way you could provide reportage from this forum with 
Denitch to folks on Pen?


8Sid Shniad
> > 
> The Brecht Forum
> 
> The New York Marxist School
> 122 West 27 Street, 10 floor
> New York, New York 10001
> (212) 242-4201
> (212) 741-4563 (fax)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail)
> 
> 
> A Terrible Peace to Follow a Terrible War?
> 
> a talk by Bogdan Denitch
> 
> Monday, May 6 at 8 pm
> 
> 
> What are the chances for peace in Bosnia? Are there
> alternatives to NATO and U.S. presence? Can a multi-
> ethnic Bosnia be preserved? Where is the Bosnian left?
> 
> Bogdan Denitch is Chair of the Socialist Scholars
> Conference. His latest book is _Ethnic Nationalism: The
> Tragic Death of Yugoslavia_.
> 
> Admission is $6.
> 
> *
> 
> All Brecht Forum lectures are available on audiotape for
> $8. To order, make checks payable to *The Brecht Forum*
> and send to The Brecht Forum, 122 West 27 Street, 10
> floor, New York, New York 10001. MasterCard and Visa also
> accepted. Mail, e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), or fax
> (212 741-4563) complete account information and include
> expiration date. For orders outside the U.S., please send
> an international money order or bank check payable in
> U.S. funds, or pay by credit card, and include an
> additional US$5 per order to cover the cost of air
> postage.
> 
> //30
> 

[PEN-L:4118] Re: the xUSSR once again

[HANLY]

Terry M recently wrote:

On classes in socialism.  I recognize there are classes under 
socialism.  It's why socialism isn't yet communism.  For this reason 
socialism cannot be defined at the level of the economy.  Socialism 
at the level of the economy is transitional between class and 
non-class society and will look very different at different points in 
the (probably non-linear) transitional process.  What defines 
socialism is what keeps this transition process in place: the 
exercise of decisive political power by the proletaritat. [Which is 
what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat, rather than 
Stalinism, non-democracy, etc.]

COMMENT: This definition of "socialism" seems exceedingly restrictive.
It confines socialism to the transition stage between capitalism and
communism. It means that it is impossible that socialism be itself the
desired end-state. How do terms like "democratic socialism", "guild socialism"
or "Utopian socialism"  merit any significance if "socialism" means simply a
certain stage between capitalism and communism?
   Socialism as above described-by Terry- is socialism because the means of
 production
are socialised and production is based upon need not profit. There is no
mention in Terry's account of the abolishing of private property in the means
of production. Maybe this goes without saying, but it is that abolishing
of ownership that makes the transition to a classless society from the
socialist state possible. Classes are abolished in the first instance by
abolishing the mode of production upon which classes depend. Socialism surely
does this. Capitalists have lost the foundation of their power. Communism is
based not just upon the premise of a classless society but of a society in
which scarcity has been overcome by the rapid development of the productive
forces within the socialist stage. Proletarian dictatorship under socialism
 simply ensures:a) the the capitalist class cannot regain power 
b) the forces of production are developed sufficiently to allow
 the transition to communism c) The socialist state can wither away to be
replaced by the administration of things. What Marx and Marxist-Leninists
are conceiving here is a very specific type of a much more general category
of socialism. Indeed, in some ways this socialism is contradictory 
to what would ordinarily understood as socialist. For example the slogan 
for distribution and contribution under socialism is: From each according to
his or her ability and to each according to his social contribution. This
is to ensure maximisation of production to conquer scarcity and lead to
communism where the principle is: From each according to ability to each
according to need. Fortunately, when it came to basic needs such as health care
the principle of need was followed--and this seems to me at least to be more
in keeping with my understanding of socialism. I have always understood
communism itself as a type of socialism, but that there are also many other
types conceivable as well.
  Cheers, Ken Hanly

[PEN-L:4117] Bogdan Denitch on Bosnia NYC 5-6

[Bill Koehnlein]

The Brecht Forum

The New York Marxist School
122 West 27 Street, 10 floor
New York, New York 10001
(212) 242-4201
(212) 741-4563 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail)


A Terrible Peace to Follow a Terrible War?

a talk by Bogdan Denitch

Monday, May 6 at 8 pm


What are the chances for peace in Bosnia? Are there
alternatives to NATO and U.S. presence? Can a multi-
ethnic Bosnia be preserved? Where is the Bosnian left?

Bogdan Denitch is Chair of the Socialist Scholars
Conference. His latest book is _Ethnic Nationalism: The
Tragic Death of Yugoslavia_.

Admission is $6.

*

All Brecht Forum lectures are available on audiotape for
$8. To order, make checks payable to *The Brecht Forum*
and send to The Brecht Forum, 122 West 27 Street, 10
floor, New York, New York 10001. MasterCard and Visa also
accepted. Mail, e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), or fax
(212 741-4563) complete account information and include
expiration date. For orders outside the U.S., please send
an international money order or bank check payable in
U.S. funds, or pay by credit card, and include an
additional US$5 per order to cover the cost of air
postage.

//30

[PEN-L:4116] the new afl-cio

[J. Havelin]

Max replies to Doug's post about afl-cio putting their money behind a 
party/process with little to offer workers:

> > Actually there is substantial effort being devoted to ending G.O.P. control of 
> Congress, particularly the House. I'm not sure you would see this as any different 
>from 
> or better than reelecting Clinton, but I am confident in appealing to your penchant 
>for 
> accuracy in reporting.

No doubt Doug will make his own reply, but I am prompted to make 
mine too.  The argument that 'we support the democratic party because they 
are better than the G.O.P.' facilitates a process where the dem's become 
less and less responsive to leftist, working-class, populist demands.  
they don't have to be progressive because we the voters roll over and play 
dead, accepting whatever diluted variety of social concern that remains - 
'oh, aren't those nice crumbs?  better than not eating at all.'
And as long as leftists/progressives/people concerned for workers 
continue to reinforce that system, the candidates and policies proferred 
by the dems become more and more insipid.  if we'd leave the party and 
vote for third party candidates who expressed some populism, the dems 
would be pressured to give decent candidates - like tom harkin whom they 
shunted out of the way in 1992.  

Julia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:4115] Foreign debt bleeds Mexico

[Dale Wharton]

These three items are from MEXICO UPDATE #70, May 2, 1996,
email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, fax (5) 672-7453, Mexico DF.
--_
Dale Wharton   [EMAIL PROTECTED]MONTREALTe souviens-tu?

8<-- couper ici -->8

Interest Payments on Debt

In 1995, Mexico paid $13.3 billion in interest on its
foreign debt, more than total earnings from oil exports
($7.2 billion) and tourism ($6 billion) combined.  Many
analysts say that such huge transfers abroad are the primary
factor limiting Mexico's domestic consumption and
investment.  Interest payments in 1995 were $1.5 billion
greater than in 1994.  According to the government, in 1994
domestic debt represented 13.1% of GDP and foreign debt
represented 32.7% of GDP.  By the end of 1995, those figures
were 6.9% and 36.5% respectively. (Reforma, 28 April).

In the past fifteen years, Mexico has transferred over $150
billion abroad to pay the interest on the foreign debt.
This is 48% more than the public sector foreign debt, which
now represents $100.85 billion. (La Jornada, 24 April).

World Bank to Lend Another $1.5 Billion

The World Bank announced plans to lend an additional $1 to
$1.5 billion to Mexico in 1996, after having lent $3 billion
in 1995.  The money will go to rescuing the commercial
banks, agriculture, health, and transportation, among other
projects.  According to the Bank, "We were extremely
effective in assisting Mexico last year, after the Mexican
financial crisis of 1994, in banking sector and social
security reforms."  Shahid Javed Burki, the World Bank's
Vice President for Latin America and the Caribbean, said
that as of April 1, Mexico is the first office to be
decentralized, and that much of the Mexico staff has been
transferred from Washington to Mexico to "work more closely
with the Mexican authorities."  (Reforma, 24, April)

[PEN-L:4114] Re: Capitali...

[MScoleman]

It seems to me that this conversation is in danger of lumping together two
distinct processes: exploitation and expropriation.  For instance, I think a
socialist society expropriates surplus from labor, but this is not
necessarily exploitation. (Not that I think the USSR was a classless society,
it was a class society in a new form.)  However, at least during the early
days of the USSR, surplus was expropriated and then redistributed to achieve
greater equity.

Another example, in the home the labor of individuals is constantly
expropriated by others.  Child labor is expropriated by adults, female labor
is exproriated by husbands, wages of all individuals are re-distributed.  It
is the balance of exchange within this small world that becomes exploitative
in many situations, not the expropriation of surplus per se.  I think the
same thing holds for the larger society.  Expropriation of the surplus of
labor in capitalism is almost always exploitation, but expropriation in other
circumstances may not necessarily be exploitation if the person from who
surplus is expropriated is adequately compensate with goods and services from
the labor of others.

maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:4113] Human Rights (II)

[SHAWGI TELL]

U.S. IMPERIALISTS AND THEIR ALLIES FAIL FOR THE SIXTH TIME

The United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) denied the U.S.
imperialists for a sixth time their request to discuss the internal
affairs of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Under the hoax of
discussing "human rights," U.S. imperialism raises questions about
a country's economic and political system and demands that it give
up the system of their choice.  This manoeuvre permits the
imperialists and their lackeys to establish a system suitable to
themselves so that they can subjugate the country and exploit its
people and natural resources.
 The rejection of the U.S. resolution this past Tuesday was a
further blow to the imperialist interests lined up behind the
United States. Russia abstained, and India and Pakistan voted to
reject discussion. Out of 53 members of the UNHRC, 27 voted against
discussion, 20 in favour and 6 abstained. This resolution
effectively stopped the U.S. imperialists from using the UNHRC to
interfere in the internal affairs of the PRC. Nonetheless, the U.S.
imperialists did succeed in other cases.
 They and their allies equate civil rights based on the
sanctity of private property with human rights, as opposed to the
people having rights by dint of being human. They also defend
"individual" rights at the expense of collective rights and the
general interests of the society, even though the latter are the
condition for the prosperity and freedom of the individual as well.
This shows that what they call individual rights are not the rights
of all individuals but only those few who comprise the political
and economic elite that own property and dispose of it as they
wish.
 John Shattuck, U.S. assistant secretary for "human rights,"
was so incensed after the victory of the Chinese resolution he
accused the PRC of an "all-out global campaign to intimidate the
53-member group," the very kind of activity for which U.S.
imperialism is notorious. Especially since the Second World War it
is the U.S. that has the reputation of following the medieval
policies of the "carrot and the stick" and "might makes right."
However, bluster has never been lacking when it comes to U.S.
diplomats. The news agencies report that "Shattuck went wild and
attacked Russia for abstaining and expressed deep disappointment
with India and Pakistan."
 Further, the reports say, "Delegates burst into applause after
the roll-call vote on China's motion for no action. Minutes before,
China's delegation appealed to developing countries to scrap the
resolution drafted by the European Union and the United States,
which it blasted as 'politically motivated'."
 Japan and Canada had also sponsored the three page text which
shamelessly complained about "severe restrictions on the rights of
citizens to freedom of assembly, association, expression and
religion as well as to due legal process and to a fair trial."
These are in fact civil liberties and cannot be called the totality
of what constitute human rights. Such civil liberties were fought
for by the bourgeoisie in its struggle against feudal power and
privilege whose hallmark was arbitrariness. Civil liberties were
needed by the bourgeoisie to protect its property from feudal
privilege and arbitrariness. Today, in its desperation to acquire
the same rights within the territory of sovereign nations which do
not give it free rein, it is demanding respect for its rights to
private property. In other words the bourgeoisie wants these
"rights" in order to undermine other countries and bring them into
its sphere of influence.
 A news agency reports that the PRC, "hailed on Wednesday the
defeat of the U.N. draft resolution, saying justice had prevailed
and the vote proved the hegemonism practised by the West was
unpopularA Foreign Ministry spokesman (of the PRC) thanked 26
other countries for 'upholding justice' by backing its motion for
'no action' on the UNHRC resolution."
 The response of the Chinese media was also enthusiastic: "This
shows that the practice of using human rights to interfere in the
internal affairs of other countries and to carry out hegemonism and
power politics is increasingly unpopular," Xinhua news agency
quoted a spokesman as saying. "The United States and some Western
countries ignored...improvements in China's human rights
record...politicised the human rights issue and adopted double
standards...to force the Chinese people to change the road they
have chosen for themselves," he said. A Xinhua commentary said a
plot by the West to force its human rights standards and values on
other countries was doomed to failure. "Evil Cannot Suppress Good"
was the headline of a commentary in the Workers Daily. In a
front-page commentary, the People's Daily said the "rude and
unreasonable practice (of the United States and other Western
countries)...was a vain attempt to contain China's development." It
said the resolution was "targeted not only at China but at vast
d

[PEN-L:4112] Re: the "new" AF...

[MScoleman]

First, a disclaimer, I do not think unions should be in the credit card
business.

HOWEVER, The afl/cio is way behind the times, the CWA has a couple of
agreements with different credit card companies.  Like others, they offer a
lead in rate much lower than other cards, then up it after a year or two.
 However, during the 17 weeks we were on strike in 1989, the union credit
cards suspended minimum payments for union members. (of course, they charged
interest, so in the long run they made more money than those cards which
union members defaulted against)

maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

No Subject

[Tim Stroshane]

Forwarded mail received from:

Anyone have ideas for this inquiry from another list?

anyone have any information on privatization of health care in 
prisons?

thanks in advance


> Date:  Thu, 2 May 1996 13:10:27 -0500
> Reply-to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From:  FM   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:   Re: privatization data base

> > You may recall that a few weeks ago I suggested that it might be possible
> > to put together a data base which could be drawn upon when people are
> > dealing with privatization issues.  Putting together a useful data base
> > would require expertise and credibilty, a position the AFL-CIO, as
> > the umbrella organization of most US unions occupies if no one else.
> >
> > I spoke with Paul Hughes of the Public Employee Department of the AFL-CIO
> > a week ago about this project.  He has just come over to the AFL-CIO from
> > SEIU and is trying to determine what projects would be useful.  He
> > professes agnosticism on this idea for the moment. It might be useful if
> > those interested in getting such a project going would contact Hughes and
> > discuss it with him.  Giving him a sense whether unions could or could
> > not make use of information and what information they might need would be
> > helpful to his decision whether to commit resources to this project.
> > ---ellen dannin
> 
> REPLY:
> I think it would be useful as a national database.  However, we might want
> to check our own national unions to see if a like-base is being considered.
> If so, maybe those national unions could agree to co-build and share a
> national database through the AFL-CIO.  What do you think?
> ---Federico
> 
> 
***
j o h n  e l f r a n k - d a n a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal/business)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (school)
http://www.bway.net/~elf/ (personal)
http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us (school)

[PEN-L:4110] C.Eugene Steuerle onSocial Security

[Mike Meeropol]

I am glad to see Max Sawicky posting to PEN-L.  Since I know he has done a
lot in the area of social security,  wonder if he (or anyone else for that
matter) could comment on the book by C.Eugene Steuerle and Jon Bakija
_Retooling Social Security for the 21st Century_.  I just used it in my
Public Finance course and I'm very impressed.  But I wonder if Max agrees
with the view that there is a "fundamental imbalance" in the social security
system that has to be addressed -- and the sooner the better.  Steuerle and
Bakija do not accept the Peter Peterson set of recommendations but they do
beleve some judicious increases in the retirement age (both early and
normal) and making all of Social Security taxable would go a long way
towards restoring the system to actuarial balance after 2020.

Any responses will be welcomed.  Particularly "reviews" of the
Steuerle-Bakija book.  Thanks in advance, 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:4109] Re: the xUSSR once again...

[HANLY]

In Reply to my comment:
 The system also achieved an educational system
> which despite being ideologically blinkered was reasonably open and a 
> university system that didn't charge an arm and a leg in fees but gave
> allowances to students. It also had a health care system that was arguably
> much more equitable than that of the US for example and produced results
> comparable to that of the most advanced capitalist countries in terms of
> life expectancy, etc. Why was this not a form of socialism albeit
> a deformed form? 
 Terry McDonough wrote:
This argument makes me nervous.  I have detected a certain rhetoric 
coming from Cuba which defines the central achievements of the 
revolution as free education and the quality free health care system. 
My fear is that this kind of talk is preparing the way for the 
abandonment of the totality of the socialist system.
 
COMMENT: You misinterpret the significance of these remarks. The essential
feature of socialism I take to be the abolishing of private property in the
means of production and socialised ownership with production based on need not
profit. This was the basic SOCIALIST achievement. I merely wanted to counter
the view that the standard of living was exceedingly low in comparison to
the advanced western capitalistic countries. Some capitalist countries such
as Germany and Sweden had better systems; but of course those are
both eroding with the savaging of the welfare state. Note that I used the US
for comparison. I do not comprehend what the phrase "totality of the socialist
system" means. I distinguish various types of socialism: guild socialism,
democratic socialism, market socialism, the vanguard party run socialism of
the form communist states, etc. On the other hand social democracy I understand
as not socialism at all but an attempt to humanise capitalism through an
extensive welfare system extension of democracy to the workplace but leaving
a mixed economy with extensive private ownersip. No doubt many democratic
socialists saw this evolving into socialism (The Bernstein tradition) but
recent events provide fairly strong evidence this is unlikely to happen.
  As for Cuba, I think you are at least in part correct. Nevertheless, it 
certainly is worth noting that Cuba has tried to keep its health care system
equitable even under the most trying conditions. It seems though that Cuba
is going in for joint ventures and is anxious to attract foreign capital, and
allows private ownership of the means of production. In fact Canadian mining
companies have investments there. I have heard some reports from friends that
have visited that Cubans who work in the tourist industry have a much better
standard of living than those who do not on the whole.
   Cheers, Ken Hanly

[PEN-L:4108] RE: CPI

[Eugene Coyle]

I think Doug inferred something I didn't mean to imply.
First, I didn't say anything about how fast airline prices are 
rising.  They are actually rising even faster than Doug believes 
because of an adjustment (or non-adjustment) that I will come back to.
But let me take up the issue of whether or not the BLS is 
adjusting for quality changes in airline travel.  I have had two 
conversations with the fellow at the BLS that deals with this specific 
component of the CPI.  He was explicit:  They have NOT adjusted for 
smaller seats, closer rows, etc.  Doug apparently has been told the 
opposite by someone else there.  I'm going to continue to believe that 
they have not adjusted for these sorts of changes, until someone shows 
me something in writing with the adjustmensts demonstrated.
Now to my point that air fares have actually risen even faster 
than what the CPI now shows:
At present, the BLS does incorporate in its calculation the 
discounted fares for tourists and those that book ahead.  So all the 
cheap fares that make many believe that de-regulation has worked are 
NOW in the CPI.  But prior to the early 1990s this incorporation was 
not made -- at that time the BLS reasoned that a ticket that could not 
be changed was just a throw-away and so shouldn't be incorporated.
What this means is that before the change, say in 1989, the CPI 
for airline fares (all city pairs) was overstating fares.  But if they 
have it right now (in this one respect) then the fares now, relative to 
the base, are not really comparable, and wildly UNDERSTATE the 
relationship between today's fares and those of the 1980s.
Doug and I seem to agree that the success of airline 
deregulation is a myth.

 > From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Thu Apr 25 07:17:32 1996
 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood)
 > Subject: [PEN-L:3947]  RE:  CPI
 > X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
 > X-Comment: Progressive Economics
 >
 > At 12:43 AM 4/25/96, Eugene Coyle wrote:
 >
 > >I would like to make two points in the CPI discussion.
 > >First, we should not lose sight of the political origin of the national
 > >examination of this issue.  It seems clear that it surfaced as part of
 > >the attack on Social Security.  The story was that the elderly have
 > >been doing much better than they deserve, getting raises each year tied
 > >to the CPI and thus improving their lot faster than inflation.
 >
 > As I think I said in an earlier post, an experimental BLS price index for
 > the elderly showed their inflation rate to be higher than average, so it's
 > doubly perverse so use CPI revisions to cut their SS payments.
 >
 > In his testimony before the Boskin commission on the CPI, Zvi Grilliches
 > said that he found himself deeply embarrassed by his adopted country for
 > its attack on the old, poor, and sick. This part of his analysis has, of
 > course, not been reported (except in LBO).
 >
 > >For example, the component of the CPI, airline fares, which I
 > >have looked at -- and had conversations with BLS people about -- is not
 > >adjusted for quality.  And for this component the "quality" has clearly
 > >gone down.  Seats are physically smaller.  Rows are closer together.
 > >The carriers have made a strong effort to minimize the use of wide-body
 > >planes on domestic flights, decreasing comfort.  And it is more
 > >difficult to fly from one place to another without visiting a hub.  All
 >
 > That's not the way I see it at all. The airfare component of the CPI has,
 > since dereg, increased at almost twice the rate of overall inflation - a
 > sharp contrast with declines in real fares per seat mile that apologists
 > love to cite. (Actually, real fares per seat mile declined by the same
 > amount or more in the 1960s and 1970s as they have since dereg.) CPI boss
 > Pat Jackman says this is precisely because of adjustment for declines in
 > quality of just the sort Eugene Coyle mentioned. When I brought this up to
 > Alfred Kahn, the "father" of airline dereg, he said he couldn't believe it.
 >
 > 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:4107] Re: Need help with SNA/OECD data on government spending by function

[Doug Henwood]

At 6:41 PM 5/2/96, Barnet Wagman wrote:

>I also haven't succeeded in contacting the OECD (they don't list a phone
>number or email address in their documentation).

Try 202-785-6323. That's their Washington office, which basically is a
publications and PR agency, but they can put you in touch with the right
people in Paris.

If they haven't translated the Canadian data into OECD form, there's
probably a good reason for it.

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:4106] Livelihood Is A Right (II)

[SHAWGI TELL]

A LIVELIHOOD IS A HUMAN RIGHT

It is a truism to declare that capitalism cannot provide for the
people. Several hundred years of capitalism have decidedly proven
that fact. Capitalism does not have the motive or the aim of
providing for the people. What should people do about this matter?
This has become the most important question of the time.
 By taking up the May Day 1996 theme, A Livelihood Is A Human
Right, the working class goes on record that it is determined to do
something about the serious shortcomings of capitalism. The working
class places its own fate with the fate of the society when it
raises this demand for a livelihood. A constitutional guarantee to
a livelihood for all people by virtue of being human will provide
the people a common aim for which to work and fight. This demand,
once fulfilled, will become the motive of production in that new
society.
 With the motto A Livelihood Is A Human Right, the working
class raises the banner of lifting the society out of the crisis.
The working class appears not as a mere protestor, and dismissed as
a whiner, but as a leader of the society with its head high. It is
incumbent upon all class conscious workers to join under this
militant banner.
 When the working class holds aloft the banner of a livelihood
as a human right, it will also be giving notice to the bourgeoisie
and the old society that it must give way to the new. The working
class, by raising the banner of a livelihood, will constitute
itself as the nation. All the assets of the nation will be put at
the disposal of the entire people for the sole purpose of
guaranteeing their livelihood.
 The right to a livelihood and the composition of the nation
are the two principles which belong to all individuals, collectives
and the society. Under the bourgeoisie, the second principle
favours the financial oligarchy as it has brought the entire state
under its control; and the first principle is mired and lost in the
bourgeois line of the dominance of individual interest at the
expense of the collectives and the general interest of the society.
People are denied their basic right to a livelihood by dint of
being human and the door to the progress of society is firmly shut
by doing so. But opposition to this is mounting for it is in the
individual, collective and general interest of the society to have
the working class as the leader, constituted as the nation, under
the modern banner - A Livelihood Is A Human Right.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:4105] Re: the xUSSR once again

[Blair Sandler]

At 5:30 PM 5/2/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Yes, I agree. But I think we should be very careful with the word
>"extra-economic." It asks the question: what in heck do we mean
>by "economic"? One of the good points that Herb Gintis made
>before he went off the deep end was that the "economic" part of
>the society involves political, economic, sociological, and
>cultural practice (it reappears in his book with Sam Bowles,
>CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY). (The economic site is not identical to
>economic practice.) This point, which according to Lucio Colletti
>is in Marx (and I agree), suggests that we have to be more
>careful in our use of terms.
>
>Also, "extra-economic coercion" is unnecessary under capitalism
>only in _normal_ time, when the system is working well for
>capitalists. In crisis times (Italy during the 1920s, Germany
>during the 1930s, Chile during late 1973 and after, etc.)
>extra-economic coercion was used in ways aimed at saving the
>system.

I agree with Jim on the first paragraph (and it is definitely in Marx!).
But this would vitiate the commentary in the second paragraph. The fact is
that capitalism depends on "extra-economic" coercion all the time, though
it hides that fact in a "voluntary" exchange.

It's not only that the economic site involves political, economic,
sociological, and cultural practice, as Jim notes above; it's also the case
that political, sociological, and cultural sites involve economic practice.
I don't even know what an "economic site" is. Every site in society
involves all kinds of processes. Is there not economics in the household?
Various branches of the state? In the academic classroom?

In particular, there is power involved in every site in society. Coercion
is always "extra-economic" because power and economics are two distinct
kinds of processes (though intimately related).

Blair Sandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:4104] Re: the xUSSR once again

[Terrence Mc Donough]

Jim D. writes
 
> Yes, I agree. But I think we should be very careful with the word 
> "extra-economic." It asks the question: what in heck do we mean 
> by "economic"? One of the good points that Herb Gintis made 
> before he went off the deep end was that the "economic" part of 
> the society involves political, economic, sociological, and 
> cultural practice (it reappears in his book with Sam Bowles, 
> CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY). (The economic site is not identical to 
> economic practice.) This point, which according to Lucio Colletti 
> is in Marx (and I agree), suggests that we have to be more 
> careful in our use of terms. 
> 
> Also, "extra-economic coercion" is unnecessary under capitalism 
> only in _normal_ time, when the system is working well for 
> capitalists. In crisis times (Italy during the 1920s, Germany 
> during the 1930s, Chile during late 1973 and after, etc.) 
> extra-economic coercion was used in ways aimed at saving the 
> system. 

These are good points.  In reply to this and other missives, I have 
to admit an underlying theoretical agenda.  It is an argument that 
there are only four modes of production.

Communist (Collective/Communal appropriation of surplus labour)

Slavery (appropriation based on the ownership of the direct 
producers)

Capitalist (appropriation based on the exploitation of wage labour)

Feudal (appropriation through the application of political or 
ideological coercion)

I will admit that the last category is somewhat catchall and thats 
why this restricted taxonomy works.  The dynamics of the systems are 
crucially affected by the institutional framework within which the 
particular kind of appropriation is organized. (See SSA theory, 
Regulation theory, etc. for capitalism,  Anderson establishes both 
the manorial system and the absolute state system as feudal, but the 
dynamics are quite different).

On classes in socialism.  I recognize there are classes under 
socialism.  It's why socialism isn't yet communism.  For this reason 
socialism cannot be defined at the level of the economy.  Socialism 
at the level of the economy is transitional between class and 
non-class society and will look very different at different points in 
the (probably non-linear) transitional process.  What defines 
socialism is what keeps this transition process in place: the 
exercise of decisive political power by the proletaritat. [Which is 
what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat, rather than 
Stalinism, non-democracy, etc.]

In defending the xUSSR as socialist much argumentation has contended 
that classes didn't really exist or if they did they had no decisive 
influence on the dynamics of Soviet society.   I suppose this might 
boil down to defending the existence of proletarian political control 
of the state, but its hardly a prima facie argument. 

Terry McDonough

[PEN-L:4103] Re: the xUSSR once again...

[Terrence Mc Donough]

Ken H. writes

 The system also achieved an educational system
> which despite being ideologically blinkered was reasonably open and a 
> university system that didn't charge an arm and a leg in fees but gave
> allowances to students. It also had a health care system that was arguably
> much more equitable than that of the US for example and produced results
> comparable to that of the most advanced capitalist countries in terms of
> life expectancy, etc. Why was this not a form of socialism albeit
> a deformed form? 

This argument makes me nervous.  I have detected a certain rhetoric 
coming from Cuba which defines the central achievements of the 
revolution as free education and the quality free health care system. 
My fear is that this kind of talk is preparing the way for the 
abandonment of the totality of the socialist system.

Terry McDonough