[PEN-L:5012] Re: Correction
Jim D writes BTW, I checked my department's EconLit cd-rom and Gary Becker's article on the economics of suicide never got published (at least not after 1980). I guess that says something good about the journals. On the contrary, the journals were so steeped in neoclassical ideology that Becker's result was considered trivial. If your expected net discounted future utility goes negative, _of course_ you commit suicide. Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:5013] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, JULY 8, 1996
_In a stronger-than-expected June employment report, the unemployment
rate dipped to 5.3 percent, and nonfarm payrolls expanded by 239,000, BLS
says. The report prompts fears of inflation and higher interest rates. The
unemployment rate had stayed in a narrow range of between 5.4 percent and
5.8 percent since October 1994 and fell from 5.6 percent in May. Financial
markets caught inflation jitters on the release of the June report, which
showed the lowest unemployment rate since June 1990. Traders apparently
found the robust wage growth in June -- a record 0.8 percent rise in average
hourly earnings -- as worrisome as the strong job growth BLS
Commissioner Katharine G. Abraham said, "The ECI gives you a much better fix
[than average hourly earnings] on the change in wage rates" (Daily Labor
Report, pages 1,D-1,E-1).
_With the nation's economy running hotter than expected this summer, the
jobless rate dropped to a six-year low of 5.3 percent, and employers added
nearly a quarter-million workers to their payrolls. The surprisingly strong
jobs numbers, coupled with a sharp rise in hourly wages, were applauded by
the White House as a sign of buoyant economic growth The hourly wage
numbers were a big reason investors and analysts were upset by the report.
Some analysts said an increase that large is a clear sign that unemployment
now is so low that employers are having to fatten pay envelopes to attract
and hold workers, a development that could lead to higher inflation as
companies try to pass such higher costs on to customers through higher
prices for goods and services Stocks, bonds plunge on jobs report.
Many analysts fear Dow's 115-point drop signals fundamental shift
(Washington Post, July 6, page A1).
_Jobless rate for June at 5.3 percent, the lowest in six years
Stocks and bonds drop Strong labor data stir fears of a Federal
Reserve move to raise interest rates BLS sought to play down the leap in
hourly earnings, not because the number reflected any identifiable quirk,
like a shift in occupational or skill mix, but because of the notorious
volatility of this statistical series. Commissioner Abraham said that she
strongly suspected that the increase would ultimately be "squashed down"
upon revision and that she preferred to focus on the 3.4 percent rise in
hourly earnings over the last 12 months. While this is "a somewhat faster
pace" than has prevailed of late ... the acceleration has so far been less
than worrisome, she said _Signs of unexpected growth send markets
tumbling _Hourly wage jumps for second straight month (New York
Times, July 6, pages A1,31).
_Bond prices tumbled as unemployment fell to a six-year low, a measure
of hourly wages posted its biggest jump in decades, and new-job creation
surged. Investors saw an inflation threat in the reports and an increased
likelihood that the Fed will raise interest rates in coming months to cool
the economy, though Labor Secretary Reich countered that such statistics are
"notoriously volatile" (Wall Street Journal, pages A2,C1).
_Surprising jobs report gives investors jitters _Wage gains may
nip at corporate earnings (USA Today, page 1B).
Finding broad comparisons misleading at best, a new analysis by BLS
concludes that the average pay of state and local government workers and
private industry workers varies sharply among occupational groups Among
the conclusions reached by BLS economist Michael Miller in an article in the
May MLR was that looking across occupations, workers in lower-paying
jobs were more likely to be paid better in the public sector; workers in
higher-paying jobs fared better in private industry (Daily Labor Report,
page A-1).
More professional workers are choosing the freedom of temporary jobs over
"going captive" in a full-time position Whatever their motivation,
professionals and technical experts account for 15 percent of the temporary
work force in the United States, up from just a few percentage points a
decade ago In the early 1980s, there were fewer than 600,000 Americans
working in temporary jobs. By 1994, that figure had risen to 2.25 million,
and the Labor Department predicts that by 2005 more than 3.6 million people
will be temps. Typically, temporary jobs represent only a tiny portion of
the U.S. work force -- less than 2 percent of all jobs ("Your Money,"
Washington Post, July 7, page H4).
More work or less work can equal no time off. A vacation this year is out
of the question for a growing number of American families A substantial
38 percent of families say they have no plans to take a vacation in 1996, up
from last year's 34 percent, according to a poll by Dimension Research
company in Lombard, Ill. Some of the people forgoing vacations are among
the millions who lost their jobs because of corporate reorganizations
[PEN-L:5014] Re: Hedonism
To Tavis B. Of course if preferences are well ordered and convex and technology and resources are suitably well behaved an Arrow- Debreu equilibrium exists. But so what? The criticism is indeed on the lines of the autonomy of preferences. They are socially determined, they are bought, etc. Also, there is strong evidence that they are not "well ordered" in the Arrow-Debreu sense, and for some people some of the time they are not convex, which was the starting point of this thread, if I remember correctly. I do not have an answer to how to measure "efficiency" outside of the NC or some related framework such as dynamic programming (central planner plugs in objective function). Does it matter? Perhaps other goals such as sustainability and equality matter more. Barkley Rosser
[PEN-L:5015] Re: correction
Gary becker may or may not have used his wife's suicide as an inspiration for yet another path breaking article. But what I find more enlightening is the fact that his wife committed suicide right after the publication of his article on the economics of marriage. I suspect she could not handle his cold-blooded description of how he picked her. As Tina Turner asked, "what's love got to do with it." Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5017] Re: Gary Becker
The cliche (among conservatives) is that the left loves The People but not people, and conservatives love people but not The People. The appalling incivility of the posts so far about Gary Becker do nothing to challenge that cliche. Michael Etchison [opinions mine, not the PUCT's]
[PEN-L:5018] Re: Hedonism
I wrote: The problem with lower income doesn't really have directly to do with lower levels of consumption. Below some minimum, a lack of income will mean exclusion from normal social interaction. To take a simple example, in Ireland not being able to buy one's round in the pub can result in social isolation. The stress this puts on family relations can lead to domestic violence and child abuse. The unhappiness that potentially results from this situation is not due directly to lowering one's consumption of beer. Indeed, exclusion from normal social interaction rather than some absolute level of deprivation is the sensible definition of the poverty level. Tavis replies I'm not sure I understand the difference inasmuch as theory is concerned. Neoclassical utility theory merely requires that people derive utility from goods. It doesn't require that they enjoy them, just that the utility is derived from the goods causes them to make allocation decisions. Whether one enjoys the taste of beer or the social belonging that one gets from buying a round, one is still deriving utility from beer. I suppose there may not be much difference as far as neoclassical utility theory is concerned. To do what Tavis suggests you have to put social belonging in the utility function. This could be done but- 1) it almost never is. I will bet a significant portion of my future utility that noone has ever illustrated indifference curves in intro classes by trading off widgets and social belonging. What claims scientists make when under interrogation by other experts (always use the passive voice, never make an unqualified statement, etc) is different from what they say in less formal contexts. When they "get down" neoclassical theorists really do think that happiness=consumption goods is a useful and not too distorted description of human psychology. 2)when you start putting all these other things in the utility function, as Jim D pointed out, the theory becomes completely tautological. People do what they do because all things considered they prefer to do it over the next best alternative. I can agree with this statement, I just don't think is says anything particularly meaningful. - I wrote, Secondly, the unequal distribution of income (and property) leads to social inequalities which disempower the lower income groups to the benefit of the upper income groups. This has numerous and manifest consequences (among which is the promulgation among academic economists of the idea that happiness = consumption and the unhappiness that this ideological conviction causes). Tavis replies No disagreement here, I don't think. Again, though, I'm not sure that this is inconsistent with utility theory. For example, it is a fairly general result that under Walrasian equilibrium, the tastes of rich people are weighed much more heavily than those of poor people (specifically, that the equilibrium is equivalent to a weighted maximization of everyone's utility function, with the weights being the inverse of the marginal utility of income). In order to criticize the theory, I think one has to be more specific. My point was that the consequences extend beyond differential consumption between rich and poor. I wrotes The relationship between prices and wants is dialectical (mutual and simultaneous determination). There are some base human needs (food and shelter) but they are expressed only in specific cultural contexts and are probably seldom directly relevant to the question of the allocation of resources. Tavis replies I'll buy the first sentence, though again, the endogeneity of income to wants is not necessarily deadly for utility theory. For example, one could have a multi-period model where one period's tastes are determined by the previous period's consumption. All of the neoclassical results would then hold for a given period, given the previous period's economy. The initial period would consist of a consumption basket determined by producers or perhaps blind custom or perhaps history. Consumer sovereignty is lost in the model Tavis proposes and it consequently has no political point from the perspective of bourgeois ideology. It will not get a hearing within neoclassical economics. Tavis writes As for the second sentence: Do you really think that the need for commodities is "seldom directly relevant" to the quantities produced? Is it merely coincidence that our society produces a great deal more bottles of wine than stuffed animals or gallons of milk than bottles fo Vitamin C, even though these goods have similar production costs and prices? This seems like a surprising position. Please elaborate. The first bottle of wine or gallon of milk may have to do with subsistence but the last bottle most likely does not. The total quantity of milk and wine produced
[PEN-L:5019] Re: Gary Becker
At 9:51 AM 7/9/96, GC-Etchison, Michael wrote: The cliche (among conservatives) is that the left loves The People but not people, and conservatives love people but not The People. The appalling incivility of the posts so far about Gary Becker do nothing to challenge that cliche. Michael Etchison [opinions mine, not the PUCT's] Gary Becker is not a person. He's a utility-maximizing organism. Two entirely unrelated species. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5020] Re: Hedonism
On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Terrence Mc Donough wrote: [about whether one enjoys beer for itself or for social belonging] I suppose there may not be much difference as far as neoclassical utility theory is concerned. To do what Tavis suggests you have to put social belonging in the utility function. This could be done but- 1) it almost never is. I will bet a significant portion of my future utility that noone has ever illustrated indifference curves in intro classes by trading off widgets and social belonging. What claims scientists make when under interrogation by other experts (always use the passive voice, never make an unqualified statement, etc) is different from what they say in less formal contexts. When they "get down" neoclassical theorists really do think that happiness=consumption goods is a useful and not too distorted description of human psychology. Granted. I think my original point was against objections (not yours) that it _couldn't_ be put in. Perhaps I'm being pathological, but then, this is an academic discussion list :) 2)when you start putting all these other things in the utility function, as Jim D pointed out, the theory becomes completely tautological. People do what they do because all things considered they prefer to do it over the next best alternative. I can agree with this statement, I just don't think is says anything particularly meaningful. Again, I agree. The meainingful part is that one can describe economic allocations based on a sum of individual decisions (heterodox economists will no doubt want to build elite influences on the legal and social boundaries of these decisions into any model as well). NC's would argue that this means that this means that allocations reflect maximizing a weighted sum of people's happiness, and, for the reasons you've pointed out and more, this is not terribly accurate. However, I think that being able to model these allocation processes has some value in itself. Particularly, if we can separate out and identify the various effects of different factors in the formation of tastes, and the consequent effects of those created tastes on the allocation of resources, we may learn something about how hegemony is created. Or it may be a fruitless mathematical exercise. But at least the possibility is interesting. I wrote: I'll buy the first sentence, though again, the endogeneity of income to wants is not necessarily deadly for utility theory. For example, one could have a multi-period model where one period's tastes are determined by the previous period's consumption. All of the neoclassical results would then hold for a given period, given the previous period's economy. And Terry responded: The initial period would consist of a consumption basket determined by producers or perhaps blind custom or perhaps history. Consumer sovereignty is lost in the model Tavis proposes and it consequently has no political point from the perspective of bourgeois ideology. It will not get a hearing within neoclassical economics. But it is nonetheless based on utility theory, with an alteration that is, mathematically, very minor, even if it has major political implications. Again, my point (and you might not disagree, I'm not sure) is that there are alterations of utility theory that have highly non-neoclassical results, and perhaps they are worth exploring. I'm not wedded to the theory, and there may be other approaches that prove better in the long run; it's just that I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand by radical economists. I wrote: As for the second sentence: Do you really think that the need for commodities is "seldom directly relevant" to the quantities produced? Is it merely coincidence that our society produces a great deal more bottles of wine than stuffed animals or gallons of milk than bottles fo Vitamin C, even though these goods have similar production costs and prices? This seems like a surprising position. Please elaborate. And Terry responded: The first bottle of wine or gallon of milk may have to do with subsistence but the last bottle most likely does not. The total quantity of milk and wine produced has to do with customary consumption not universal human needs. It would be easy to find societies that do not produce wine or milk at all despite the capacity to do so and the need for the caloric intake. And later: I don't think the process of enjoyment is extra-social. People with lower income are much less likely to demand fancy food. They are also much less likely to enjoy it when given it, prefering food they are accustomed to. But this is quibbling over definitions of need. Of course most consumption is not for basic nutritional or clothing requirements. Nevertheless, while in a sense every non-primary commodity is socially constructed, I think there are
[PEN-L:5021] Re: Hedonism
On Tue, 9 Jul 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To Tavis B. Of course if preferences are well ordered and convex and technology and resources are suitably well behaved an Arrow- Debreu equilibrium exists. But so what? The criticism is indeed on the lines of the autonomy of preferences. They are socially determined, they are bought, etc. Also, there is strong evidence that they are not "well ordered" in the Arrow-Debreu sense, and for some people some of the time they are not convex, which was the starting point of this thread, if I remember correctly. Fair enough. The original thread was on the consistency of utility theory. Some suggested that the theory fell apart if preferences were socially determined. My point was that the result of market prices somehow being "optimal" fell apart, but that the theory was still usable. You seemed to be defending (though I'm not sure since it was by way of example rather than statement) a previous post (I can't remember whose) that suggested that commodities did not provide pleasure, except inasmuch as they provide people with the ability to continue habitual behavior. This would, indeed, be deadly for utility theory, since it provides no basis to evaluate hypothetical consumption bundles, and also because it might imply that people with different levels of consumption would be just as happy with their respective consumption bundles provided that those bundles are habitual. I disagree (I went into more detail in my response to Terry) since I think that enjoyment of commodities is developed by an interaction of social acceptance and physical stimulation and not (usually) by either one alone. I grant that equilibria won't exist if preferences aren't convex, however this strikes me as a somewhat arbitrary critique for radicals to make, i.e., there are no real politics of non-convex preferences. I'm less concerned about the production sets since I think the NC theory of the firm is so bad as to be pretty much useless. My question was more along the lines of, if we don't like utility theory, what would be a better approach? I do not have an answer to how to measure "efficiency" outside of the NC or some related framework such as dynamic programming (central planner plugs in objective function). Does it matter? Perhaps other goals such as sustainability and equality matter more. I don't defend any NC notions of efficiency and I agree with your point. I was referring to the word in a slightly different sense: When labor values determine prices, one of the assumptions is that labor is efficiently exploited, i.e., firms that make useless goods go out of business quickly. This essentially assumes a theory of demand without ever spelling it out. Perhaps this is a time for a Marxologist like Jim to tell me I'nm wrong, but my sense and my recollection from reading Capital is that Marx never worked out what determined why people bought some commodities and not others. NC utility theory does, and this gives it some original value. Cheers, Tavis
[PEN-L:5022] Re: Hedonism
At the risk of jumping into the middle of other people's discussions -- I thought ONE interesting issue was why and how particular economic institutions -- such as markets, private enterprise, of central planning for that matter -- affected the kinds of preferences it would be individually rational for people to develop. This is a minor subset of the much larger issue of preference formation in general. The motivation behind looking at the issue I just posed was to critically evaluate the effects of different economic institutions on preference development. With that in mind we reviewed other's treatments of endogenous preferences in chapter 4 of Quiet Revolution in Welfare Theory (Quiet indeed!), and developed a treat- ment in chapter 6 that demonstrated how biases in economic institutions could be rigorously defined and why and how these biases would generate a predictable affect on preference development. Subsequent identification of biases in market, private enterprise, and central planning institutions (in chapters 7,8, and 9) lead to one kind of critique of important econ- omic institutions that logically, as opposed to psychol- ogically or politically, should be difficult for economists, or neoclassical economists if you will, to ignore. It also motivated a search for alternative economic insti- tutions that would NOT be biased against sociality and self-management and would therefore NOT have the detrimental preference development effects of existing economic institutions. If this is irrelevant to your discussion, please ignore.
[PEN-L:5023] Re: Hedonism
Whatever other critiques of capitalism there may be -- and I am convinced there are many -- and whatever the relative importance of different deficiencies in capitalism -- and I, personally do not begin with an efficiency based critique -- I do beleive there are powerful efficiency critiques of capitalism. And not just of the Keynesian some sort of market disequilibria or other variety. Prevalence of externalities (E.K. Hunt), inefficient choices of technology and remuneration by owners (the conflict theory of the firm -- too many to mention), and socially irrational and inefficient preference (mis)development effects of significant and predictable biases in the prices of even the most competitive and well equilibrated of private market systems (Albert and Hahnel) are ALL elements of important efficiency critiques of capitalism. Moreover, some of these critiques can be perfectly well formulated and presented using neoclassical "tools."
[PEN-L:5024] Re: Hedonism
rhahnel writes 7/9 of various "powerful efficiency critiques of capitalism." What does "efficiency" mean in that sentence, other than "what I would have to be so"? This is not just a smart-alec question. I have some idea what it would mean from a neoclassical; I don;t know what it means from a Radical Economist. Michael Etchison [opinions mine, not the PUCT's]
[PEN-L:5025] Becker
Blair Sandler writes that:Gary Becker is not a person. He's a utility-maximizing organism. Two entirely unrelated species. Honestly (i.e., non-facetiously), Becker is an eccentric professor, one of many in academia and one of many types. As an eccentric prof. myself (of a very different sort than Becker), I think it's sort of nice that academia is willing to accept people like that. It's clearly preferable to the nuthouse. The problem is that capitalism picks up Becker's (and Becker-type) ideas and runs with them, using them to justify the system and even to suggest new policies. Even BUSINESS WEEK, which is one of the more enlightened of business periodicals in the US, gives Becker a column so that he can feed and thus reinforce their business readership's prejudices and ideology. Worse, Beckerian ideology attracts all sorts of funds from conservative (so-called "laissez-faire") billionaires: they use tax-free foundations and other tax breaks to funnel money to the Chicago school and its satellites, spawning all sorts of "Chicago clones" who spread the gospel to the unwashed masses. The Beckerian ideology -- which basically sees the whole human world as nothing but markets -- fits quite well with the capitalist mode of production's normal tendency to commodify everything, to create the universal market. The Chicago-school slogan "if the world doesn't fit the model, force it to do so" seems to have taken over public policy lately, led by the World Bank/IMF, Thatcher, Reagan, etc., etc. BTW, we should remember that Michael E. does not share the same political-economic assumptions as the vast majority of pen-l. He therefore does not understand our sense of humor, confusing light-hearted banter about Gary Becker with personal attacks on that man. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., 7900 Loyola Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 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:5026] Dollars Sense books
NEW BOOKS FROM DOLLARS SENSE: Please excuse the semi-commercial nature of this message. This year Dollars Sense magazine has published new editions of three course readers, all of which have been popular with progressive faculty for use in introductory and intermediate courses. They are: REAL WORLD MACRO, 13th edition, $12.95 REAL WORLD MICRO, 6th edition, $12.95 REAL WORLD INTERNATIONAL, 3rd edition, $7.50 We now have a new reader, targetted to the Republican offensive: DECODING THE CONTRACT: PROGRESSIVE PERSPECTIVES ON CURRENT ECONOMIC POLICY DEBATES, 1st edition, $7.50 We also have available our fifth book, REAL WORLD BANKING, 2nd edition, $4.95; and copies of special issues of Dollars Sense magazine that are good for classroom purposes: New Organizing Strategies for Labor (forthcoming Sept/Oct 1996, 52 pages, $3.95) Democracy for Sale: Big Business Bought the Government. Can We Take It Back? (July/Aug 1996, 44 pages, $3.95) Beneath the Green Veneer: Special Environmental Issue (March/April 1996, 52 pages, $3.95) Women in the World Economy (November/December 1995, 44 pages, $3.95) New Directions for Labor (September/October 1995, 52 pages, $3.95) From Warheads to Windmills: Will the Military Convert? (Jan/Feb 1994, 44 pages, $3.95 To receive free desk copies of any of the above, just send me an Email message with your name, address, phone number, school and department, and which ones you want. We request postage costs of $3 for the first book and $1 for each additional book, but will send them out prior to receiving postage costs. If you have any questions, send me an Email at [EMAIL PROTECTED], or call (617) 628-8411, or write One Summer St., Somerville, MA 02143. Tables of contents for all the books are contained in a following Email message. Thanks. Marc Breslow, Editor.
[PEN-L:5027] Tables of Contents-DS books
REAL WORLD MACRO, 13TH EDITION: TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: THE BASICS - MEASURING ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 1. Is the U.S. Making Progress? Unlike the GDP, A New Measure Says "No" 2. Counting Women's Work 3. Measuring Women's Progress 4. When is a Recession Over: Sitting in a conference room, seven suits decide 5. Robert Reich: The New Economic Equation 6. The Reich Stuff: Dollars Sense Responds CHAPTER 2: HOUSEHOLDS, CONSUMPTION, AND INEQUALITY 7. Why Have Savings Fallen? Trickle-Down Economics Deserves the Blame 8. Inequality Ascendant 9. Rising Output, Falling Incomes 10. Unnecessary Evil: The Inequality-Growth tradeoff is a ripoff 11. The Racial Divide Widens: Why African-American workers have lost ground CHAPTER 3: BUSINESS, INVESTMENT, AND PRODUCTIVITY 12. The Capital Gains Tax Giveaway 13. Generating Affluence: Productivity gains require worker support 14. Boosting Investment: The overrated influence of interest rates 15. The Quality Movement: Is it defective? 16. The "Profits = Investment" Scam 17. Economics in Never-Never Land: "Rational Expectations" Wins the Nobel Prize CHAPTER 4: FISCAL POLICY 18. Is Big Government Really the Problem? 19. Death by "Devolution": Congress Passes the Buck to the States 20. Budget-Balancing Nonsense: The GOP Attacks the Wrong Problems 21. Aid to Dependent Corporations: Exposing federal handouts to the wealthy 22. Disappearing Corporate Taxes 23. Deficits and Our Children 24. Understanding the Flat Tax CHAPTER 5: BANKING AND MONETARY POLICY 25. The Brave New World of the Mega-Bank 26. Banks in Control: How the federal reserve frustrates fiscal policy 27. What Is Money? 28. Transforming the Fed: A path to financial stability and democratic socialism 29. No Expense Too Great: A history of the SL bailout CHAPTER 6: UNEMPLOYMENT INFLATION 30. Bad Medicine: Is the "cure" for inflation worth the cost? 31. Problems With the Phillips Curve 32. Looking for Work in a Buyer's Market 33. The Real Un(der)employment Rate 34. The New Unemployment 35. Policies for Peace: Easing the Transition to New Industries CHAPTER 7: INTERNATIONAL TRADE INVESTMENT 36. Which Way to Grow? Notes on poverty and prosperity in southeast Asia 37. Why Free Trade Fails: The dangers of GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO 38. The Declining Dollar: Who Wins, Who Loses 39. Reign of Error: The World Bank's wrongs STATISTICAL APPENDIX Gross Domestic Product Trade, Investment, Government Spending Workforce Wages Unemployment Inflation, Interest Rates, Debt REAL WORLD MICRO, 6TH EDITION: TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: THE BASICS 1. Shaking the Invisible Hand: The Uncertain Foundations of Free Market Economics 2. The Case of Hungary: Free Markets Aren't Always the Solution 3. Who Gains From Trade? 4. Small Versus Big Business: Pros and Cons CHAPTER 2: REAL WORLD MARKETS 5. Bare Minimum: A Low Minimum Wage Depresses All Wages 6. The Child Care Industry: Worthy Work, Worthless Wages 7. A Bad Bargain: Why U.S. Health Care Costs So Much and Covers So Few 8. Globe-Trotter Giveaway: A Market is Created in Cyberspace CHAPTER 3: CONSUMERS 9. Enough is Enough: Why More Is Not Necessarily Better Than Less 10. Saturday Morning Pushers: Where Do Consumer Preferences Come From? 11. The Gay Marketing Moment: Can Marketing Eliminate Discrimination? 12. Debate: Butting Heads over the Tobacco Tax CHAPTER 4: THE INDIVIDUAL FIRM 13. To Make a Tender Chicken: Technological Change and Costcutting Take Their Toll on Poultry Workers 14. Inside the Black Box of Production: Reorganizing Work As If Workers Matter 15. Co-ops, ESOPs, and Worker Participation 16. No Voice for Workers: How the U.S. Economy Penalizes Worker Participation CHAPTER 5: MARKET STRUCTURE 17. The Wealth of Information: Concentration in the Marketplace of Ideas 18. Brave New Mega-Banks: Mergers Create a Concentrated Industry 19. Truckers' Travails: The Impact of Economic Deregulation on the Trucking Industry 20. Drug Price Blues CHAPTER 6: LABOR MARKETS 21. Jack and Me: A Review of the GE Revolution 22. It's Not Working: Low-wage Jobs May Not Be the Answer for the Poor 23. It's Better in the Union -- If You Can Find One 24. Fear of Foreigners: Does Immigrant Labor Drive Down Wages? CHAPTER 7: DISCRIMINATION, POVERTY AND INEQUALITY 25. Can We Still Win the War on Poverty? 26. Welfare Myths Facts 27. To Be Young, Black, and Female 28. Lending Insights: Discrimination in the Banking Industry 29. Who is Poor? 30. Spiraling Down: The Fall of Real Wages CHAPTER 8: THE ENVIRONMENT 31. Trading Away the Earth: Examining Free Market Environmentalism 32. Environmental Justice: the Birth of a Movement 33. Taxing Trash: Will Taxes to Clean Up the Environment Work? 34. Prawn Fever: Resource Depletion Threatens Thailand~s Shrimp Farmers CHAPTER 9: THE GLOBAL ECONOMY 34. Markets Unbound: The Price of Global Markets 35. Macho Economics: What Free Trade Means for Canadian Women 36. Crimes of Fashion: Those Who Suffer to Bring You Gap T-Shirts
[PEN-L:5028] Re: Becker
Jim D wrote: The problem is that capitalism picks up Becker's (and Becker-type) ideas and runs with them, using them to justify the system and even to suggest new policies. It takes two to tango, Jim. It's hard for me to picture Becker as a victim. Despite his alleged eccentricities, he has made more than a few $ on his writings. Jerry
[PEN-L:5029] Re: Gary Becker
Date sent: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GC-Etchison, Michael) To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:5017] Re: Gary Becker The cliche (among conservatives) is that the left loves The People but not people, and conservatives love people but not The People. The appalling incivility of the posts so far about Gary Becker do nothing to challenge that cliche. Michael Etchison [opinions mine, not the PUCT's] My Turn: What I find interesting is that right-wingers can produce and publish the most "uncivil" and "impolite" rhetoric and theories with some very "uncivil" and very "impolite" consequences on the most vulnerable and the most-chewed-up by capitalism and then whine about "uncivil" and "impolite" responses. Gary Becker like so many of the "Chicago School" and other schools of paid (through money, career advancement, positions and yes Nobel prizes) whores and apologists for the destructive aspects of capitalism want a "civil" and "polite" debate--read on their terms, in their language within the parameters of their bankrupt paradigms--while sitting by and rationalizing the brutal effects of policies and theories constructed on the basis of their whoring and bankrupt paradigms. As someone who lost his mother to suicide I find nothing funny in the suicide of Becker's wife or in his article on the "Economics of Suicide". I must believe that Becker is a "true believer" and that he probably manifested some the sick behavior and assumptions in his marriage and other aspects of his life that are clearly reflected in the somewhat elegantly quantified shit that got him the Nobel Prize (for Bourgeois Apology, Mystification, Obfuscation, Contrived Syllogisms, Ideological Whoring and Sycophancy, Antiseptic Model Building etc) in Economics. If my language is "uncivil" and "impolite" it is because a considerable part of my life has been spent with the real-world victims of some very "uncivil" and "impolite" consequences of some theories and policies some very "uncivil" and "impolite" academics and politicos who hide behind masks of "civility" and "politeness". In Malayalam there is a saying" "Smiling with the front teeth;grinding with the back teeth." So many of these pampered academics, turning out reams of crap, debating what Keynes really meant in footnote nine of chapter 2 of..., spinning off article after article from original dissertations for career and CV building etc want immunity to construct the most "uncivil" and "impolite" policies while demanding only "civil" and "polite"--in their terms only-- responses to their self-indulgent and pampered existences and Faustian bargains. Fuck "civility" and "politeness" when dealing with those who make the most "uncivil" and "impolite" Faustian Bargains, with the most "uncivil" and "impolite" of bourgeois patrons who construct the most "uncivil" and impolite" theories and policies with very ugly, brutal and "uncivil" and "impolite" consequences on real people. Jim Craven *---** * James Craven * "All things have inner meaning and * * Dept of Economics* form and power." (Hopi) * * Clark College* "In this world the unseen has power." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * (Apache) * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * "Be satisfied with needs instead of * * (360) 992-2283 * wants." (Tenton Lakota) * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * "The Great Spirit is always angry * * * with men who shed innocent blood."* * * (Iowa)* * * "It is no longer good enough to cry * * * peace, we must act peace, live peace, * * * and live in peace."(Shenandoah) * * * "A people without a history is like * * the wind over buffalo grass."(Lakota) * ** * "There are many paths to a meaningful sense of the natural world." * * (Blackfeet); "A shady lane breeds mud." (Hopi); * * "Strive to be a person who is never absent from an important act." * * (Osage); "Men in search of a myth will usually find one."(Pueblo) * * "Life is not separate from death. It only looks that way." * * (Blackfeet); "Some are smart but they are not wise."(Shoshone); * * "The one who tells the stories rules the world." (Hopi); * * "Force, no matter how concealed, begets resistance." (Lakota); * * "The only things that need the protection of men are the things of * * men, not the things of the spirit."
[PEN-L:5031] Careerist Party Caudillo scapegoats ex-rank file
Dear Friends, In his Det#115 and other ravings, Joseph Green, caudillo of his CVO Detroit "anti-revisionist" sect has gone ballastic over my postulating some theories of capitalist decadence which far from "repudiating Leninism" goes far to try to bring bolshevism up to date in many ways. The theores of capitalist decadence are not my own inventions but are the basic political-economic critiques of the Left-communist trend, the best of those coming from the Communist Workers Organization -UK, Box 338, Sheffield S3 9YX, UK. Another C-L grouping is the Int'l Communist Current, PO Box 288, NY, NY, 10018. You can contact them for updated texts/journals on the theory. Joseph/CVO consider those who don't hold up every leter and comma of Marx-engels and Lenins works (previously Stalins, Mao's and Hoxha's too) as heretics , infidels against the true Josephus/CVO sect. The views i put forward on decadence were just a smattering of the whole concept but basically we can say that decadene recognizes the decline of capitalism is far from being exhausted and many questions still not answered (admission of this fact will prove to Josephus that it must be errant!) These last five decades has posed a whole series of new problems for revolutionary theory and practice. Many problems still need resolution. But a few things can be gleaned which make the Josephus doctrines outmoded and impotent. 1)Proletarian revolution has been on the agenda since WW1. 2)Traditioalism leftism of many revolutionaries are now out of date. 3)Tactics valid in the 19th Cent. have become part of the bourgeois state institutionaled method today a)parliamentarianism b)unionist struggle schemes c)so-called bourgeois ' national liberation struggles" This leads us to the recognition of decadence since WW1 which is incoporated into an up-dated world view for struggle. The relativly reduced and stunted growth in the dominant world capitalist production relations. (1) The developement of the state apparatus and its control over the whole society--the general tendency toward state capitalism. The periodic massive eruptions of calss antagonisms and thupsurge of proletarian revloutionary movements that can call into question the world system of capitalist imperialism. The accelerated decompostion of bourgeois ideological values open tendencies back to barbarism and reaction. The inordinate developement of un-productive sectors of production- guns/arms/bombs/missiles, etc at the expense of productive sectors. The appearance world crisis followed by world wars on a regular scale which are more barbaric and genocidal with each offensive. All this shows the definitive inability of waged labor domination to fulfull the historic need of humanity. Those who claim to support revolution today and kiss-off the reality of decadence , cannot really understand the materail/social phenomena of the the present stage in the laws of motion of capitalism. If we give the ascendant/decadent critique of capitalism its due, we can help bring up to date our present horse and buggy relutionary practice. Joseph/CVO still wish to cover up for their own dead Hoxha-ism, Pol Pot-ism, UNITA-ism, etc, et. al. For Joseph religion , theworld today stands still, at least since the death of Lenin. Joseph the poltroon demands the rank and filers of his ex-MLP instead take the blame for his own idiotic and counter-revolutionary views and actions. Joseph was the top honcho of the ex-MLP. He, 25 years the political parasite on the movement , the continual Capo de tut de Capo- uber alles en die welt! Now he stoops to his lowest of the low blaming me and other rank and filers of thex-MLP for his Stalinism! In the ex-MLP, our cde. Carl temporarily quit the MLP in 1982 and returned in 1984 protesting the "socialist" label given to Albania by Joseph co. I put forward an admittedly shallow critique of state capitalism thru the Bay Area and directly in 1986-7 which was not appreciated much by Joseph Co. These efforts were puny, but we tried to help change things. But In Det#115, Joseph says a former ex-MLP SYMPATHIZER for 11 years and CANDIDATE MEMBER for 1 and a half years must bear the burden of guilt for the outmoded and impotent views of Mr. Caudillo of the CC Joseph and his clique. He and his clique dictate who is sacrificed for them. By this travesty and others, Joseph has shown his political dishonesty. We should go light on him however. He should be told to end his career of political parasitism, fold his tent, go out and get a regular job , stop feeding off the workers, and find out what the rest of us put up with in the day to day grind of surviving under the capitalists offensive! LANC (1) See Fritz Sternberg, Capitalism and Socialism on Trial, Greenwood Press, 1968, for the stats on the relative decline of capitalist growth rates.
[PEN-L:5032] Re: Careerist Party Caudillo scapegoats ex-rank file
Written by space aliens or runaway computers? Enquiring minds wanna know. Ever the imperialist running dog, Tavis On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, neil wrote: Dear Friends, In his Det#115 and other ravings, Joseph Green, caudillo of his CVO Detroit "anti-revisionist" sect has gone ballastic over my postulating some theories of capitalist decadence which far from "repudiating Leninism" goes far to try to bring bolshevism up to date in many ways. The theores of capitalist decadence are not my own inventions but are the basic political-economic critiques of the Left-communist trend, the best of those coming from the Communist Workers Organization -UK, Box 338, Sheffield S3 9YX, UK. Another C-L grouping is the Int'l Communist Current, PO Box 288, NY, NY, 10018. You can contact them for updated texts/journals on the theory. Joseph/CVO consider those who don't hold up every leter and comma of Marx-engels and Lenins works (previously Stalins, Mao's and Hoxha's too) as heretics , infidels against the true Josephus/CVO sect. The views i put forward on decadence were just a smattering of the whole concept but basically we can say that decadene recognizes the decline of capitalism is far from being exhausted and many questions still not answered (admission of this fact will prove to Josephus that it must be errant!) These last five decades has posed a whole series of new problems for revolutionary theory and practice. Many problems still need resolution. But a few things can be gleaned which make the Josephus doctrines outmoded and impotent. 1)Proletarian revolution has been on the agenda since WW1. 2)Traditioalism leftism of many revolutionaries are now out of date. 3)Tactics valid in the 19th Cent. have become part of the bourgeois state institutionaled method today a)parliamentarianism b)unionist struggle schemes c)so-called bourgeois ' national liberation struggles" This leads us to the recognition of decadence since WW1 which is incoporated into an up-dated world view for struggle. The relativly reduced and stunted growth in the dominant world capitalist production relations. (1) The developement of the state apparatus and its control over the whole society--the general tendency toward state capitalism. The periodic massive eruptions of calss antagonisms and thupsurge of proletarian revloutionary movements that can call into question the world system of capitalist imperialism. The accelerated decompostion of bourgeois ideological values open tendencies back to barbarism and reaction. The inordinate developement of un-productive sectors of production- guns/arms/bombs/missiles, etc at the expense of productive sectors. The appearance world crisis followed by world wars on a regular scale which are more barbaric and genocidal with each offensive. All this shows the definitive inability of waged labor domination to fulfull the historic need of humanity. Those who claim to support revolution today and kiss-off the reality of decadence , cannot really understand the materail/social phenomena of the the present stage in the laws of motion of capitalism. If we give the ascendant/decadent critique of capitalism its due, we can help bring up to date our present horse and buggy relutionary practice. Joseph/CVO still wish to cover up for their own dead Hoxha-ism, Pol Pot-ism, UNITA-ism, etc, et. al. For Joseph religion , theworld today stands still, at least since the death of Lenin. Joseph the poltroon demands the rank and filers of his ex-MLP instead take the blame for his own idiotic and counter-revolutionary views and actions. Joseph was the top honcho of the ex-MLP. He, 25 years the political parasite on the movement , the continual Capo de tut de Capo- uber alles en die welt! Now he stoops to his lowest of the low blaming me and other rank and filers of thex-MLP for his Stalinism! In the ex-MLP, our cde. Carl temporarily quit the MLP in 1982 and returned in 1984 protesting the "socialist" label given to Albania by Joseph co. I put forward an admittedly shallow critique of state capitalism thru the Bay Area and directly in 1986-7 which was not appreciated much by Joseph Co. These efforts were puny, but we tried to help change things. But In Det#115, Joseph says a former ex-MLP SYMPATHIZER for 11 years and CANDIDATE MEMBER for 1 and a half years must bear the burden of guilt for the outmoded and impotent views of Mr. Caudillo of the CC Joseph and his clique. He and his clique dictate who is sacrificed for them. By this travesty and others, Joseph has shown his political dishonesty. We should go light on him however. He should be told to end his career of political parasitism, fold his tent, go out and get a regular job , stop feeding off the workers, and find out what the rest of us put up with in the day to day grind of surviving under the capitalists offensive! LANC (1) See
[PEN-L:5016] Re: ideology
Jim D. writes Wojtek Sokolowski writes: Why do Wojtek's post only appear in the archive? Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:5033] Payroll taxes
I have been invited to do an article for the local newspaper on the pros and cons of payroll taxes and their effects on employment. Does anyone on the list have suggestions for studies, articles, etc. that they could recommend? Paul Phillips, University of Manitoba. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5034] Re: Gary Becker
Michael Etchison (of PUCT) seems to feel that the posts about Gary Becker have been uncivil. Well, like efficiency, that's a matter of opinion. Personally, I think they have been mightily restrained, especially considering the fact that a number of feminists I know monitor pen-l and I KNOW what THEY think of Becker. For a reference, one can read Barbara Bergmann's piece about Becker in the fall/winter issue of FEMINIST ECONOMICS. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5035] Re: Hedonism
Barkley Rosser notes, correctly, that there is no way to measure efficiency outside the nc framework. I would take this a couple of steps further: 1. The nc frame work does not measure efficiency. It measures a trade off between a couple of points which may or may not lead to an efficient outcome BECAUSE: 2. Efficiency is in the eye of the beholder. Was Three Mile Island efficient? How does one define efficiency? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5036] Re: Careeris...
Tavis asks; "Written by runaway computers or space aliens?" I vote for the aliens. maggie
[PEN-L:5037] Re: Hedonism
On Tue, 9 Jul 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barkley Rosser notes, correctly, that there is no way to measure efficiency outside the nc framework. I would take this a couple of steps further: I'm not sure about this. For example, a sound-bite image of what Marx meant by capitalist crisis in Vol. 3 might be something like: Factories sit empty while people are out of work and suffering from lack of goods that those factories could produce. Isn't that a form of inefficiency? Yours for the squabble after the revolution, Tavis
