[PEN-L:5894] Re: the Hudson Institute??
Smalhout is a smart sassy writer who has viewed the government insurance system for pensions -- the self financed Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation -- as too risky. Furthermore he criticizes the system as a subsidy to union (especially) work forces. The Hudson Institute supports research on the positive political economy outcomes of the free market. Teresa Ghilarducci At 05:58 PM 8/29/96 -0700, you wrote: I recently came across a new book by James Smalhout called "The Uncertain Retirement: Securing Pension Promises in a World of Risk." It was written while he was a fellow at Brookings and then at the Hudson Institute. Does anybody out there know anything about the Hudson Institute?, or about Smalhout? Thanks, Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Teresa Ghilarducci Associate Professor Department of Economics University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 Phone: 219/631-7581 fax: 219/232-3086
[PEN-L:5895] Medicare
A short respose to Shawgi Tell on Canadian medicare. 1st, there are difficulties, primarily with reduction in funding by the Federal government (though the provinces are not blameless here). 2nd, there was a great need for reform in the system since it discouraged _pre_ventative medicine in favour of crisis intervention medicine and it encouraged high cost institutional care rather than home care and other alternatives. 3rs, there is a real bias toward capital intensive hospital care in our system -- a bias that is expensive and, in medical terms, inefficient. The problem is that these probems can not be addressed easily at the federal level which can only dictate the level of funding. Furthermore, the real escalation of costs has been in the cost of drugs that have skyrocketed since Canada gave in to American pressure and extended the patent protection to international drug companies such that the cost of drugs now exceeds the cost of physician services in Canada. In order to dealwith this problem, we will probably have to cancel the Can-US free trade agreement. This may be a necessary precondition of providing affordable health care in Canada -- and probably the US as well. Nevertheless, Shawgi Tell's analysis is symplistic and does little to help us save medicare in Canada. On the line for health care, Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:5874] Re: 'Civilian' Regime Going Beserk
On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:19:51 -0700 (PDT) SHAWGI TELL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What kind of change in the ROK are you referring to Rosser Jr, John Barkley? Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is no longer a military dictatorship, despite the recent violent suppression of student demonstrators. Elections are being held. Past dictatorial and corrupt presidents are being condemned to death and long sentences. Even leaders of chaebols are being indicted for corruption. By all reports, the people in the ROK consider these changes to be very major, and that the trials of the past presidents to be the "trials of the century" in Korea. -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why, then, does the South Korean bourgeoisie need the blessings of U.S. imperialism? Why do they arrest people exercising their rights? Why do they oppose reunification? The reports I have been investigating do not support the view that ROK is opening the path of progress to the society. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5875] Re: welfare and out-of-wedlock births
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: . . . On Sunday in the Washington Post there was a column by Paul Offner arguing that the states with the lowest AFDC payments have the highest out-of-wedlock birth rates, e.g. Mississippi. Now, I don't know if he is right, but if so, this goes along with the crude time series of these variables raising doubts about all these studies finding some kind of positive relationship. I realize that such a relationship might show with a "properly specified" simultaneous equations model, blah blah, but I am skeptical. The key paper on this subject was done by Mary Jo Bane and David Ellwood and thoroughly debunks the Murray hypothesis that welfare benefits retard work effort and promote illegitimacy. I don't have the exact cite, but the date is around 1984. See also Fighting Poverty, What Works and What Doesn't (Danziger and Weinberg, eds). M.S. Max B. Sawicky 202-775-8810 (voice) Economic Policy Institute 202-775-0819 (fax) 1660 L Street, NW [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036
[PEN-L:5876] A Dogfight In Place Of A Pro-Social Program
One of the most obscene things surrounding the conflict on the question of social programs that has arisen between Jean Chretien's Federal Liberal Government, and the premiers of nine provinces (excluding Quebec) and the leaders of the two territories, is that they are pretending that their dogfight has something to do with the people's health. That is the farthest thing from the truth. Instead of recognizing the immediate need to put an end to the anti-social offensive, this conflict has arisen over who will control the tax-dollars earmarked for "healthcare." It is an obscene conflict because the real issue is not whether to have Medicare or not. The real issue is also not whether the setting of standards of health and other social programs should be in the hands of the federal government or in the hands of the premiers and the leaders of the territories. No, the real issue is the health of the people, which must be in the hands of the people themselves. A genuinely national government in the hands of the people will deal with the health standards for its own benefit. At this time, however, the Liberal government is neither genuinely national nor is it in the hands of the people. This is why a conflict has arisen between the federal government and the premiers, who are interested for their own ends to have the full control of the tax dollars collected from the people. They really do not care about the health of the people, just as they do not care whether a livelihood for all is guaranteed - a livelihood at the highest standards possible according to the present level of development of the productive forces. This dogfight for control of the tax-dollars in the form of setting standards also contains another dimension. The entire system of Medicare is going bankrupt. Instead of going forward by modernizing it, governments at all levels are "cutting back" further endangering the health of the people. This fight between the federal government and the provinces and territories is bound to worsen. It has as well a diversionary aspect that the people must avoid. The working class can only respond to it by presenting its own pro-social program demanding free health care for all. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5877] Re: welfare and out-of-wedlock births
According to Greg Acs at the Urban Institute, more recent research than Max cites is finding small impacts on out of wedlock births among white women-- there is a brief lit review in an article by Acs on the Urban Institute web page. Eban The key paper on this subject was done by Mary Jo Bane and David Ellwood and thoroughly debunks the Murray hypothesis that welfare benefits retard work effort and promote illegitimacy. I don't have the exact cite, but the date is around 1984. See also Fighting Poverty, What Works and What Doesn't (Danziger and Weinberg, eds). M.S. Max B. Sawicky202-775-8810 (voice) Economic Policy Institute 202-775-0819 (fax) 1660 L Street, NW [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Eban Goodstein email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Economics phone: 503-768-7626 Lewis and Clark College fax:503-768-7379 Portland, OR 97219
[PEN-L:5878] Politics At Their Lowest Level
Bill Clinton, chieftain of U.S. imperialism, is to be nominated tomorrow for the presidential election. The main feature of this Chicago convention of the "Democrats" is that the caliber of the politics has been brought to the lowest level. If it was not the greatest spectacle of illusion-mongering and diversion, there would be nothing political about it at all. The Democratic Convention is obviously split between those who are the architects of the anti-social offensive, Bill Clinton included, and those who want the people to harbor the illusion that the Democratic Party will defend their interests. Besides Hollywood celebrities and others, Jesse Jackson has been assigned that role. The Democratic Party is split between illusion and reality, between those who have illusions about U.S. capitalism and those who serve it without any scruples. This split is bound to widen in the coming weeks and months and even after the elections, as more and more people see through the extremely anti-people character of the Democratic Party. The most characteristic feature of this convention is that the Democratic Party has fully conceded to the "right wing" agenda but as "moderates." The monopoly-controlled press is crowing that the Democratic Party has moved to the "center," which can mean virtually anything. The two recent television conventions make crystal clear that the Democratic Party and the U.S. political process and all the political parties of the wealthy are anachronistic. The renewal of the political process, in addition to everything else, is the order of the day in the U.S. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5880] Between the ROK and a hard place...
I don't know much about S. Korea, so is it possible for an expert like Marty Hart-Landsberg could pipe in and tell us what's happening there? to settle the futile discussion between Tell and Rosser? I remember that there is a popularly-organized democracy movement in S. Korea. Is it not possible that the recent severe punishment of the military leaders and their allies is a victory for that grass-roots movement rather than some favor granted voluntarily by the S. Korean bourgeoisie? That would fit with the fact that usually progressive reform is possible under capitalism but that usually it must be actively fought for. (I added "progressive" despite my misgivings about that term and because the word "reform" does not necessarily mean anything good, as with the Clinton-Gingritch "welfare reform.") in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 74267,[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 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:5879] quote of the day
"I hate Dole. I hate Clinton. It's like choosing your favorite Menendez brother." -- Joan Rivers, on the TV show "Politically Incorrect." in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 74267,[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:5881] Re: Wall St banks postwar
Dear Dale Wharton: The case against the investment bankers discussed by Seldes was eventually dismissed in 1953 in a famous decision by the infamous judge Harold Medina, who found that the 17 investment banking defendants "went their own and several ways" and that no conspiracy was every carried out by the defendants. Medina completely ignored the evidence of tacit collusion and the ways in which oligopolists lead, follow, meet prices and evolve systems of "conscious parallelism of action" to avoid crude conspiracy and to allow establishment hacks like Medina to protect their oligopolistic behavior. The decision was no surprise--the system works. Sincerely, Ed Herman
[PEN-L:5882] Re: 'Civilian' Regime Going Beserk
On Thu, 29 Aug 1996 05:36:54 -0700 (PDT) SHAWGI TELL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:19:51 -0700 (PDT) SHAWGI TELL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What kind of change in the ROK are you referring to Rosser Jr, John Barkley? Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is no longer a military dictatorship, despite the recent violent suppression of student demonstrators. Elections are being held. Past dictatorial and corrupt presidents are being condemned to death and long sentences. Even leaders of chaebols are being indicted for corruption. By all reports, the people in the ROK consider these changes to be very major, and that the trials of the past presidents to be the "trials of the century" in Korea. -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why, then, does the South Korean bourgeoisie need the blessings of U.S. imperialism? Why do they arrest people exercising their rights? Why do they oppose reunification? The reports I have been investigating do not support the view that ROK is opening the path of progress to the society. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course there are serious limits to how far the progressive opening is going to go in the ROK. Is there any movement towards a "progressive opening" in the DPRK? I realize that Shawgi considers it to be the closest thing to heaven on earth, so it doesn't need any such movement. Both Koreas want unification. But each wants to be in charge after the fact. That is the problem. Shawgi asks why the South Korean bourgeoisie needs the "blessings" of US imperialism. Well, Shawgi, let me remind you that it was Kim Il Sung's regime that invaded the south in June, 1950, not the other way around, and that despite its much smaller population, the DPRK today has far more armaments and men under arms than does the ROK, deployed in a forward stance on the border, just 30 miles from Seoul, the south's capital and location of much of its industry and population. The ROK expects to swallow the DPRK at some point. With more than twice the population and more than fifteen times the GDP, that would seem to be a likely outcome. The only way the DPRK will swallow the ROK would be by military conquest. Given that nobody knows who is in charge in the DPRK, or what they are thinking or doing, nervousness in the south is not unjustified, especially given the apparent general economic collapse now going on in the north. Actually the biggest impediment to unification from the perspective of the south is the hassle involved. The ROK Ministry of Finance has a plan for what to do if unification occurs on their terms, but it is very expensive, like about a trillion US $. They are already deep in debt. They have been very impressed/depressed by how difficult the German unification has been, and the gap in incomes and lifestyles between the two Koreas is far greater than was that between the two Germanies. Anyone who wishes to read a more detailed comparison of the two Korean economies as well as a detailed discussion of the ROK MOF's unification plan can find it in Chapter 18 of _Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy_ by me and Marina V. Rosser, 1996, Irwin. But, of course, the Devine Jim would rather bring in an "expert" to settle this "futile discussion".,:-). -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5883] Re: 'Civilian' Regime Going Beserk
Rosser Jr, the only way to refute what you are stating in these posts is by patient argument, over a series of posts, much like the ones I've been posting recently. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5884] 'Civilian' Regime Develops Its Fascist Terror
South Korean authorities announced last Friday new measures to attack the rights of Korean students. Korea University and many others have shut down what they call "unauthorized student circles, especially those suspected of leaning to leftist ideologies." They also said they will take steps to cut off financial sources for "militant students." Korea University Thursday ordered the closure of the head office of Hanchongnyon, or the Korea Federation of University Student Councils. Hanchongnyon organized the "unification festival" of youth and students calling for the peaceful reunification of Korea, the ouster of U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula and the ending of the repressive "National Security Law." The south Korean government outlawed the festival and ordered its police and military to violently attack the students, injuring hundreds and arresting 5,800. Yonsei University has also attacked the students by filing lawsuits against Hanchongnyon and individual student demonstrators for $12 million in material damages caused when the police attacked the students on that campus. Every level of the south Korean "civil" state has turned the students' demands into a law and order issue. They have effectively criminalized the mass of students and outlawed any discussion on the questions of reunification and the withdrawal of U.S. troops. This open fascism further exposes the fraud that the Republic of Korea (RoK) is a "civilian" and "democratic" state. The RoK remains a fascist state and under the guise of being "civilian" and "democratic" it hopes to continue indefinitely as a U.S. puppet, separated from its kin in the DPRK , and exploited and enslaved by U.S. imperialism. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5885] Re: welfare and out-of-wedlock births
Eban Goodstein wrote: According to Greg Acs at the Urban Institute, more recent research than Max cites is finding small impacts on out of wedlock births among white women-- there is a brief lit review in an article by Acs on the Urban Institute web page. Eban, Thanks for the update. I would suggest that the more salient issue is the distribution of this effect between short- and long- term welfare spells. The existence of the system is arguably a safety net that a rational person would take into account. How much it would figure in considerations is a different question. The public is most overwrought about chronic use of welfare -- welfare as a career substitute. Temporary use of the system to support an out-of-wedlock birth could be interpreted as an alternative to abortion and welcome from some disparate standpoints on the left and right. Stimulation of the "career alternative" is more the political, social, and economic problem. If the effect of benefits on all out-of-wedlock births is small, the effect on those who stay on the rolls must be a lower order of magnitude. Max Max B. Sawicky 202-775-8810 (voice) Economic Policy Institute 202-775-0819 (fax) 1660 L Street, NW [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036
[PEN-L:5886] Public Finance Syllabus?
Hey Teachers, I am about to teach a public finance course and wonder if anyone has any recommendations about texts or a syllabus that worked well. I focused on Welfare reform last time I taught the course. So far the book by D. Hyman has been pre-ordered for me, I could change it if there are better alternatives.. I would be very glad to see suggestions -- thanks in advance, Jonathan Diskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Dale Wharton: The case against the investment bankers discussed by Seldes was eventually dismissed in 1953 in a famous decision by the infamous judge Harold Medina, who found that the 17 investment banking defendants "went their own and several ways" and that no conspiracy was every carried out by the defendants. Medina completely ignored the evidence of tacit collusion and the ways in which oligopolists lead, follow, meet prices and evolve systems of "conscious parallelism of action" to avoid crude conspiracy and to allow establishment hacks like Medina to protect their oligopolistic behavior. The decision was no surprise--the system works. Sincerely, Ed Herman
[PEN-L:5887] Re: 'Civilian' Regime Going Beserk
On Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:24:08 -0700 (PDT) SHAWGI TELL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rosser Jr, the only way to refute what you are stating in these posts is by patient argument, over a series of posts, much like the ones I've been posting recently. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have already agreed that what the ROK gov't is doing to the students is reprehensible. The ROK gov't is officially committed to peaceful reunification as is the DPRK gov't. Both suck. I am waiting to hear any remarks you have to say about the sentencing of former presidents Chun and Roh in the ROK. Are there any movements for ANYTHING allowed in the DPRK, or is it definitely already heaven on earth? -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5888] no such thing...
Does anyone know when and where Margaret Thatcher said "There's no such thing as society, there's only individuals and their families"? And if you know that, do you know if I have the wording right? 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: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:5889] Re: no such thing...
Doug, I've been the one quoting that -- I've got the exact quote and reference in my office. I'll pass it alone tomorrow. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:5890] Re: no such thing...
Doug, I've been the one quoting that -- I've got the exact quote and reference in my office. I'll pass it alone tomorrow. Elaine Bernard Elaine, Pleaser send the reference to the list. I would like to have it as well. Doug Orr (the other Doug) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5891] the Hudson Institute??
I recently came across a new book by James Smalhout called "The Uncertain Retirement: Securing Pension Promises in a World of Risk." It was written while he was a fellow at Brookings and then at the Hudson Institute. Does anybody out there know anything about the Hudson Institute?, or about Smalhout? Thanks, Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5892] The pen-l challenge
Jim Devine asked the what's up question a couple of days ago. Let me put my two cents worth in. Things were going well for a while on pen-l. I talked a valued colleague into rejoining. I am afraid that I might have to apologize to him. I would think that our area of expertise would have something to do with economics. Here we are talking about Korea, in the absence of Marty, who is our Korea expert. In a sense, Korea is progress, since it takes us away from a focus on U.S. affairs. Don't we all know that Korea is a squalid government that has made some progress under popular pressure. Popular pressure, of course, is the key to progress. In a sense, Clinton -- back to the old U.S. -- has little choice to follow the Repubs. since nobody has been effective in challenging the right wing neo-liberal line. Here is my pen-l challenge. Are we so marginalized that we have nothing to offer? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5893] AG Frank book blurb
Forwarded message: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:41:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "A. Gunder Frank" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: APOOLOGIES AND REPLACEMENT of AG Frank Book Blurb (fwd) X-UID: 2148 -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 16:57:07 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: APOOLOGIES AND REPLACEMENT of AG Frank Book Blurb GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT 1400-1800 by ANDRE GUNDER FRANK University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave. Toronto, Ont. Canada M4W 1J8 Tel:416-972 0616 Fax:416-972 0071 978 3963 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This book applies the theoretical approach of Frank and Gills'[1993] The World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand? to re-write the history and development of the world economy during the early modern era. It pursues the therefor most fruitful innovations of McNeill's [1963] The Rise of the West and of Hodgson's [1993] only very posthumously published Rethinking World History. In so doing, this book extends the Asian based world economic analysis of Abu-Lughod's [1989] Before European Hegemony and Chaudhuri's [1990] Asia Before Europe forward to the beginnings of the industrial revolution. It complements the critiques of the ideologies of Eurocentrism by Amin [1989] and of The Colonizer's Model of the World by Blaut [1993], which are still in the tradition of the also ideological critiques of Orientalism by Said [19xx] and Black Athena by Bernal [1987]. The present book supplements these only ideological critiques with an economic historical record and analysis of real world development in the early modern period. Thus, it replaces the European and Western ethnocentrism of received historiography and social theory with a truly global humanocentric perspective that recognizes the predominance of Asia in world history and development until at least 1800. This recognition is the result however of taking a truly global perspective, instead of a Eurocentric one or simply replacing that by some other Sino-, Islamo- or Asia- centrism. The objective here is humano-, and eventually also eco- "centrism." Therein, the world economic analysis of this book also offers a truly global perspective and alternative to Braudel's [1982] rather European Perspective of the World in his otherwise comprehensive 3 volume Civilization Capitalism 1550-1800 and to Wallerstein's [1974-1989] previously path-breaking but still European centered Modern World-System [in its 3rd volume so far]. They were complemented by the otherwise theoretically innovative focus on the rest of the world in Europe and the People without History, by Wolf [1982] and the Social Transformations: A General Theory of Historical Development by Sanderson [1994], which nonetheless also did not sufficiently liberate themselves or us from latent Eurocentrism. Other major recent theoretical innovations are among others also The Long Twentieth Century by Arrighi [1994], Leading Sectors and World Powers: The Co- Evolution of Global Economics and Politics by Modelski and Thompson [1996], and The Rise and Demise: World System and Modes of Production by Chase-Dunn and Hall [1996]. All offer innovative historical and theoretical analyses of recent world systemic developments. Yet all of them still confine themselves and in my view are limited by their procrustean categories of a Western modern world-system based on a European initiated capitalist mode of production. The present book is the first and so far only one to attempt instead a truly global explanation of "development" based on a universal history of "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist." Therein it is even more critical of the ubiquitous but mischievous Eurocentric historiography and social and political economic analysis exemplified by such titles as The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History by Economics Nobel Prize winner North and Thomas [1972] and How the West Grew Rich by Rosenberg and Birdzell [1985], all of whose explanations are no more than variations on the theme of The European Miracle by Jones [1981]. All these interpretations are in turn derived from the past two centuries of Eurocentric re-vision of early modern history in terms of "The Rise of the West" through the alleged "development of capitalism" in Europe. The present book is also a radically different new departure in that already its mere presentation of the global historical evidence demonstrates the lack of any real historical basis of our classic Eurocentric social theories. The book's examination of the world economic division of labor and im/balances of trade, and the inter-regional comparisons and relations in the growth of trade, population, production, income, productivity and competitiveness as well as the development of technology and institutions around the world demonstrate both the
