[PEN-L:8476] COCKROACH! #34

[Robert Malecki]

COCKROACH! #34

A EZINE FOR POOR AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE.

WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT OUR CHAINS.

It is time that the poor and working class people
have a voice on the Internet.

Contributions can be sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subscribtions are free at<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Now on line! Check out the Home of COCKROACH!

http://www.algonet.se/~malecki

How often this zine will appear depends on you!


1. Zaire, rwanda and Burundi.

2. More on the Trade Unions!

3. Sweden:Report from massive workers protest!


Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi

Austin wrote in reply to bob;
>
>Fine, but who's going to (either) (a) convince the world bank to forgive
>them their debts, (or) (b) convince outside firms to invest, in a
>non-exploitative manner, in these countries, to build their economies?
>(well, where the hell else is the money for this supposed to come from?)

Well Austin, I do not think it is a question of convincing the World Bank to 
forgive their debts. Although Communists and Socialists would certainly 
support the slogan
of writing off those debts completely. But the point is that the proletariat 
and its allies the peasantry are the only ones who have the social power to 
change these things. That means a program to expropriate the world bank 
expropriators. And International workers Bank would solve the problems of 
"debts". Their would not be "debts". There would be a priority of the most 
urgent needs for investment in regards to the International situation, 
probably going from the advanced industrial countries to the third world 
bringing up the living standard to and acceptable and comfortable norm being 
one of the first priorities.

"Convincing outside firms to invest" sounds more like your are trying to 
reform the capitalist system rather then overthrowing it and replacing it 
with a better system.

Finally the money will come from the expropriating the capitalist class and 
replanning the world economy along the lines mentioned above.

>Hold on there guy; I really believe that the struggle of Black women and men
>on these two continents has little if nothing to do with the other; lets be
>careful before we assume that they might feel this affinity, simply because
>of ancestral ties that, if they exist, go back enough generations that most
>have been forgotten (most slaves that came to the US came from western, not
>central, Africa) 

Oh really Sterling! The working class has no country. And the rise of Black 
nationalism in the United States shows that their appears to be a real 
affinity at least by these opportunists! The point being that in the future 
Communist International *real* International class solidarity will be the 
order of the day. And the priorities in planning and restructuring the 
global economy will go along the lines of bringing the whole world up to a 
decent living standard.

Bob Malecki

>
>
>On Wed, 27 Nov. 1996, Robert Malecki wrote:
>
>> 
>> Once again we see the complete bankruptcy of in this case third world 
>> nationalism which pits ethnic group against ethnic group, one African nation 
>> against another while the imperialist FN waits in the sidelines to pick up 
>> the pieces after a new round of bloodbaths and mass starvation!

Siddarth C, (SC) replies to bob;
>Once again, a splendid piece of analysis above! So according to Malecki,
>the disease of third world nationalism is pitting one ethnic group against
>another while the "imperialist FN waits in the side lines to pick up
>the pieces" instead of actually instigating such ethnic strife 
>as history demonstrates on many occasions. The role of the world economic
>system as being the major cause of such ethnic eruptions (re-read the
>article on Rwanda posted by Ang) is not even mentioned but third-world
>savages are once again killing one another to the utter dismay of 
>"revolution incarnate" Malecki.

Firstly SC I would like to mention your change in style! On the old M1 list 
you sounded more like a reincarnation of Ghandi. Today much tougher. Is it 
conscious or unconscious. Anyhow how the new style is better and 
clearer--but dead wrong as usual!

The above is nothing other then SC's attempt to find a third world 
"anti-imperialist" struggle to capitulate too! Naturally I do not deny that 
the World bank plays a very central role in the incredible situation in 
Africa. But they are being fronted their by the local nationalists and 
African bourgeoisie who are their small time partners in carrying out this 
stuff. If I remember Ang's article I have no doubt that much of what he says 
about the world bank is more then likely true. However, finding a solution 
to the problem is the point. I do not think supporting one side or the other 
in this case is helpful. Although in certain cases unconditional military 
support is absolutely correct. For example to the ANC during the Apartheid 
era without
g

[PEN-L:8479] Re: !ALL OUT FOR MAY 3RD CONFERENCE!!

[Robert Malecki]

>Greetings, Bob,
>
>Yes, most definitely!  Thanks for spreading the word!  How
>do I get to view an issue of Cockroach, is it on-line?  Let
>me know.
>
>Struggle,
>
>Sis.
>

Hi M.

Just before I send this to you I put the latest issue of "Cockroach" on line 
with the announcement as the lead article! (Unfortunately I had already sent 
the issue out to all of my subscribers and newsgroups before i recieved your 
letter!  But I will send a copy of this letter to all and a few lists where 
people who might be interested in this kind of stuff gather! You can locate 
the page at the  address at the end of this letter.

"Cockroach" is a bi-weekly at present which means a new issue comes on 
Thursdays and Sondays (Swedish time). And I can put in the announcement in 
the next 8 or 10 issues of the paper which will come out before the 
conference. (+ any conference material where we could perhaps do a 
"Cockroach" SPECIAL!..

Being in the exile situation I am in there are quite a number of people 
reading Cockroach in the states. Both subscribtions and on-line. I have only 
had the Homepage up and running here 5 days and last i saw over 90 people 
have already been at the site. Before I was running the site through friends 
in the states and still do and there appears to be a regular flow of people 
to that site also.. 

Keep me informed and I hope the conference goes well in Philly until then I 
will do what I can from here to help organize it. 

I am sending a copy of this letter and your announcement to all I can think 
of. It is clearly a very good iniative and should be supported by all those 
who claim to stand on the side of poor and working class people..

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki

TO ANTI-DEATH PENALTY ACTIVISTS, ANTI-RACIST ACTIVISTS, 
SUPPORTERS OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED 
IN SOCIAL JUSTICE:

    SAVE THIS DATE:  MAY 3, 1997  

AD-HOC COMMITTEE WORKS TO BROADEN COMMUNITY
OUTREACH AND MOBILIZE GRASSROOTS ACTION


The Ad Hoc Coalition Against Racism and the Death Penalty is 
sponsoring an exciting media event and conference on Saturday, 
May 3, 1997 in Philadelphia, PA to increase the level of community 
consciousness and mobilize grassroots participation around issues of 
the death penalty including, but not limited to: 

1.  Education regarding the need to end the death penalty, including the
roots of racism and class disparity in determining who is executed, and
discussion on a national mobilization for a Moratorium on 
the Death Penalty.

2.  Increasing and consolidating campaigns to free Political Prisoners/
Prisoners of War through community education and support; 

3.  Organizing to build a strong community-based movement to 
stop police beatings, frame-ups and murder.
  
WHAT CAN YOU DO:

Individuals and organizations who are eager to work with the
Organizing Committee to insure maximum community participation
by sharing mailing lists, hosting pre-conference meetings,
organizing transportation to help get folks to the conference,
donating educational and other materials, broadcasting live from
the event, videotaping the event to use for future grassroots
organizing, and offering your ideas, experience and concrete
support should contact ASAP:

Sis. Marpessa Kupendua - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bro. Komboa Ervin - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

!! SPEAK TRUTH TO THE PEOPLE !! ALL OUT FOR MAY 3RD!

MORE INFORMATION FORTHCOMING.
==
Check Out My HomePage where you can,

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,
Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!

Or Get The Latest Issue of,

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and workingclass people

HTTP://WWW.ALGONET.SE/~MALECKI

[PEN-L:8481]

[PHILLPS]

Dear Pen-lers:

Phil O'Hara, who is in the final phase of editing the encyclopedia of
political economy, needs some help. He is teaching a subject he
has never taught before - International Economics 400 at Honors
level - and in the light of the enormous burden of the epe needs some
help with possible references and course outlines that may be of help.

Anything you might be able to send him would be much appreciated.
Any topics or references which you think might help students understand
the world economy or the international economy at honours level
would be useful. He was thinking of including some material on
Kaldor's Laws (BOP constraint; economies of scale; cumulative
causation); business cycles and waves at the international level;
international political economy issues; economic policy within
the world context; maybe exchange rates; Kaleckian models for the
world capitalist economy? He is hoping to include
quite a bit of heterodox material (maybe even some work on
development and the environment from a world context).

Anything you could suggest or offer would be very helpful to
him and especially the epe project!

His details are as follows:
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phil O'Hara, Department of Economics, Curtin University,
  GPO Box U1987, Perth, Australia 6001.
Telephone: +61-9-351-7761 (work) +61-9-451-2618 (home)
Fax: +61-9-351-3026


=



===

Phillip O'Hara, Department of Economics
Curtin University of Technology
GPO Box U1987, Perth. 6001 Australia
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax: +61-9-351-3026
Tel: +61-9-351-7761 (work - message machine)
   :   451-2618 (home)



===
Encyclopedia of Political Economy
===
 Entries in Need of Writers
 --

Business Cycles: Major Contemporary Themes [2000 words]
Schumpeterian Political Economy: Major Cont. Themes [2000 words]
International Political Economy: History [1700 words]
Endogenous Growth and Cycles [1400 words]
Rate of Return Controversy in Sraffian PE [1000 words]

Methodology: History of in PE [1700 words]
Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism in PE [1200]
International Network for Economic Methodology [400 words]

Environmental Accounting [1200 words]

Social Control of Business [1200 words]
Centralised Private Sector Planning System [1400 words]

Financial Innovation [1500 words]
Justice [1400]
Conference of Socialist Economists [1000 words]

Please do let me know if you are interested, or can suggest
possible writers. They would have to be written by late
February at the latest.

[PEN-L:8482] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report

[Doug Henwood]

At 7:30 AM -0800 2/6/97, Richardson_D wrote:

>Women, meanwhile, have been increasing their
>workforce participation, and their real wages have been climbing.  And
>they now dominate voter turnout on Election Day

And all I can say, having scrutinized far too many exit polls for my mental
health, is thank god for that. If it were up to my fellow white men, we'd
be in even worse shape than we are now!


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: 
web: 

[PEN-L:8483] Re: cockroach and pen-l list...

[Robert Malecki]

Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 08:16:54 -0800
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: california state university, chico, ca
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: cockroach and pen-l

>Bob, please do not post cockroach to pen-l.  You should continue to give
>people your table of contents.  One of the problems we have on pen-l is
>too much material, which causes people to unsub.
>
>Thanks for your understanding.
>
>p.s. I read cockroach, as I told you before.
>-- 
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
> 
>Tel. 916-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


Hej Michael,

Most of the stuff on Pen-L is garbage! But if you insist on refusing 
Cockroach and other issues  that i post. Well, take Pen L. and shove it up 
your ass. Now you either take me off your list or leave it alone!

Because what your are doing is banning Trotskyists and kissing the asses of 
the Liberals and Mensheviks that post dozens of piss articles that have 
nothing to do with poor and working class people and their struggles!

Futhermore I am posting your letter and this reply to you to the other 
lists, the newsgroups and  a future issue of Cockroach.

The reply to your letter  is sharp because of your obvious provacation and 
sucking up to liberals and  I until futher notice from you  will advocate a 
boycott of *your* list because you are acting like a little dictator who 
opens his arms to the petty bougeois liberal elements on the Net who can 
write droves of garbage everyday. And even the Stalinists are tolerated as 
long as they follow your personal rules..Well,Trotskyists do not get down on 
their knees for anybody and especially assholes like yourself who think that 
a list is their personal property and try to ban free speech!

In fact there is more interesting polemics and class struggle in any issue 
of Cockroach then ten letters to the Pen L- list. Futhermore it is noted 
that this letter from you came not two hours after I sent the announcement 
of the coming conference in Philadelphia linked to both the Jamal case, 
Police violence against poor and working class people, and the death penalty 
which is used mainly against black people in the United States. And with 
liberals like the people on Pen L I have no doubt that just the idea of 
black people organising themselves against cop violence, the Jamal case and 
the death penalty make you hysterical. And certainly would make them depart 
from your persnal fiefdom! Is it the pressure of the recent ruling on 
Simpson case that is bringing out this inherent rascist reaction?

Nothing would surprise me more that this call which i sent to Pen L is 
directly linked to your ban on Cockroach not two hours after i sent it to 
the list! So besides being a haven for the liberals it might be that you are 
worried about Pen L participants who just might get upset because black 
people in Philly are trying to organise. Which obviously puts you and your 
list with one foot in the camp of the racists and the other foot shaking in 
fear of the bougeois state in America which is doing everything to try and 
execute people like Jamal. And until Pen L makes a clear declaration that 
this is not the case then I assume the worst.  

Michael you are a disgusting piece of shit!

Bob Malecki

fucking piece of shit.
==

Check Out My HomePage where you can,

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,
Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!

Or Get The Latest Issue of,

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and workingclass people

HTTP://WWW.ALGONET.SE/~MALECKI

[PEN-L:8486] You're in charge of Bulgaria's economy

[PBurns]

  In an effort to initiate a non-US dominated topic, what 
  would people on the list do if they were put in charge of 
  economic policy in Bulgaria today?
  
  Peter
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:8485] Re: 4 quick questions about the economy

[PBurns]

Thad Williamson asks:

1)As has already been noted on the list, some of the Wall Street crowd have 
been crowing that the business cycle has been tamed, and that nothing but 
blue skies are ahead for a moderately growing economy. Does anyone on this 
list see any reason to take this at all seriously? What's the two-sentence 
rejoinder?
  
  I *very distinctly* remember reading the same nonsense in 
  the same places shortly before the beginning of the Bush 
  recesssion.  Don't the answers to the other questions.
  
  Peter
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  

[PEN-L:8487] NAIRU, etc.

[JDevine]

Paul Phillips writes: >>I am having a little difficulty believing 
I am on a 'progressive' economics network and yet reading the stuff 
that is being posted.<<

I don't know if this barb is aimed at me or not, but it's a good 
excuse to do something that's needed anyway, i.e., move away from the 
extreme abstractions of my NAIRU/NRU post to something a bit more 
practical.

>>1. during the war (2nd WW) the unemployment rate fell to 
around 1% without any structural and frictional constraints
but within the framework of a strict ... fiscal and monetary policy 
framework. <<

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, we had very strict 
price controls and rationing. That prevents accelerating 
inflation, no matter what the labor-market situation. There was 
also a concerted (planned) effort to move women into traditional 
"men's" jobs to replace the soldiers who'd gone off to war and to 
avoid labor-market tightness. The US, like most other war 
economies, was moving toward being almost a planned economy. 
(This happened during WW I and our Civil War, also.)

In the US, by the way, both fiscal policy (large and growing 
deficits) and monetary policy (low interest rates to help the US 
Treasury borrow) ecouraged inflation, if anything.  I wouldn't 
say that this framework was "strict." Forced saving and bond 
drives did help restrict aggregate demand. Is that what you're 
talking about?

Are you saying that there were _no_ frictions? Or are you saying that 
the NAIRU is 1 or 2 percent of the labor force? 0 percent? Either way, 
seems that you are arguing over the value of the NAIRU (quite a 
reasonable thing to do) rather than the validity of the NAIRU theory.

>>So it is not the economic constraints that determine the rate 
of unemployment, but the political (class power) constraints.<<

I agree, in two ways: 

a) during WW II, there was a cross-class consensus that deadened 
the normal class conflict in the workforce. In very simple terms, 
the capitalists were willing to live with relatively full 
employment while workers were willing to sacrifice in the name of 
the war effort, fighting the Nazis, etc. Here in the United 
States, the Communist Party and many labor leaders were willing to 
make and follow the no-strike pledge; many workers, probably the 
vast majority, went along. It was a "great patriotic war," to use 
a phrase from another context. This dampened the inflationary 
potential of the economy by stopping the conflictual situation in 
the workplace and in wage negotiations that encourages inflation.

b) the normal reaction of capitalists of cutting accumulation in the 
face of profit squeezes, bottlenecks, etc., causing recession, was 
blunted by a large growth in the government deficit (so that by war's 
end in the U.S., the government debt/GDP ratio exceeded unity). I'd have 
to look at the data, but anecdotal evidence suggests that WW II was 
_very_ profitable to U.S. business, so that the profit squeeze/recession 
mechanism was undermined. Note that among other things, the conversion 
of civilian production to war production was heavily subsidized by 
the gov't, while capacity utilization was high and some business was 
able to profiteer at the expense of the tax-payers.

This says that even though politics is important, it's difficult to 
see our lack of achievement of 2 percent unemployment as simply a 
matter of the false consciousness or short-sightedness of the 
country's policy-makers (or even a lack of political will on the part 
of the voters). I agree that our "fearless leaders" are venal, 
ideology-ridden, and conscious only of the next public-opinion poll 
or election, but there's a structural problem. Further, I don't think 
either of the above solutions to the structural problem are likely to 
be repeated in the near future, especially given the political 
situation, the international situation, and the high-tech nature of 
war these days. Also, among other things, a North American effort to 
get toward "full employment" (to simulate the WW II situation without 
a war) in the context of the current international regime would cause 
trade problems, unlike during WW II.

>>2. In the post-war studies, the Phillips curve analysis gave
an approximate trade-off of 3-4% inflation for 3-5% unemployment. 
What has changed? What is the great structural change that
caused this tradeoff to jump to this new, mythical, NAIRU (or 
NRU) of which there is nothing natural except the gullibility of 
the population and the culcability of the polititians.<<

One of my points was that one could could talk about a rising 
(or falling) NAIRU without contradicting the NAIRU theory 
itself, rendering it "mythical." But there are different 
theories of the shift. The "Chicago school" would blame 
demographic changes and government meddling in the sacred free 
market. A New Deal liberal might blame structural changes in 
labor markets that might be solved via government reforms. I 
can't speak for all M

[PEN-L:8488] Bowie bonds

[Doug Henwood]

How about that David Bowie issuing $55 million in 10-year, 7.9% bonds on
his future record sales? That's only about 130 basis points over comparable
Treasuries. But if Kazakhstan - whose banking sector is collapsing into the
state's arms, and which has had its electricity cut off by Russia for
nonpayment - can sell bonds at 300 bp over Treasuries, why not?

The Washington Post story on the bonds is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-02/06/055L-020697-idx.html.

[PEN-L:8477] The American Labor Party Debate!

[Robert Malecki]

This is and interesting discussion going on the Labor Party list between Neil, Michael 
E. on the one hand and Paul Z and [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

In the first discussion Michael who appears to be in the right wing pro-democratic 
party wing is attacking Neil for his correct position on the democratic party. The 
funny thing about Michael is that he is using the most incredible and classical 
Bernstein formulations in his defense. In fact I do not think that a future LP should 
be running around tailing the workers who (in lack of any real alternative) support 
the democratic party. The Democratic Party is not a trade union but a party of 
capitalism and the bosses. And people building and alternative to the Democratic Party 
must be for a clear demarkation from this party and in favor of a *real* independent 
party with a program that fights in the interests of poor and working class people. 
All else is just Bullshit!

Neil by the way is absolutely right about the Democratic Party here. His problem is 
that he has and ultra left position on the mass organisations of the working class 
(the trade unions) but on the Democratic Party he is absolutely correct.

I find it still quite unbelievable that the LP continues to moan over this rather 
simple question.

And then the other debate between Paul Z and [EMAIL PROTECTED] which reflects the 
tactical course to the above discussion in "electoral" strategy. Where Paul Z wants to 
go forth with Independent lists and aucad appears to want to grovel in the wake of 
Democratic Party.

And the question of the (on going) do's and don'ts of Dellums I find partically 
despicable. What we need are black leaders that are prepared to fight for a *real* 
independent LP. Just as we need trade union leaders, women leaders etc.. And tailing 
Dellums is not the way to go. And just the fact that people here seem to be holding 
their breathe and waiting to see if Dellums farts or not will certainly not change 
anything. In fact it just says a lot about the character of some of the LPers on this 
list! Political cowards who playing in the sandbox of the "leftwing" of the Democratic 
Party.

Unless the LP can take a clear line of breaking with the democrats and go forth both 
in the trade unions and communities as a clear independent alternative to the twin 
parties of capitalism then it will never get off the ground. And until then any 
serious person should just turn their backs to this fake "independant" LP. Because it 
does not exist in reality. The only thing that exists today is and LP which supports 
the Democratic Party!

And all the Bernstien declarations in the world about how workers think and act will 
not help the LP. In fact the point is to go forth and present a clear alternative to 
poor and working class people. That is what the role of leadership and the LP should 
be. And all those who oppose this from the right are in fact closet democrats who want 
to play both ends of the stick. 

All those in the LP who think that tying oneself to the Democratic Party is the best 
way forward should just go and join the Democratic Party! And all those who want to 
create an independent LP should stick around and roll up their sleeves and get to 
work. This includes the various trade union leaderships supporting the LP. Tactics 
should not be determined by which trade union local says I support the LP and then 
uses all the money to support the Democratic Party. Instead we should try and get a 
mass base in the unions and put forth leaders who support the LP for its independence 
from the Democrats and their program. By kissing ass with the left wing of the trade 
union bureaucracy will not change one thing!

Because if this discussion is not brought to a serious and open discussion and 
conclusions, program and tactics are drawn in the face of this fundemental question. 
There is no way forward out of the morass. And in fact every serious militant and 
activist should condemn the LP for being a morass which at best when push comes to 
shove is sucking up to the left wing of the Democratic Party!

Better to have this out now and get rid of the basic contradiction between to 
fundemental lines that can not be united in one party. Because if you don't there will 
never be and Independent Labor Party. But just a collection of fundemental opposing 
lines jockeying for position in something that will never help the poor and working 
class find a way forward.. 

Finally as a Trotskyist I would like to say that the LP if it wants any kind of 
critical support from the left who want to go much much father then most of the 
present left of the LP today then you had better get your act together. Your political 
capitulation time and again to the pro demo saboteurs of any kind of independant 
alternative makes the present situation in the present fake LP a joke. Because in fact 
the present LP in tactics, program and strategy is not INDEPENDENT at all but and 
appendage to the Democratic P

[PEN-L:8480] FW: BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY  5, 1997

RELEASED TODAY:  Unemployment rates for most states showed little 
movement in December, as 43 states recorded shifts of 0.3 percentage 
point or less.  The national jobless rate was unchanged from November 
at 5.3 percent.  Nonfarm payroll employment increased in 38 states in 
December 

In answer to the question "Who's wearing the pants in the 1990s?," 
Kevin Phillips, publisher of the American Political Report, writing in 
USA Today (page 15A) uses BLS statistics.  Phillips says that male 
presidential election turnout, more or less in the 60 percent range 
for decades, has been sliding since the 1960s.  So has the 
participation of adult males over 16 in the workforce, which is down 
from 87 percent in 1948 to just over 75 percent now.  Back in June, 
the U.S. Labor Department reported that about 1 million men in the 
prime working years of 25-55 had stopped looking for a job in the past 
year In 1995 dollars, the weekly earnings of male wage and salary 
workers have been dropping even faster -- from $611 in 1979 to $538 in 
1995.  A lot of the old jobs that buoyed American men in the quarter 
century after World War II -- in the factories, in the military, in 
the endless corridors of giant corporations -- are gone now.  For 
older men, fading economic opportunity probably has led to lower civic 
participation Women, meanwhile, have been increasing their 
workforce participation, and their real wages have been climbing.  And 
they now dominate voter turnout on Election Day 

In the final day of a four-day meeting, the National Governors' 
Association approves several policy proposals and resolutions that 
underscore the NGA agenda for the new Congress.  While discussions on 
Medicaid and welfare garner the most time and media attention, the 
governors also consider issues ranging from adjusting the CPI to 
expanding the North American Free Trade Agreement The governors 
said they commended the willingness both of Congress and the president 
to negotiate a balanced budget package, and, as these negotiations 
begin, the governors reaffirmed the NGA recommendation that 
policymakers adopt a CPI "that accurately reflects the real rate of 
inflation to U.S. citizens" An index that neither overestimates 
nor underestimates inflation is important not only to federal 
spending, but also for state spending on many programs, the governors 
said (Daily Labor Report, pages 2,A-3).

Conference Board reports the index of leading economic indicators 
moved up just 0.1 percent in December, keeping up last year's pace 
that suggests continued moderate expansion in 1997 (Daily Labor 
Report, page D-1; New York Times, page D4; Wall Street Journal, page 
A2).

New home sales in 1996 were the strongest in 18 years, The Commerce 
Department said, easing only slightly at the end of the year 
(Washington Post, page D10; New York Times, page D4).

DUE OUT TOMORROW:  Extended Mass Layoffs in the Third Quarter of 1996

[PEN-L:8484] 4 quick questions about the economy

[Thad Williamson]

Dear Pen-L'rs,

I'd be grateful to any and all who could provide their views on any of the 4
following questions. Pretend I am a reporter for a friendly progressive
outlet trying to make sense of current economic trends.

1)As has already been noted on the list, some of the Wall Street crowd have
been crowing that the business cycle has been tamed, and that nothing but
blue skies are ahead for a moderately growing economy. Does anyone on this
list see any reason to take this at all seriously? What's the two-sentence
rejoinder?

2)Quite separately from the "death of business cycle" thesis, just looking
at the next 3-5 years, are projections of continued steady growth reasonable
and likely?

3)In terms of the growth since in Clinton era, how much of this is
attributable to export growth, in turn largely attributable to a weak
dollar? How long can a weak dollar de facto strategy be stretched out? what
else is the growth of last 4 years attributable to?

4)How would you evaluate in general the thesis that American capitalism is,
one way, or another headed for a long period of stagnation/slow growth? and
if this is true, will it be tolerable enough that the Rob. Samuelsons, etc,
can continue to pass it off as the best of all possible worlds? what is your
long-term (next couple of decades view) of how well the system will meet its
traditional goals (growth, employment, income, etc.)

Finally, any pointers to recent, solid, bread-and-butter Left Keynesian
and/or Marxian analyses on the economy/current trends would be welcome.
(Yes, Doug, I do have the LBO site covered, but maybe you know other stuff too!)

Thanks much.

Thad

Thad Williamson
National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/
Union Theological Seminary (New York)
212-531-1935
http://www.northcarolina.com/thad

[PEN-L:8478] The American Labor Party Debate!

[Robert Malecki]

This is and interesting discussion going on the Labor Party list between 
Neil, Michael E. on the one hand and Paul Z and aucad@. 

In the first discussion Michael who appears to be in the right wing 
pro-democratic party wing is attacking Neil for his correct position on the 
democratic party. The funny thing about Michael is that he is using the most 
incredible and classical Bernstein formulations in his defense. In fact I do 
not think that a future LP should be running around tailing the workers who 
(in lack of any real alternative) support the democratic party. The 
Democratic Party is not a trade union but a party of capitalism and the 
bosses. And people building and alternative to the Democratic Party must be 
for a clear demarkation from this party and in favor of a *real* independent 
party with a program that fights in the interests of poor and working class 
people. All else is just Bullshit!

Neil by the way is absolutely right about the Democratic Party here. His 
problem is that he has and ultra left position on the mass organisations of 
the working class (the trade unions) but on the Democratic Party he is 
absolutely correct.

I find it still quite unbelievable that the LP continues to moan over this 
rather simple question.

And then the other debate between Paul Z and aucad@. which reflects the 
tactical course to the above discussion in "electoral" strategy. Where Paul 
Z wants to go forth with Independent lists and aucad appears to want to 
grovel in the wake of Democratic Party.

And the question of the (on going) do's and don'ts of Dellums I find 
partically despicable. What we need are black leaders that are prepared to 
fight for a *real* independent LP. Just as we need trade union leaders, 
women leaders etc.. And tailing Dellums is not the way to go. And just the 
fact that people here seem to be holding their breathe and waiting to see if 
Dellums farts or not will certainly not change anything. In fact it just 
says a lot about the character of some of the LPers on this list! Political 
cowards who playing in the sandbox of the "leftwing" of the Democratic Party.

Unless the LP can take a clear line of breaking with the democrats and go 
forth both in the trade unions and communities as a clear independent 
alternative to the twin parties of capitalism then it will never get off the 
ground. And until then any serious person should just turn their backs to 
this fake "independant" LP. Because it does not exist in reality. The only 
thing that exists today is and LP which supports the Democratic Party!

And all the Bernstien declarations in the world about how workers think and 
act will not help the LP. In fact the point is to go forth and present a 
clear alternative to poor and working class people. That is what the role of 
leadership and the LP should be. And all those who oppose this from the 
right are in fact closet democrats who want to play both ends of the stick. 

All those in the LP who think that tying oneself to the Democratic Party is 
the best way forward should just go and join the Democratic Party! And all 
those who want to create an independent LP should stick around and roll up 
their sleeves and get to work. This includes the various trade union 
leaderships supporting the LP. Tactics should not be determined by which 
trade union local says I support the LP and then uses all the money to 
support the Democratic Party. Instead we should try and get a mass base in 
the unions and put forth leaders who support the LP for its independence 
from the Democrats and their program. By kissing ass with the left wing of 
the trade union bureaucracy will not change one thing!

Because if this discussion is not brought to a serious and open discussion 
and conclusions, program and tactics are drawn in the face of this 
fundemental question. There is no way forward out of the morass. And in fact 
every serious militant and activist should condemn the LP for being a morass 
which at best when push comes to shove is sucking up to the left wing of the 
Democratic Party!

Better to have this out now and get rid of the basic contradiction between 
to fundemental lines that can not be united in one party. Because if you 
don't there will never be and Independent Labor Party. But just a collection 
of fundemental opposing lines jockeying for position in something that will 
never help the poor and working class find a way forward.. 

Finally as a Trotskyist I would like to say that the LP if it wants any kind 
of critical support from the left who want to go much much father then most 
of the present left of the LP today then you had better get your act 
together. Your political capitulation time and again to the pro demo 
saboteurs of any kind of independant alternative makes the present situation 
in the present fake LP a joke. Because in fact the present LP in tactics, 
program and strategy is not INDEPENDENT at all but and appendage to the 
Democratic Party. And to sa

[PEN-L:8490] Nairu, etc.

[PHILLPS]

First, to Jim, my complaint was not specific to you but, as you know,
there is a similar discussion going on on PKT which is even less
progressive and I sort of conflated the two streams.

I just want to make a couple of points in response without dealing at
this time with the segmented labour market or war experience stuff.

My biggest complaint is with the expression the "natural rate" (Nairu
or NRU).  Pray tell, what is "natural" about it?  To accept the notion
is to accept the monetarist vertical Phillips curve which is to
deny Keynesian, post-Keynesian, post Keynesian, Kaleckian,
institutional, Marxian or any other heterodox approach to
macroeconomics.  Even Lipsey in his 1954(?) article pointed out
that the choice of unemployment rate was a *policy decision*, which
depended on the choice of social welfare function.  I am not saying
that the Phillips curve has not shifted out (though I think this is
greatly over estimated).  I don't buy the standard arguments -- the
growth of labour market regulation, unionism, UI etc -- which have been
in decline since the sixties in the US and the 70s in Canada; or
the growth in female participation which has, as the recent report
by Dave on the US market indicates, increased competition for jobs
such that male wages have shown a precipitous drop.  Incidentally,
as Piore himself notes in his 1972(?) introduction to  *Unemployment
and Inflation*, he saw the whole US market "tilting" to the
secondary labour market which should, by Nairu type thinking, have
resulted in an inward shift in the Phillips curve.

Now, if you started calling it the CGRU (the Capitalist Greed Rate
of Unemployment), I might be less critical.  Bill M, if I remember
correctely, has an alternative expression which is closer to the
mark -- but please don't call it natural.  Perhaps we should
call the US homicide rate the "natural rate of murder".  Makes as
much sense.

Paul
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
U of Manitoba

[PEN-L:8489] the four questions

[JDevine]

Thad Williamson asks the following four questions: 
>>1) As has already been noted on the list, some of the Wall 
Street crowd have been crowing that the business cycle has been 
tamed, and that nothing but blue skies are ahead for a moderately 
growing economy. Does anyone on this list see any reason to take 
this at all seriously? What's the two-sentence rejoinder?<<

I could never restrict myself to two sentences! (heaven forfend!) 
But maybe I can write something that could be summarized in two 
sentences...

People said exactly the same thing in the 1920s and the 1960s, but 
we know what happened soon thereafter. The current abolition of the 
fear of recessions (for that's what the "end of the biz cycle" is 
about) is based on faith in Alan Greenspan's pragmatic policies at 
the Fed. But there are several reasons not to have faith:

1) US fiscal policy is contractionary. In fact, that's so in almost 
every country. The Europeans are cutting back in order to form the 
EMU. Other countries are doing it to avoid the ire of the World Bank 
and IMF. Others are doing it to attract the funds of international 
banks and the investment of TNCs. (In the US, we see state and local 
governments having real fiscal problems, though this is temporarily 
masked by the current prosperity.) 

2) consumers are overburdened by debt, largely due to stagnant or 
falling wages. In the end, the stability of private spending 
depends on consumption, since C provides most of the market for the 
results of investment. I can soar due to high profit rates for 
awhile, but that can't last too long. 

3) Greenspan and his equivalents world-wide might _want_ a 
recession, just as policy-makers in the 1920s wanted deflation and 
just as bankers objected to cutting interest rates in the early 
1930s. This is especially true in a non-election year like 1997 and 
to a less extent, 1998 (for the US).

4) Greenspan and his equivalents do not have good control over the 
supply of money and credit or over interest rates, especially 
long-term interest rates. Nor can they control private-sector 
expectations. Nor is the US as important in the world system as it 
was 30 years ago.

A short answer: if the business cycle has been abolished, what about 
Japan? Europe? Africa?

>>2)Quite separately from the "death of business cycle" thesis, 
just looking at the next 3-5 years, are projections of continued 
steady growth reasonable and likely?<<

No. These predictions are based on macro-econometrics, which in most 
cases basically a matter of extrapolation of past trends. If the real 
world doesn't simply follow the obvious trends, as sketched above, 
then these predictions falls apart. 

>>3)In terms of the growth since in Clinton era, how much of this 
is attributable to export growth, in turn largely attributable to 
a weak dollar? How long can a weak dollar de facto strategy be 
stretched out? what else is the growth of last 4 years 
attributable to?<<

Export growth has been nice, but import growth has been even 
stronger. So US net exports have fallen (the balance of trade 
becoming more negative). The dollar has been rising since June 
1995. The high dollar hurts net exports further.

My cursory reading of the domestic spending during the last few 
years is: 
government spending/GDP down; 
private fixed investment/GDP up significantly
consumer demand/GDP flat.

suggesting that we've had a boom led by private investment, 
itself led by booming profit rates and its flipside, stagnant 
wages relative to productivity.

>>4)How would you evaluate in general the thesis that American 
capitalism is, one way, or another headed for a long period of 
stagnation/slow growth? and if this is true, will it be tolerable 
enough that the Rob. Samuelsons, etc, can continue to pass it off 
as the best of all possible worlds? ...<<

I can't predict the future, but my gut feeling is that we'll have 
stagnation. Rob't Samuelson's gets paid to be optimistic, so I 
don't expect him to abandon his Panglossian view. 

Of course, like at a Seder, the above four questions are 
summarized by "why is this business cycle different from any 
other?" ;-)
in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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:8491] Re: cockroach and pen-l list...

[bill mitchell]

>
>Most of the stuff on Pen-L is garbage! But if you insist on refusing 
>Cockroach and other issues  that i post. Well, take Pen L. and shove it up 
>your ass. Now you either take me off your list or leave it alone!
>
>Because what your are doing is banning Trotskyists and kissing the asses of 
>the Liberals and Mensheviks that post dozens of piss articles that have 
>nothing to do with poor and working class people and their struggles!
>
>Futhermore I am posting your letter and this reply to you to the other 
>lists, the newsgroups and  a future issue of Cockroach.
>...
>CC: everybody I know! And that is a whole lot of people you whiny little 
>fucking piece of shit.
>
Dear Bob

i am sure the boycott will be successful. go for it. get your loud-hailer out
(like we did in the 60-70s) and get into a lather with some slogans, old
fashioned ones like those that were popular around the vietnam days.and
march off into the distance, hating, loathing, and feeling like a real fucking
hero.

many people experienced high costs for matters of principle during the late 60
and early 70, including internment for extended periods. but that was more than
25 years ago. the struggle has changed. 

i have read cockroach. it is poor communication. it is froth and bubble and
barely gets beyond the student babble that hides virtual nothingness in a
swathe of fancy titles "trotyskyists, mensheviks..."

class struggle is about communicating with people not badgering them with
insults and rudeness. pen-l is the progressive economic list. we know you exist
thanks to your postings (that michael accepts) on the table of contents. we
have the choice to go to your site and check it out. that is enough. those who
visit the site won't be bookmarking it - it is full of the sort of shit that
you pumped out today.

i might be the liberal type you hate but for the list record i support michael
completely in the way he runs the list. From my personal contact with him i 
think he is a really top guy. Your failure to assess him properly, probably is
also related to the reason why your attempt at web journalism is miserable.
your attacks on him miss the mark. they merely reflect on you.

as a monthy python sketch might conclude "oh no, not that,...please not
that, please don't post anything to cockroach..., what would
i do if any of this gets in cockroach."


kind regards
bill

--

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