[PEN-L:8500] Radical Statistics AGM
Radical Statistics annual meeting + Saturday 22 February 1997 Coram's Fields, London WC1 - Numbers into Policy -- agenda for a new government + BY THE TIME of the 1997 AGM we will either have a new government, or be on the brink of one. What light can statistics shed on needs, and on policies to fulfil them? Speakers (confirmed) - Paul Dunne Arms industry Alan Freeman: National Income statistics David Gordon: Housing RadStats Health Group: Whose priorities now? * other topics planned include education -- plus exciting RadStats business meeting: controversy guaranteed! Programme - 10.00COFFEE 10.30Session 1 11.15Session 2 12.00Business meeting 13.00LUNCH 14.00Session 3 14.45Session 4 15.30TEA 15.45Session 5 16.30CLOSE 18.00Meal (at "Finnegan's Wake" -- formerly the "Sun" in Lamb's Conduit Street WC1) --from #5.00 upwards Booking form - membership application form - * Special AGM offer * * take out a new membership or revive a lapsed one with your AGM booking, at old rates * AGM fee please tick as applicable --- - (# means pounds sterling) Waged (#10) ... Unwaged/low waged (self-defined) (#5) ... Annual subscription --- Waged (#10) ... Low-waged self-defined (#5) ... Unwaged (#3) ... Institutional (#10)... Overseas (#10 -- sterling cheques only, please)... I enclose cheque for (total) .. (you can pay subscriptions by standing order: see below) Name. Address.. . . . . .Postcode - Creche: please reply by 7 February if you need creche facilities ..(number) at age... ..(number) at age... ..(number) at age... ..(number) at age... - Post-AGM meal: please tick here if you plan to come to this (N.B. this is NOT a booking: merely an expression of interest so that we can indicate numbers to the pub) ... - To pay by standing order, please complete the following -- but send the form to Radical Statistics, NOT to your bank Your bank . Sort code.. Bank's full address . . . . . . Please deduct from my account No. the sum of ... on.19 and on the same date each year, and credit the account of Radical Statistics, a/c 50504569, Co-operative Bank, 1 Islington High Street, London N1 9TR. Sort code 08-90-33. This cancels all previous standing orders to Radical Statistics. Signed... - Send to: Radical Statistics AGM 10 Ruskin Avenue Bradford BD9 6EB United Kingdom +++ Please MAIL to address above, not to me Julian Wells The Business School South Bank University 103 Borough Road London SE1 0AA United Kingdom Direct: +171-815 7736 Fax:+171-815 7793 VERY IMPORTANT: I have e-mail addresses at a number of sites and institutions; Please copy any reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8512] Nairu, etc.
Not only have I got Jim D responding in hot denial, also my other colleague and (usually) agreeable friend, Barkely R. :-) Hey, none of it was personal nor were my comments directed to anyone personally. In fact, (if I must confess) I had deleted the comments from my mail and was only responding to a kind of technical acceptance of the idea of NRU/Nairu which I find totally anathema to radical *or* post Keynesian analysis. I think we all agree (?) that there is nothing "natural" about the rate of unemployment. Does anyone disagree? What I find more insidious is the concept of Nairu -- the non- accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. What does this imply? Is it not a long-run vertical phillips curve? And what does that say? YOU CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT THE LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT ACCELERATING INFLATION (presumably into hyperinflation). Put another way, it means acceptance of the monetarist line. It rejects -- not only the bastard Keynesian Phillips curve analysis of the 1950s-1970s -- but also **all** Keynesian/ postKeynesian concepts of a horizontal Phillips curve (see, for example, Wheeler in Piore, Unemployment and Inflation.) In short, before we can even talk about employment and macro policy, I think we must divest ourselves of any NRU/Nairu polutants and look again at the determinants and mechanisms of the excercize of economic power in the distribution of income and the determination of prices, at both micro and macro levels. NRU and Nairu are both related ideological constructs that, as long as we keep arguing about them, will deflect us from analyzing the real causes of exploitation and misery. In northern frozen solidarity, Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:8514] Re: NAIRU, etc.
This also happened in the first half of the nineteenth century in the states. Prior to the huge waves of Irish immigration starting in 1843, there were a series of federal, state, and local reports which strongly encouraged the use of women laborers in factories. It was said that technology increased their (female) productivity while the use of women as wage labor did not take men away from the more important sectors of the economy: agriculture, seafaring, military (we were fighting the brits in the war of 1812 and kicking the indians off the east coast and suppressing regular riots in urban areas of new york, boston, and philly). In fact, throughout most of the antebellum years women were the MAJORITY of non-agricultural wage earners. Which brings up my next point. At those times when there is no reserve army, rather than increase wages to pull increased labor into factories, capitalists use political persuasion (rosie the riveter) and legal restrictions (controlled economy). While it may not be possible to measure the reserve army, there does seem to be a critical level below which the capitalists are forced to use some type of coercion to supply labor. This has also been the tradition in this country since its inception. Prior to 1800 50 - 75% of white wage labor arrived under indenture contracts, all non-white labor arrived under indenture contracts (Chinese) or enslaved (African). Wages only start becoming prevalent when capitalists realize that the wage system reduces the responsibility of the powerful towards labor -- under systems of legal coercion, the powerful must care for labor from birth to death (maybe no well, but they do provide care). With wage labor, the survival of the working class depends on the ability of that class to demand a larger portion of the economic pie. The fact that the ruling class now sees the natural rate of unemployment as a reducing factor is likely, in part, because the power of the working class in the states has reduced dramatically in the last 20 years. The threat of unemployment is not important when the people employed have no power. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 97-02-06 15:41:11 EST, you write: 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.)
[PEN-L:8515] Re: capital mobility restrictions
On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Steele, Jen wrote: I'm curious what pen-l folks have to say about capital mobility restictions, such as a return to a fixed exchange rate system, as a means for stabilizing local economies. Personally, I have a hard time inagining it. Do you think it's feasible? What other controls on capital mobility exist, here or in other countries? Any suggestions on short, current readings about this issue? Maybe this thread can get us off the personal stuff and back onto economic issues. Jen, I read (i believe in Schweickart's "Against Capital) that Thurow (as in Lester) is now for a "flexible peg" and that he now regrets the complete liberalization of exchange rates (a little late!) Not much - but maybe helpful. Ron Baiman Roosevelt U. Chicago
[PEN-L:8502] Bulgaria - Self-finance vs Subsidise
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? [EMAIL PROTECTED] From Wendell W. Solomons [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Five years ago I faxed the Chief Economist of the World Bank to caution against unphased privatisation in Russia. That country and Bulgaria would be in a different situation if they had been tackled like General MacArthur tackled Japan. Moscow News weekly of that period showed Harvard's Prof Sachs in Moscow actively discouraging the use of the Japanese model. In a sense Russia had already installed Japan's vaunted lifetime-employment system and the need was to get commercial marketing and other facilities in place so as to *SELF-FINANCE* production line changes. As financier Soros has been moved to write, Eastern Europe has a robber capitalism model. The problem with Prof Sach's consultancy has left you and me is that we will have to *SUBSIDISE* soldiers and scientists salaries in Eastern Europe to keep Russia's, Bulgaria's and other plutonium from polluting us. In much of Eastern Europe production has fallen below levels of the 1980s. Journalists vanish into the night. Robber warlordism is rampant. As you notice, China denied itself Prof Sach's model and her GNP grows at around 10% with a population of 1.2 billion. Another five years and ... Tks, \\/
[PEN-L:8492] Re: Bowie bonds
On 6 Feb 97 at 14:34, Doug Henwood wrote: 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 tax advantages of this must be interesting. Usually it is better to spread and delay the receipt of income for tax purposes. It's worth an extra look for junkies of tax avoidance. MBS
[PEN-L:8507] Re: cockroach and pen-l list...
I want to apologize to Michael P. and to the list (what, again?!). I feel responsible for bob malecki having come onto this list. He was drawn in because of my posting my infamous New Year's attack on Louis Proyect to the marxism-international list as well, where bob hangs out. Since he hates Lou P., he thought this would be a place to come check out. I told him offlist what pen-l is about, and knowing something about him, warned him to behave himself, and that if he behaved properly there is a lot of interesting stuff going on, even if it is more academically oriented than he is used to. However, I am not surprised that he has ended up pulling what he has. BTW, he also spent time in the can during the Vietnam years. He has a strange past, but that seems to be true. Barkley Rosser On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:10:02 -0800 (PST) bill mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8513] Long waves
Barkely suggests we may be on the beginnings of a long wave (swing) upswing by referring to the fact that investment/GNP has been rising. Others have poo-pooed the whole concept of long waves, a subject I don't want to debate at this time. I do, however, want to make two points. The first is that, a few weeks ago I made a rash offer to post a bibliography of work on regualation and SSA theory with respect to the long wave on Pen-l and several people took me up on that offer. I went back to my computer and have been unable to find my reading list file for my graduate class. My face is red. I have no excuse (except perhaps technological incompetance). I have all the articles piled up on my desk but, alas, the onerous task of teaching deserving students means that I can not input all this material at this time. Please accept my apologies. The second point relates to the regulation theory approach to economic phases which stresses the relationship between the regime of accumulation and the mode of regulation. In a rather simplistic interpretation, the 1850-1896 growth/stagnation period was marked by an extensive regime of accumulation and a competitive mode ofregulation. The 1897-1940 period, by an intesive regime of accumulation and a competitive mode of regulation, the 1945-199?, an intensive regime of accumulation and a monopoly mode of regulation. Following Boyer's analysis, one could argue that the current stirrings of expansion are based again on an extensive regime of accumulation and a monopoly mode of regulation (under the umbrella of global capital). If this is true (as was the case in the 1850-96 period) economic growth measured in total (measured) output increases, quite dramatically in some cases, though *per capita* income/output is stagnant. Incidentally, this is the case for Canada inthe 1870-96 period. I have not seen comparable data for the US though I believe this is also true for the UK. In any case, this means that the stagnant real wage but macro growth scenario is quite compatable with long wave theory. It also, however, suggests that the next upward swing will be pretty dismall for all but the propertied class. Cold Comfort from Manitoba Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:8505] Re: the four questions
Well, we have already been through this with a lot of people expressing strong skepticism, including Doug, but it sure looks to me those early stages of the long wave upswing, ooh ooh. Barkley Rosser On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:39:24 -0800 (PST) Thad Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:34 PM 2/6/97 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Isn't this kind of an upset, a private investment-driven recovery and growth period? In the strict left Keynesian view (I think) this is isn't suppposed to happen very much. (I also have in mind the many left economic historians like DuBoff , and a recent paper by Vatter et al, who correlate significant growth periods in the 20th century with govt't/military expansion.) What's the explanation(s)? Interest rates, mainly? More stable business climate for investment? Something else? cheers, Thad Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8496] The Necessity For A World Outlook III
Let us go back a bit to our riddle of what came first, the chicken or the egg, structure or function, practice or theory? If waging the class struggle and politics, or, in short, practice, are not put in the first place, how is it possible to raise the question of acquiring a world outlook? Why would anyone want to acquire a world outlook when that outlook has no meaning for that person in real life? A world outlook is a matter of approaching the social and natural world, a world of which the people are an integral part. A world outlook determines how a person approaches the world in which that person lives. Should we approach it from the standpoint that ideas are primary and matter is secondary or the other way around? Only those who wage the class struggle will be objective and approach the question of a world outlook from their own standpoint, from their own class interest. When the universities as well schools these days teach that reality is not even knowable, they are waging a class struggle. They tell the people that they must not look at the reality of capitalist exploitation and wage slavery and draw what would be the warranted conclusion that no problems can be sorted out with finality until the capitalist system and the capitalist class are overthrown. We Marxist-Leninists, on the other hand, approach the world from the standpoint that not only is reality knowable but it also has its own laws of social development. What is necessary is to take into consideration these laws when anything is done, that is, when we participate in the class struggle and the struggles for production and scientific experimentation -- the three major fronts of practice of all human beings. For us, matter is primary and it can only be verified in the forms in which it exists. The fact that it exists in myriad forms proves that matter cannot exist without motion, just as motion cannot exist without matter. The capitalist class which teaches the youth that reality is not knowable organizes its own individual enterprises and political parties and processes extremely consciously and knowingly. They knowingly use the worn-out method of all reactionary classes, which is to advance on the basis of keeping the people ignorant. Thus for them it is very convenient to philosophize and have an outlook stating that even reality is not knowable. There are people who can even get their Ph.Ds and become well-known professors saying such things! Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8493] Re: Nairu, etc.
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. I opt for the CSRU -- class struggle rate of unemployment. There is no more ideological word in the world than "natural". Everytime some blockheads want to state their opinion as a law (and don't want to have to defend it as opinion) they proclaim it an act of nature. This is as true for Stalinists and unabombers as it is for monetarists and racists. Regards, Tom Walker ^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286| ^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:8498] Re: the four questions
At 04:34 PM 2/6/97 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Isn't this kind of an upset, a private investment-driven recovery and growth period? In the strict left Keynesian view (I think) this is isn't suppposed to happen very much. (I also have in mind the many left economic historians like DuBoff , and a recent paper by Vatter et al, who correlate significant growth periods in the 20th century with govt't/military expansion.) What's the explanation(s)? Interest rates, mainly? More stable business climate for investment? Something else? cheers, 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:8497] Re: You're in charge of Bulgaria's economy
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] I'd enroll at Berlitz and try to learn Bulgarian by midnight.
[PEN-L:8494] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1997 RELEASED TODAY: In July through September of 1996, there were 947 mass layoff events lasting more than 30 days, resulting in the separation of 198,398 workers from their jobs. A year earlier, employers reported that they had laid off 173,827 workers in 902 extended layoff events. "Seasonal work" was the major reason cited for the third quarter 1996 layoffs and accounted for 27 percent of the events and 31 percent of the separations. "Slack work," "reorganization within the company," and "contract completion" were cited next most often and together accounted for 40 percent of the events and 32 percent of the separations. Closure of worksites occurred in 24 percent of all events and directly affected over 56,000 workers Fed officials decided yesterday to leave short-term interest rates unchanged, despite recently strong economic growth, because of the persistence of low inflation (Washington Post, page C2; New York Times, page D2; Wall Street Journal, page A2). Orders to U.S. factories fell 1.3 percent in December, the second consecutive monthly decline and the fifth of 1996, the Commerce Department said. Factory orders are the main gauge of the nation's manufacturing strength. For 1996, factory orders were up a moderate 4.9 percent, vs. a 6.6 percent gain in 1995. Last year's gain was the smallest in three years In December, electronic and electrical equipment had the largest decline (USA Today, page 1B). Only half of U.S. workers are in private retirement plans, the Labor Department says. Many not covered by pensions are employed by small businesses, or young workers who may not be thinking ahead to save for retirement, says the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans (USA Today, page 1B). DUE OUT TOMORROW: The Employment Situation: January 1997
[PEN-L:8495] The Necessity For A World Outlook II
It can be said that this is the point at which a world outlook also begins to develop. This species called homo sapiens did come into being, but it is now at such a stage in its development that it is divided between those who want to play the role inherent to the species, that is, continue the humanization of the social and the natural environments on an uninterrupted basis, and those who want to keep the stage of society as it is, which is extremely destructive to both the social and the natural environments and, most important, destructive to the very role that nature gave to the homo sapiens as a species. Given its inherent role, however, it is not possible to stop the species of homo sapiens from humanizing the natural and the social environments. Taking into consideration the all-round development of the class struggle, it can thus be concluded that the class struggle waged by the working class today leads to the ongoing humanization of the social and natural environments, while the class struggle waged by the capitalist class leads to its opposite, that is, dehumanization. If anyone is to acquire a world outlook, they will have to participate in waging this class struggle, either on the side of the working class or on the side of the capitalist class. There is no middle ground. There is no such thing as acquiring an outlook without waging the class struggle. Formal learning does have its own place, but the decisive and the highest school of learning is the class struggle itself. All the youth, both students and others, ought to participate in politics. They must put politics in the first place. They should be able to correlate to the fact that the capitalist class discourages everyone, especially the youth, from participating in politics. It does so because it knows that if everyone were to participate in politics they would come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to have a superfluous class existing in society as the capitalist class. They will ask for the overthrow of such a class and the system which perpetuates it. However, by compelling them not to be political, the capitalists get the youth to wage a class struggle against their own interests, against the working class, and against the opening of the door for the progress of society. It can be concluded by analyzing concrete conditions that the reason why many youths grope in the dark and have difficulty in acquiring a world outlook is because they do not wage the class struggle or participate in politics, which amounts to the same thing. In a society as exists in the U.S. today and internationally, people do not have a choice whether to participate in politics or not. Nonetheless, the capitalist class demands that they must not participate in politics. The working class, women, youth and students are pressured to leave politics to politicians. How are people to defend their interests if they do not participate in politics? All members of the polity have a duty to that polity to participate in politics. The entire existing political process, however, marginalizes the members of the polity from participating in political affairs. Without the people participating in the political affairs of the country and internationally, they become divided into factions in favor of this or that political party. They begin to participate in politics against their own interests. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8499] Re: the four questions
At 04:34 PM 2/6/97 -0800, you wrote: 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. Speaking of Mr. Optimism, anybody catch his latest in Newsweek? Acc to Samuelson, studies show that when it comes to deregulation, "we've had enough experience with it to draw some conclusions. And the main one is: it works"--to the tune of saving us about $40 to $60 billion a year. Of course, Samuelson admits there's that pesky little problem with the SLs, which "was botched big time," but he doesn't include it when figuring out our "savings." See Jim, this is why you don't understand that most working families are doing well; when you calculate how much money they've made, you forgot to drop out their credit card debt and their loans... Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
[PEN-L:8506] Re: Capacity Utilization Rate
Capacity utilization is also a tricky area. I haven't looked lately, but years ago the rate was changed to "profitable" capacity utilization rate. Guess what that did to capacity utilization rates? Perhaps others working currently in the area can shed more light on this. Larry Shute Isn't the rate of unemployment and or the capacity utilization rate a proxy for the level of demand at which capitalists collectively succeed in raising prices? And shouldn't that be the first point made in public discussions of NAIRU?
[PEN-L:8509] Re: You're in charge of Bulgaria's economy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8486] You're in charge of Bulgaria's economy X-Comment: Progressive Economics 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? Let's keep this list in reality, please. After the hash I made of Belarus and Moldova, who would consider such a thing? valis Occupied America
[PEN-L:8508] Re: Nairu, etc.
Paul, Just for the record, I note that in my discussion of the NRU I labeled it an invention of Milton Friedman, called it an essentially empty concept, said it did not necessarily equal NAIRU, to the extent that exists, and that both were covers for the reserve army. Was I on your list of reprobates as well? Barkley Rosser On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:46:45 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8501] Discouraging competition, encouraging profits in drugs
The material below is reposted from BUSNET a Canadian newsgroup devoted to business ethics. It is obviously relevant to health care reform. It shows the power of pharmaceutical giants to protect their profits and discourage competition even when they do not have patents for products. - Info-Policy-Notes - A newsletter available from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - INFORMATION POLICY NOTES February 5, 1997 USTR seeks limits on the ability to "rely" upon scientific research or actions by the U.S. FDA, on matters concerning pharmaceutical efficacy and safety The following is a February 4, 1997 letter send by Ralph Nader, James Love and Robert Weissman to President Clinton, asking the United States to withdraw trade sanctions against Argentina. The United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky is seeking the sanctions in an effort to prevent Argentina and other countries from relying upon known scientific evidence on pharmaceutical safety and efficacy, in considering marketing approval for generic drugs. The dispute concerns drugs which are not subject to patent, often because the research was government funded and entered the public domain. Several OEDC countries (including the U.S.) now prevent generic drug manufactures from "relying upon" other researchers evidence of drug efficacy and safety for five years or more, and the USTR wants to extend this policy to the entire world. For example, the unpatented cancer drug Taxol commands very high prices in the United States, because Bristol-Myers Squibb is the only firm that is permitted to relpy upon the National Cancer Institute's extensive research that was used for FDA marketing approval. The USTR wants Argentina and other countries to prohibit competition from generics for Taxol and similarly situated drugs. The dispute raises important questions in terms of ethics, public health and the dissemination and use of scientific knowledge. For more information, contact James Love (202.387.8030, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) or Robert Weissman (202.387-8030; [EMAIL PROTECTED]), or see http://www.essential.org/cpt/pharm/pharm.html. (Note: The letter is formatted with 1 inch margins, w/11 point courier font.The HTML version is on the Web at: http://www.essential.org/cpt/pharm/registration.html) P.O. Box 19367 Washington, DC 20036 February 4, 1997 President William Clinton The White House Washington, DC We are writing to ask that your Administration reconsider its proposal to impose trade sanctions against Argentine consumers as punishment for that country's policies toward the pharmaceutical industry. We believe the U.S. Trade Representative has erred for two reasons. First, for public health and competitive reasons, the United States Government should not support artificial barriers to the introduction of generic versions of unpatented drugs. Second, it is inappropriate for the United States to punish Argentina consumers for plainly legal advocacy efforts undertaken by Argentine private sector domestic drug companies, who are simply seeking to protect their interests in worldwide forums on rules for intellectual property. 1. The U.S. Government should not support artificial barriers to the introduction of generic versions of unpatented drugs. In the USTR's January 15, 1997 statement, the principal substantive complaint about Argentina's policies on intellectual property rights concerned the decision of the Argentine Congress to permit drug manufacturers to rely upon scientific clinical trials already submitted to drug regulators. The USTR statement says: Following the April, 1996 decision, the Government of Argentina stated that it would attempt to address U.S. IPR concerns by enacting legislation to protect health registration data. Such scientific and technical data which must support claims of efficacy and safety of new products - must be submitted by pharmaceutical innovators to Health ministries to obtain approval for marketing new products. These data generally cost millions of dollars to develop. Given these costs to innovators, many countries prohibit competitors from relying upon such data when they seek Health Ministry approval for the same pharmaceutical product. On December 18, just before the scheduled completion date of USTR's out-of-cycle review, the Argentine Congress passed legislation dealing with health registration data. However, this legislation does not archive (sic) its stated purpose. Specifically, the legislation does not prevent competitors from relying upon the innovator's test data when these rival firms seek marketing approval. On the contrary, the new legislation
[PEN-L:8504] Re: You're in charge of Bulgaria's economy
At 10:17 AM -0800 2/7/97, Eugene P. Coyle wrote: I'd enroll at Berlitz and try to learn Bulgarian by midnight. Of course, you could just deal with the IMF, the World Bank, and the Morgan Bank in English and have your staff work the details. 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:8511] Re: the four questions
Barkley Rosser wrote, Well, we have already been through this with a lot of people expressing strong skepticism, including Doug, but it sure looks to me those early stages of the long wave upswing, ooh ooh. Yeah, right. Is that the part of the upswing that heads down first or the part that sort of rocks back and forth for a while? Regards, Tom Walker ^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286| ^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:8510] Re: Nairu, etc.
Second, some of the comments here (not Paul's) seem to imply that rising wages, at whatever rate of unemployment they occur, are the cause of inflation. In other words, some of the discussion even here on PEN-L seems to be about the rate of unemployment at which rising wages trigger rising prices. That is disappointing for a list such as this, as has already been remarked by someone. Isn't the rate of unemployment and or the capacity utilization rate a proxy for the level of demand at which capitalists collectively succeed in raising prices? And shouldn't that be the first point made in public discussions of NAIRU? Gene, excuse my torpidity, but I don't get the point in the second paragraph. Would you please elaborate? Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
