[PEN-L:9152] Re: comparative unemployment rates
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:9151] comparative unemployment rates Can anyone out there direct me to a study of how unemployment rates are defined and measured across OECD countries? I'm wondering whether America's "low" unemployment rates, given the amount of un- and under-employment they conceal, are really comparable with European unemployment rates? Ellen, The issue of comparability is addressed in "Beware the U.S. Model," the EPI book. The book includes rate estimates adjusted in some ways (population, in particular) for differences across nations. Our latest issue brief on low-wage work and welfare talks about under-employment and provides some numbers for 1996 on un- and under-employment by age, gender, race, etc. Bottom line on the comparisons, properly done, is that the gaps between the U.S. and Europe are notably smaller but the US still has lower unemployment. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 ===
[PEN-L:9157] utopianism -- final words??
For the sake of not only my own ego-enlargement but also the progress of pen-l debate, it's good to read Louis Proyect saying, after simply repeating his previous points, that Jim Devine is correct. Marx and Engels did respect what they [the utopians] were doing since utopian publications, with their "hatred for every principle of existing society", are full of "the most valuable materials of the enlightenment of the working-class." But then: I would continue to urge people to read Cockshott- Cottrell's "Toward a New Socialism", my favorite utopian exercise. (I would urge people to shy away from Robin Hahnel's work, however, since he is now revealed as an intellectual snob. Isn't it funny how beneath the tie-dyed grooviness of a Z Magazine figure, there lurks somebody who wants to rub your nose in their curricula vitae.) I see nothing wrong with Robin's mention of his experience with planning -- since, after all, it was more than relevant to answering Louis' accusations. Snobbery would involve bringing up one's credentials simply for the purpose of looking superior. (For example, I never mention my Purple Heart or my Nobel Prize in Chemistry, because somehow they don't seem relevant to pen-l debates.)* What's important is to criticize any "utopian socialist" scheme on the basis of whether or not -- and how -- it works, in both theory and in practice. Such as the possibility that Albert Hahnel's scheme might turn into a dictatorship of compulsive meeting-goers. Louis, please tell us what's good about Cockshott Cottrell's proposal, how it's superior to AH's idea. Though maybe those authors are still on pen-l and can chime in. What I would no longer do is classify them as examples of Marxist thought... Though I think of myself as an (unorthodox) Marxist, I don't really care whether or not AH's scheme is labelled "Marxist." These days, the left needs to get ideas from wherever it can, though of course they must be treated with care, i.e., critically. * and also because they're fictional. 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:9158] Re: Slovenia
I think Barkley is quite correct about the relative success of the Slovenian economy. The unemployment rate peaked at 9.1 % (ILO definition) in 1993 and had fallen to 7.4 % by 1995, well below the German rate. GDP had recoved to about 97 % of the pre-breakup maximum by 1995 and real wages stood about 5% higher than the were in 1990 before the war. Inflation in 1996 was estimated at 10 % and the real growth rate at 3 %. Much of this is detailed in my article with Bogomil Ferfila in *Slovenija*, "The Slovene Economy: the First Five Years", Summer 1996. I am in the process of updating this article but existing trends seem to be being followed. Re the property/ownership situation, the majority of the economy is now privatized but the privatization scheme has left control largely still in the hands of the workers/unions -- so much so that the managers have been complaining that nothing has changed. I hope to get to Slovenia next year to do a survey of managers to find out if that is still the case. Barkley is also correct about FDI. Of the more than 1500 privatization programs received by the Slovene Agency for Restructuring and Privatization by April 1995, only three involved foreign participation. Re the analysis of Yugoslavia outlined by Louis, it certainly doesn't appear much like what I saw in Yugoslavia over the last 10 or so years. Ferfila and I give a much different interpretation in our book *The Rise and Fall of the Third Way: Yugoslavia 1945-1991*. In fact, one of the causes we cite for the collapse of the country was the imposition of utopian schemes by the top theoreticians (e.g. Kardelj in particular) rather than working through praxis to modify the system. However, the whole argument is too long to present here. In short, I would agree with Barkley that both its success and its failure makes Slovenia a useful (though flawed) model for a feasible socialist alternative. Nasvidinje Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:9163] Re: Slovenia
Paul Phillips: Re the analysis of Yugoslavia outlined by Louis, it certainly doesn't appear much like what I saw in Yugoslavia over the last 10 or so years. Louis: I have never visited Yugoslavia myself, although I have a suspicion that Susan Woodward did. I wonder why you didn't respond to the substance of the arguments that I presented on her behalf, rather than making such a pointless observation that you were an eyewitness to events in Yugoslavia. Ferfila and I give a much different interpretation in our book *The Rise and Fall of the Third Way: Yugoslavia 1945-1991*. Louis: I will see if this book is in the Columbia library and give you some feedback. You can absolutely bank on this. In fact, one of the causes we cite for the collapse of the country was the imposition of utopian schemes by the top theoreticians (e.g. Kardelj in particular) rather than working through praxis to modify the system. However, the whole argument is too long to present here. Louis: This sentence doesn't give us much to work with. Susan Woodward's analysis revolves around Yugoslavia's problems within the context of European economic decline in the 1970s and 80s, and less favorable relationships to western banks and lending agencies. "Working through praxis to modify the system" is such a meaningless phrase that I wouldn't begin to try to comment on it. Why do you use the word utopian in this context by the way? Don't you mean "unrealistic" instead? What *is* utopian is the idea of people like Schweickart (and yourself, I guess) that you can take a snapshot of an Eastern European republic formed by a whole set of specific class relations and set that as a goal for socialist parties involved in political action in places as diverse as Belgium and Ecuador. It is applicable everywhere, just as the utopian schemas of the 19th century were, and by the same token applicable nowhere as well.
[PEN-L:9165] Re: On utopianism
LOUIS P: What I would no longer do is classify them as examples of Marxist thought, which has its object the critique of capitalist society in order to facilitate its destruction. KARL: Your posting on Utopianism was interesting. However you seem to take it for granted that marxism itself is not another form of utopianism For me it is a view that needs to be questioned, reexamined and discussed. Well over a hundred years after marxism as a political philosophy has come into being there has not been any socialist society in existence. There is no revolutionary marxist movement in existence. The developed imperialist societies are no nearer to having a revolutionary working class movement than they were in Marx's day (perhaps even less so). Class consciousness among the industrial working class of the so-called core economies is non-existent. In general the elements that one might describe as marxist are in general politically insignificant, minuscule, fragmented, sectarian. and in how they organize their relationships with each other less than comradely to say the least. Many of these marxist organizations are analogous to the many contemporary christian sects that exist today in the way in which individuals are integrated into them and in the way in which these sects relate to each other. As evidenced on the marxism mailing lists the basis for a calm rational sustained discussion is non-existent. Hardly any of the subscribers are prepared to tease out problems without resorting to abuse, sectarianism or empty rhetoric. Just because individuals who claim to be marxists differ in experience and political understanding does not mean that they cannot exchange views in a rational way and thereby gain from the experience In general academic marxism fares no better. It is concerned more with the book and lecture industry more in terms of the enhancement of the individual academic marxologist. In short for them marxism is a career and petty bourgeois lifestyle. Just think about it! Despite the thousand of books and papers published by academic marxism there is still not one academic marxist who can explain why and how sub-Saharan Africa is so "underdeveloped." There is not one academic marxist able to analyse and outline the character of contemporary society. Let's face it! Marxism is non-existent as a political force. And yet there are so many so- called marxists who unquestioningly take it for granted that marxism is not a utopian political philosophy. Yours etc., Karl Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:9166] Re: help on background on nobel prize in econ.
Hi Doug, Before I give this out to my intro macro students, did you ever get confirmation, or more info, about these questions? Thanks. Hope you are well. Blair Each year about this time there is a discussion on the "lists" about who won the "nobel" prize in econ., altho this year the topic hasn't come up yet on PEN-L. It is also the case that almost ever fall, we have a discussion about the origin of the Econ prize. This year, I posted the msg below to FEMECON-L when the topic first came up. I have now received a request to print something about the origin of the Econ prize in the IAFFE newsletter. Before I send something off to "print" I want to double check some issues. 1) does someone know the source for the quote describing the prize that is included below. I took it from an part of the PEN-L discussion in 1993. 2) does anyone know a source to document that A. Nobel did not consider Econ. a science. I have heard and read it many times, but I would like a more solid cite. 3) when were the original Nobel prizes created? 4) any other background that someone thinks is important. I am hoping Trond is still lurking and can help out on this. Trond?? _ Every Fall I get to send out the same msg because there are always new members of the list. The is NO Nobel prize in economics. When Alfred Nobel set up his prizes to reward scientific excellence he SPECIFICALLY declined to create a prize for economics because he believed "economics is not a science, it is an ideology." He endowed the Nobel prizes with part of the fortune he had acquired from his invention of dynamite. The prizes were meant to assuage part of the guilt he felt the the destructive uses to which his invention had been put, especially as weapons of war. The "Nobel prize in economics" as the media, in its ignorance calls it was created by, and funded by the Bank of Sweden: "The Bank of Sweden, at its tercentanary in 1968, instituted the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel, pledging an annual amount equal to one of the regular Nobel Prizes. The winner of the Prize...is to be chosen each year by the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences." Notice1: it is a prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel, not a Nobel prize. For the first few years, the Nobel committee would issue a statement trying to clarify that the two are completely different things. But the media refused to change the way the reported the prize, so the Committee gave up. Notice2: No nobel prize in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. has ever been given to someone whose work was later shown to be simply wrong. However, this has occurred several times in economics, with the most famous case being the prize to Milton Friedman for the theory of monetarism, i.e. only money causes inflation and money always causes inflation, which was shown to be wrong in the 1980s The Bank of Sweden prize in economics is simply a stamp of ideological approval for particular economic theories that serve the interests of the elite in capitalist societies. Thus, it is not likely we will ever see this prize given to anyone who is engaged in feminist economics!! Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." -- Dom Helder Camara
[PEN-L:9173] In The Middle East: No War - No Peace Is Detrimental To The
The escalation of violence by the state of Israel against the Palestinian people, the closing of borders and other recent measures clearly proves once again that the "no war - no peace" situation imposed on the region does not favor the interests of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. Using the pretext of an act of terrorism in which Israelis were killed and injured, the state of Israel has gone on the offensive. The imperialist powers are watching and, otherwise, doing nothing except making speeches in the Security Council or vetoing resolutions condemning the building of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, as the U.S. imperialists have done twice in recent times. The main brunt of the violence is directed against the Palestinian people who are made to pay the bill for the "no war - no peace" situation. The decision by the Israeli government to begin the construction of homes for Israelis in East Jerusalem is further clear proof that the "no war - no peace" situation favors Israeli expansion. In spite of the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli state and its backers have not given up their plan of extinguishing the national rights of the Palestinian people. Many Israeli citizens have begun to realize that if the Palestinian national rights are extinguished, then no one's rights will be respected. This "no war - no peace" condition imposed on the situation brings this to the fore. Communists firmly denounce the Israeli government for the escalation of violence against the Palestinian people and its denial of their national rights. While condemning the building of homes for Israelis in East Jerusalem, we also categorically denounce this "no war - no peace" dictated by the big powers. People of Palestine and the region should take their initiatives and demand an end to all foreign interference. Imperialism does not stand for freedom and peace. Only the peoples of the region can establish a lasting peace on the basis of the recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people. All the other problems can be sorted out on this basis. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9169] Re: customers or suckers?
Max B. Sawicky wrote: You don't know the half of it. Just watch your spelling. A careless error might split the Fourth International. You and your Pabloism of the Second Mobilization! 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:9176] experimental madness
Here are my notes on one of my favorite experimental studies. The authors usually work with rats, but here they changed their subject. Battalio, Raymond C., John H. Kagel and Morgan O. Reynolds. 1977. "Income Distribution in Two Experimental Economies." Journal of Political Economy, 85: 6 (December): pp. 1259-70. 1261: They studied an experiment in a therapeutic token system ward for chronic, female psychotics at Central Islip State Hospital in New York. 1261: The second was an experimental cannabis economy at the Addiction Research Foundation in Ontario to study the socio-economic effects of cannabis consumption among volunteer subjects. 1262: In NY, the work was primarily janitorial. Wages were structured to clear the market. Tokens were used to consume non-necessities. 1262-3: The Canadians wove belts for $2.50 per belt in Canadian currency. 1268-9: They found an income distribution similar to that of the economy as a whole. 1269: In the Canadian experiment, women earned 60% as much as men. Michael Perelman
[PEN-L:9178] Re: Slovenia
Louis P., you can go wherever you want to (and you know I'm fully prepared to debate you in other fora anyway), but I am not expecting coops to "sweep east" or whatever. The issue is what kind of vision is held out for a broader movement that seeks to transform the entire country, and more broadly the world. At some level, things have to build up from somewhere on some basis. The idea of a simultaneous global revolution strikes me as being the most utopian idea of all. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 13:19:01 -0800 (PST) Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barkley: Actually, Louis P., the market socialism of the Slovenian type is probably the kind of socialism that would have the best chance and greatest appeal in the US, for all its flaws. The fact that we do have a movement, however half-baked, toward workers' ownership and at least some vague kinds of workers' control (see UAL, the plywood coops, etc.) points in this direction. Louis: Just as I expected, the discussion has reverted to exactly where it has been for the last 3 years: comparing the merits of utopian schemas. Barkely's heart belongs to Slovenia, while Robin Hahnel will try to figure out a way to defend his own nostrums. I have no interest in this sort of discussion, so I am about to descend back into the lower depths of the Spoons list where we get ourselves muddy fighting over such mudane matters as the relationship of class and nationality (or class and gender) when dealing with black nationalism or feminism. I will go to bed each night with a little prayer on my lips that the plywood coops will sweep eastward and transform property relations down at Goldman-Sachs, my old employer. There's a bunch of people there I'd like to see get their comeuppance. -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9185] Union for Rad PE Party in Wash DC for the EEAs
Union for Radical Political Economics Potluck Party for Easterns participants and URPE folks in the DC area at the home of URPE member and American University faculty Mieke Meurs Friday, April 4, 1997 7:00pm 3213 19th St., NW Washington, DC (202)234-4906 All URPE members, visitors at the Eastern Economic Association Meetings, American University people, etc. are invited to socialize and talk politics. For a potluck we ask that each individual contribute some food or drink to the festivities. Transportation: From the Eastern meetings, we suggest you go in a group so as not to get lost, take the Metro to the DuPont Circle stop on the RED LINE, and take a taxi to Mieke Meurs' house. That should cost a few dollars for one person, and about 1-2 dollar more per additional person. Feel free to ask how much it will cost, since taxis in Washington DC charge by zone and time of day, not by the mile. Note, a taxi from Virginia to DC will be quite expensive (don't be afraid to ask the taxi driver how much it would cost), so Metro is best. By car: take 16th St., NW to Park Rd. Go west on Park Rd. until you reach 19th St. Turn left, the house is on the left. By public transportation: Take the Metro to Dupont Circle, on the RED LINE, take the 42 bus, which runs every 15-20 minutes in the direction of Mt. Pleasant. Take the bus to the end of the line (about 10 minutes). Turn left down Lamont St. to 19th St., take a right on 19th St. House is on the right. Hope to see you there. Susan Fleck (301)270-1486 (steering committee) Mieke Meurs (202)234-4906
[PEN-L:9186] re:Slovenia
Unfortunately our e-mail has been down for the past couple of days so I have not been able to respond to the Slovenia thread until now at which point it has gone off in several directions. Let me begin by quoting Branko Horvat in a private correspondence he sent me after I had sent him a long paper on the rise and problems of the yugo economy-- "as usual in Yugoslavia", he wrote, "it is not quite so simple." That was the jist of my response to Louis. Neither is the debt problem so simple. I did write upon this in an article in Monthly Review. I am not trying to impress anyone with quotes, just that I can't reproduce a decade of articles and analysis in a few short lines here. But in order to understand the foreign debt problem that developed in Yugoslavia in the 1980s, one has to understand the internal political (regional- enthnic) problems at the time that Tito was dying around 1980, and the structure of the banking institutions that resulted from the constitutional changes i the mid-seventies that -- and this is for Louis -- were motivated by Kardelj's utopian conception of the ideal Marxist state. Now I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for this utopia (Djilas' claim that it was his is, as far as I have been able to authenticate, absolute nonsense), but it led to a breakdown in rational economic planning which we try to illustrate in our book. The reason that I said I couldn't deal with it on Pen-l is that our argument/evidence is 120 pages which (obviously) I can't reproduce here. However, let me say one thing in defense of my "utopia". A year ago I took part in a workshop with Slovenian union shop stewards on how to maintain control of the work place -- through ownership and through trade union and political action. My presentation was on the threat to workers participation and control of the North American model. They were miles ahead of North American workers. If I can quote one business commentator "... the main reason for the attractiveness of internal subscripition [worker buyouts] lies basically in the sense of commitment that employees have to 'their' companies. Oviously, the majority of employed Slovene citizens consent to a property struct which assures the continuation of the existing [self] management structure without introducing major change." Boy! does that rile the apologists for neo-liberal capitalism!! In short, I think there are very good lessons from the Yugo experience, particularly in Slovenia, for socialists and marxists. Also, as my good friend, the Ambassador or Macedonia to Slovenion, points out, don't write off Macedonia. It is doing better than the western press ignores. Nasvidinje, Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:9184] Re: Slovenia/Yugolsavia
Paul, Guess you don't know what a soft budget constraint is. These enterprises to whom the loans were being made were owned by the state. Thus, ultimately the state was responsible and the enterprises knew it. They counted on the state to prop them up with subsidies of one sort or another in the face of their indebtedness. This is precisely an issue in countries like Yugoslavia and Hungary where the central planners were NOT in control of what the state-owned enterprises were doing. So, the enterprises could run up debts that eventually landed in the laps of the governments. In Yugo this got exacerbated as republic governments pumped out subsidies for their local firms, counting on the central government to ultimately bail them out. This need for subsidies also exacerbated central government budgetary problems and fed in inflation, as in Yugo and Poland. BArkley Rosser On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:07:35 -0800 (PST) Paul Altesman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for your quick response, but it leaves me a bit perplexed. The vast majority of Yugo's debt in the '80s was from commercial banks making commercial loans to industrial enterprises (initially without sovereign guarantee) - the same type loans made to Latin America and made for the same reasons. How can this be the "same old soft budget constraint problem" found between Socialist enterprises and their central planners for natl. currency budgeting?Clearly the dynamics are different (obviously the lenders' motives were profit in an overheated international lending climate; the borrower certainly new that Chase Manhattan was not a soft lender) and fall squarely in the classic international financial crises scenario. The crisis for Yugoslavia (and Latin America) came precisely because this was "good old hard debt" and had to be paid back in hard currency. Of course the *Banks* were treated to a sort of "soft budget constraint": debtor governments succumbed to pressure to nationalize the debt guarantees, eliminating the option of bankruptcy protection; lender cartels were formed, eg the London Club, which helped block default as an option; and finally some of the Bank's funds were replaced with IMF, World Bank and U.S Treasury guarantees. All this ensured that any lender default would confront most of the private and public power of the Western world. Can this unprecedented pressure - leading to an unprecedented squeeze - really be called a soft budget constraint? I agree that the foreign aid loans of the '50s, made to the Yugo govt, are another matter, but by the '80s the remanent of these loans were a tiny fraction of debt (they were never very large). Isn't it a critical point that whatever its internal and intra-firm arrangements, in its international economic arrangements (and its large international debt) Yugo had become a full fledged member of the periphery - and was crushed by the usual forces? Paul Altesman At 03:07 PM 3/26/97 -0800, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: The question of Yugoslav indebtedness is a complex one with Susan Woodward/Louis Proyect being at least partly correct that a lot of easy credit was given in the 50s essentially to pay Tito off for Cold War reasons and that the conditions of that changed later. However, the indebtedness continued to rise afterwards as well, and many argue that this is a tendency that can happen in market socialist economies. It is essentially the old soft budget constraint problem, which both Poland and Hungary experienced as well. State-owned firms that are not subject to central command planning find it easy to borrow from abroad, and may do so in large amounts, with the state as a whole owing this debt. In Yugoslavia this tendency became even more exaggerated as policy control became more decentralized to the republics over time, but ultimate debt responsibility remained centralized. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:44:07 -0800 (PST) Paul Altesman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:40 AM 3/26/97 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . Re the analysis of Yugoslavia outlined by Louis, it certainly doesn't appear much like what I saw in Yugoslavia over the last 10 or so years. Ferfila and I give a much different interpretation in our book *The Rise and Fall of the Third Way: Yugoslavia 1945-1991*. In fact, one of the causes we cite for the collapse of the country was the imposition of utopian schemes by the top theoreticians (e.g. Kardelj in particular) rather than working through praxis to modify the system. However, the whole argument is too long to present here. . I find your analysis of present day Slovenia interesting, but when discussing the former Yugoslavia most analysts seem to forget that through the 80s the then Yugoslavia was among the "10 most debt-distressed" countries - and received even less debt relief than most
[PEN-L:9183] Re: Foucault
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: I must have missed something. Who spat on Foucault, called him rubbish? It wasn't you, Doug, it was somebody who responded to your post saying something like, "Why bother reading Foucault?" I should save these things before I post, I guess. Tavis, your post was excellent; ACT-UP is an admirable organization. I had a long chat with one of their drug experts a few years ago - though no MD, he really got to know his stuff. Stanley Aronowitz should be so knowledgeable. But organizations on the ACT-UP model - like WAC and WHAM! in NYC - have had a hard time sustaining themselves. Is that a limit of nonhierarchical anti-instutionalizing micropolitics? AIDS is still with us, but ACT-UP barely is. I think I'd stick to a materialist analysis for ACT UP and WHAM! and explain WAC a bit differently. To get the latter out of the way, as well as QN, I think basically these groups looked at ACT UP and were impressed by the theater and tactics but never realized (at least collectively) that you had to have a political mission that such tactics were achieving. WAC had a a general mission to combat sexism and no real consensus, as far as I could tell, of what that meant strategically. Great drum corps though. Similarly, QN was initially formed to combat a national wave of bashings in the summer of 1990, but quickly lost sight of its original mission and started seeing itself as an organization to promote visibility. Kiss-ins and postering men having sex are a lot of fun, but they aren't a political strategy. I think WHAM! was basically formed in response to the wave of attacks on clinics by Operation Rescue, and died out when those attacks subsided. They did have an impressive campaign beginning to fight breast cancer in much the same way that ACT UP fights AIDS, but unfortunately the group was already in its nadir when that campaign was started and it never really solidified into a solid organizational vision. There is still a group of about a dozen or so women that meets every two weeks and engages in actions, but it's just the cadrified core of that could have been a much larger organization had history worked out slightly differently. Okay, now ACT UP: One thing the group had going for it was that it was really the first group to stand up and fight AIDS politically. This meant that a lot of fairly wealthy gay white men gave an awful lot of money for the group to function. It also meant that the group had an odd kind of bourgeois respectability even as they were being in-your-face. Meanwhile, two things have happened: First, a tremendous range of political AIDS organization has spun off, and the less radical ones are much more likely to get the wealthy GWM bucks. Second, AIDS has shifted to being predominantly a disease borne by people of color -- even among gay men, 7 out of 10 new infections are among men of color. This means a whole lot of things. First of all, it leaves a lot of visibility barriers left that ACT UP never broke nor could have broken: The visibility of IV drug users or their lovers and former lovers living in neighborhoods with no jobs, few resources, no insurance, no knowledge of how to gain access to specialized government programs, shitty hospitals, etc., etc., etc. Second, it's just a group of people that has a lot less time and money to organize, in part because many are sick before they know their HIV status. Third, ACT UP has done a poor job reaching out beyond the gay community, although other organizations such as Housing Works and Stand Up Harlem have found ways to combine social services with political action fairly effectively and have built stable and growing organizations. I think ACT UP is also a victim of success on two counts. First is that the group has transformed the notion of what it means to have a medical afflication (at least for PWA's; now if only someone would start organizing the same thing for people with cancer), stopped authoritarian public health measures at least for the time being, completely transformed the drug approval process, and gotten a certian amount of social insurance (unfortunately only for PWAs). Second is that the mainstream media is running around touting "a cure for AIDS" and people will be pretty complacent for a couple of years until their combo therapies start crashing. I guess my basic answer, then, is that the group is a victim of the general level of consciousness and material conditions, and its slow decline does not necessarily mean that it did anything wrong. Though of course (viz. #3 above) the group did make mistakes. It is possible that the right stew of Marx, Gramsci and Chomsky could come up with a basis of understanding discourse that is firmly grounded in materialism. But it hasn't happened yet, at least not in a way that incorporates the many innovative ideas about seizing language that Foucault
[PEN-L:9182] Slovenia/Yugoslavia - a clarification
When speaking of Yugo as one of the 10 most debt distressed countries of the debt crisis of the 80's and in the same boat as Lat. Am. - I hope it was clear that I was focussing on the role of *external* debt and the international debt crisis. Apologies if this wan't clear enough.
[PEN-L:9181] Re: Slovenia/Yugolsavia
Thanks for your quick response, but it leaves me a bit perplexed. The vast majority of Yugo's debt in the '80s was from commercial banks making commercial loans to industrial enterprises (initially without sovereign guarantee) - the same type loans made to Latin America and made for the same reasons. How can this be the "same old soft budget constraint problem" found between Socialist enterprises and their central planners for natl. currency budgeting?Clearly the dynamics are different (obviously the lenders' motives were profit in an overheated international lending climate; the borrower certainly new that Chase Manhattan was not a soft lender) and fall squarely in the classic international financial crises scenario. The crisis for Yugoslavia (and Latin America) came precisely because this was "good old hard debt" and had to be paid back in hard currency. Of course the *Banks* were treated to a sort of "soft budget constraint": debtor governments succumbed to pressure to nationalize the debt guarantees, eliminating the option of bankruptcy protection; lender cartels were formed, eg the London Club, which helped block default as an option; and finally some of the Bank's funds were replaced with IMF, World Bank and U.S Treasury guarantees. All this ensured that any lender default would confront most of the private and public power of the Western world. Can this unprecedented pressure - leading to an unprecedented squeeze - really be called a soft budget constraint? I agree that the foreign aid loans of the '50s, made to the Yugo govt, are another matter, but by the '80s the remanent of these loans were a tiny fraction of debt (they were never very large). Isn't it a critical point that whatever its internal and intra-firm arrangements, in its international economic arrangements (and its large international debt) Yugo had become a full fledged member of the periphery - and was crushed by the usual forces? Paul Altesman At 03:07 PM 3/26/97 -0800, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: The question of Yugoslav indebtedness is a complex one with Susan Woodward/Louis Proyect being at least partly correct that a lot of easy credit was given in the 50s essentially to pay Tito off for Cold War reasons and that the conditions of that changed later. However, the indebtedness continued to rise afterwards as well, and many argue that this is a tendency that can happen in market socialist economies. It is essentially the old soft budget constraint problem, which both Poland and Hungary experienced as well. State-owned firms that are not subject to central command planning find it easy to borrow from abroad, and may do so in large amounts, with the state as a whole owing this debt. In Yugoslavia this tendency became even more exaggerated as policy control became more decentralized to the republics over time, but ultimate debt responsibility remained centralized. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:44:07 -0800 (PST) Paul Altesman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:40 AM 3/26/97 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . Re the analysis of Yugoslavia outlined by Louis, it certainly doesn't appear much like what I saw in Yugoslavia over the last 10 or so years. Ferfila and I give a much different interpretation in our book *The Rise and Fall of the Third Way: Yugoslavia 1945-1991*. In fact, one of the causes we cite for the collapse of the country was the imposition of utopian schemes by the top theoreticians (e.g. Kardelj in particular) rather than working through praxis to modify the system. However, the whole argument is too long to present here. .. I find your analysis of present day Slovenia interesting, but when discussing the former Yugoslavia most analysts seem to forget that through the 80s the then Yugoslavia was among the "10 most debt-distressed" countries - and received even less debt relief than most others. Virtually all of the "top 10" suffered a massive economic collapse that lasted longer and deeper than the Great Depression of the '30s. Surely Yugo.'s economic collapse had much to do with the way the international system "worked" to impose deflationary solutions - rendering the wisdom or folly of national policy an academic question. In most of the debt-stricken countries the economic collapse put enormous pressure on the political systems (sometimes not for the worse). But IMHO, for Yugoslavia the callousness of the intl. system and the economic collapse contributed directly to the rise of virulent ethnic nationalism and human tragedy. Sadly, most of the media played to "ancient rivalries" as an explanation (for Africa they say "tribal conflict"), but in truth this is not the first time Europe has seen ruinous neo-classical "solutions" produce murderous nationalist regimes. Paul Altesman (P.S. I recall that a while back Diane Flahrety an useful article in the Camb. J. of Eco. on policy errors of the Yugo models - a
[PEN-L:9179] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report
Very interesting. Does this mean that more manufacturing jobs are going abroad and that service jobs are safer than manufacturing? Certainly, it is not a growing interest in safety. Richardson_D wrote: BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 Workplace injuries fell in 1995 to their lowest rate in nearly a decade, says BLS, according to an item in The Wall Street Journal's "Work Week" column (page A1). A total of 6.6 million injuries and illnesses were reported that year, the latest for which statistics a -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9177] Re: Slovenia
From: "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:9168] Re: Slovenia Actually, Louis P., the market socialism of the Slovenian type is probably the kind of socialism that would have the best chance . . . As Slovenia goes, so goes Macedonia. Sorry. I couldn't stop myself. MBS
[PEN-L:9175] Re: Slovenia
At 09:40 AM 3/26/97 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . Re the analysis of Yugoslavia outlined by Louis, it certainly doesn't appear much like what I saw in Yugoslavia over the last 10 or so years. Ferfila and I give a much different interpretation in our book *The Rise and Fall of the Third Way: Yugoslavia 1945-1991*. In fact, one of the causes we cite for the collapse of the country was the imposition of utopian schemes by the top theoreticians (e.g. Kardelj in particular) rather than working through praxis to modify the system. However, the whole argument is too long to present here. .. I find your analysis of present day Slovenia interesting, but when discussing the former Yugoslavia most analysts seem to forget that through the 80s the then Yugoslavia was among the "10 most debt-distressed" countries - and received even less debt relief than most others. Virtually all of the "top 10" suffered a massive economic collapse that lasted longer and deeper than the Great Depression of the '30s. Surely Yugo.'s economic collapse had much to do with the way the international system "worked" to impose deflationary solutions - rendering the wisdom or folly of national policy an academic question. In most of the debt-stricken countries the economic collapse put enormous pressure on the political systems (sometimes not for the worse). But IMHO, for Yugoslavia the callousness of the intl. system and the economic collapse contributed directly to the rise of virulent ethnic nationalism and human tragedy. Sadly, most of the media played to "ancient rivalries" as an explanation (for Africa they say "tribal conflict"), but in truth this is not the first time Europe has seen ruinous neo-classical "solutions" produce murderous nationalist regimes. Paul Altesman (P.S. I recall that a while back Diane Flahrety an useful article in the Camb. J. of Eco. on policy errors of the Yugo models - a yet different interpretation of the various approaches tried and their failures.)
[PEN-L:9174] Re: Foucault
I must have missed something. Who spat on Foucault, called him rubbish? Tavis, your post was excellent; ACT-UP is an admirable organization. I had a long chat with one of their drug experts a few years ago - though no MD, he really got to know his stuff. Stanley Aronowitz should be so knowledgeable. But organizations on the ACT-UP model - like WAC and WHAM! in NYC - have had a hard time sustaining themselves. Is that a limit of nonhierarchical anti-instutionalizing micropolitics? AIDS is still with us, but ACT-UP barely is. It is possible that the right stew of Marx, Gramsci and Chomsky could come up with a basis of understanding discourse that is firmly grounded in materialism. But it hasn't happened yet, at least not in a way that incorporates the many innovative ideas about seizing language that Foucault held. Boy, that's true, Tavis. I read about 300 pages of Meszaros on a Bonanza Bus to and back from Great Barrington. At one point he says the pomos just aren't worth talking about. He talks about the impossibility of total surveillance without mentioning Foucault. This seems a limit of having no micropolitics at all. 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:9170] Re: Slovenia
Barkley: Actually, Louis P., the market socialism of the Slovenian type is probably the kind of socialism that would have the best chance and greatest appeal in the US, for all its flaws. The fact that we do have a movement, however half-baked, toward workers' ownership and at least some vague kinds of workers' control (see UAL, the plywood coops, etc.) points in this direction. Louis: Just as I expected, the discussion has reverted to exactly where it has been for the last 3 years: comparing the merits of utopian schemas. Barkely's heart belongs to Slovenia, while Robin Hahnel will try to figure out a way to defend his own nostrums. I have no interest in this sort of discussion, so I am about to descend back into the lower depths of the Spoons list where we get ourselves muddy fighting over such mudane matters as the relationship of class and nationality (or class and gender) when dealing with black nationalism or feminism. I will go to bed each night with a little prayer on my lips that the plywood coops will sweep eastward and transform property relations down at Goldman-Sachs, my old employer. There's a bunch of people there I'd like to see get their comeuppance.
[PEN-L:9172] The Growing Gap Between The Rich And The Poor (Canada)
An article by Vancouver commentator Murray Dobbin in the February issue of Organize, published by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, provides some information about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in Canada. Taking all taxes into account - income, sales, payroll, property and corporate - those earning under $10,000 pay 30.1 % of their income in taxes, those earning between $40,000 and $50,000 pay 34.1 % and those earning between $100,000 and $150,000 pay 32.6 %. Between 1984 and 1993, average income for all families with children stayed the same. Within this, the lowest income families dropped over 30% from $7,817 a year to $5,325, while the richest went from $97,733 to $102,792. Overall, there was an effective transfer of $5.2 billion in income from the bottom 80% of families to the top 40% over the ten year period. As of 1994-95, the top 10% of the population received 23% of the income pie - nearly as much as the bottom 50%. When wealth, not income, is taken into consideration, in 1995, the top 1% of the population held 25% of Canada's total wealth. High unemployment drove an additional 130,000 Canadian children into poverty in 1995. Real wages have declined every year since 1981. A 1991 OECD study of unemployment insurance programs ranked Canada's benefits 16th out of 19 countries. Since then, due to changes brought about by the Liberals, Canada has now dropped below the U.K. and tied with the U.S. A study of 30 countries, ranking countries by the share of total market income going to the bottom 20 % of households, placed Canada 22nd - at just 5.7%. Some of the poorest countries in the world did better, including India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. Significant cuts have been made to welfare rates in B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and PEI. Income-in-kind services like day care and transportation subsidies, have also decreased everywhere. According to the Fraser Institute, many U.S. states have more generous benefits than Canadian provinces. Out of 62 jurisdictions, B.C. placed 16th in North America, Nova Scotia 30th, Quebec 38th, Alberta 39th, Manitoba 44th and Saskatchewan 53rd and New Brunswick 56th. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9168] Re: Slovenia
Actually, Louis P., the market socialism of the Slovenian type is probably the kind of socialism that would have the best chance and greatest appeal in the US, for all its flaws. The fact that we do have a movement, however half-baked, toward workers' ownership and at least some vague kinds of workers' control (see UAL, the plywood coops, etc.) points in this direction. I think Hahnel-Albert might work in the "classic utopian" setting of a small community, but I see it having problems as one aggregates upward to larger units (want to answer, Robin?). As for Cockshott-Cottrell, despite the US having the most advanced computer systems, etc., there is no tradition whatsoever in the US of central planning. C and C might be much more welcome in such places as France or Japan with long planning traditions, although I realize that you may not like "national tradition" arguments very much, despite the current nationalism cyberseminar on M-I. Of course, for the Third World, all of the above may be irrelevant. Thus, maybe you are really a Maoist after all, :-). Barkley Rosser On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:28:55 -0800 (PST) Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Phillips: Re the analysis of Yugoslavia outlined by Louis, it certainly doesn't appear much like what I saw in Yugoslavia over the last 10 or so years. Louis: I have never visited Yugoslavia myself, although I have a suspicion that Susan Woodward did. I wonder why you didn't respond to the substance of the arguments that I presented on her behalf, rather than making such a pointless observation that you were an eyewitness to events in Yugoslavia. Ferfila and I give a much different interpretation in our book *The Rise and Fall of the Third Way: Yugoslavia 1945-1991*. Louis: I will see if this book is in the Columbia library and give you some feedback. You can absolutely bank on this. In fact, one of the causes we cite for the collapse of the country was the imposition of utopian schemes by the top theoreticians (e.g. Kardelj in particular) rather than working through praxis to modify the system. However, the whole argument is too long to present here. Louis: This sentence doesn't give us much to work with. Susan Woodward's analysis revolves around Yugoslavia's problems within the context of European economic decline in the 1970s and 80s, and less favorable relationships to western banks and lending agencies. "Working through praxis to modify the system" is such a meaningless phrase that I wouldn't begin to try to comment on it. Why do you use the word utopian in this context by the way? Don't you mean "unrealistic" instead? What *is* utopian is the idea of people like Schweickart (and yourself, I guess) that you can take a snapshot of an Eastern European republic formed by a whole set of specific class relations and set that as a goal for socialist parties involved in political action in places as diverse as Belgium and Ecuador. It is applicable everywhere, just as the utopian schemas of the 19th century were, and by the same token applicable nowhere as well. -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9167] Re: Final thoughts on utopianism
KARL: Your posting on Utopianism was interesting. However you seem to take it for granted that marxism itself is not another form of utopianism Part of the problem is terminology. Paul Phillips uses the word interchangeably with "unrealistic". You use it as a synonym for irrelevant. I am much more prosaic. I use the word in the sense that Engels and Marx used it. I guess I have spent too much time working with computers and have a limited imagination. And, by the way, I don't blame you for being disgusted with the Spoons Marxism lists. They fill me with loathing as well. You'll find the most beastly and unreasonable people one can imagine over there, especially me. I think you are in much more elevated company over here on PEN-L where everybody is bound to be more receptive to the alacrity and panache of your quotidian observations. I would teach those Spoons no-goodniks a lesson and quit their lists once and for all. Don't waste any of your wisdom over there. That would be like casting pearls before swine. Be a 100% PEN-L'er!!! Lou
[PEN-L:9164] Re: Final thoughts on utopianism
EN:0 CS:1 RC:0 DC:1 UR:0 SS:0 EX:0 FL:0 LOUIS P: What I would no longer do is classify them as examples of Marxist thought, which has its object the critique of capitalist society in order to facilitate its destruction. KARL: Your posting on Utopianism was interesting. However you seem to take it for granted that marxism itself is not another form of utopianism For me it is a view that needs to be questioned, reexamined and discussed. Well over a hundred years after marxism as a political philosophy has come into being there has not been any socialist society in existence. There is no revolutionary marxist movement in existence. The developed imperialist societies are no nearer to having a revolutionary working class movement than they were in Marx's day (perhaps even less so). Class consciousness among the industrial working class of the so-called core economies is non-existent. In general the elements that one might describe as marxist are in general politically insignificant, minuscule, fragmented, sectarian. and in how they organize their relationships with each other less than comradely to say the least. Many of these marxist organizations are analogous to the many contemporary christian sects that exist today in the way in which individuals are integrated into them and in the way in which these sects relate to each other. As evidenced on the marxism mailing lists the basis for a calm rational sustained discussion is non-existent. Hardly any of the subscribers are prepared to tease out problems without resorting to abuse, sectarianism or empty rhetoric. Just because individuals who claim to be marxists differ in experience and political understanding does not mean that they cannot exchange views in a rational way and thereby gain from the experience In general academic marxism fares no better. It is concerned more with the book and lecture industry more in terms of the enhancement of the individual academic marxologist. In short for them marxism is a career and petty bourgeois lifestyle. Just think about it! Despite the thousand of books and papers published by academic marxism there is still not one academic marxist who can explain why and how sub-Saharan Africa is so "underdeveloped." There is not one academic marxist able to analyse and outline the character of contemporary society. Let's face it! Marxism is non-existent as a political force. And yet there are so many so- called marxists who unquestioningly take it for granted that marxism is not a utopian political philosophy. Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:9162] Re: experimental economics, etc.
I haven't read the LF article, but the one rather neat thing that comes out of a lot of the experimental econ stuff, is that people are not "rational" in the sense that neoclassical economists usually assume. Of course this can be restated as the "people behave according to their institutional setting" argument. Now for a lot of us and for most non-economists, this is no big whoop. But it is a useful battering ram against the smug complacency of the neoclassicals, and the steady drip-drip of results trickling in from the experimentalists is gradually wearing a lot of them down. A good summary of a lot of the more "anomalous" experimental results, along with some other odd stuff, can be found in Richard Thaler's _The Winner's Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life_, 1992, Princeton University Press. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 08:33:19 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Friends, I just read na article in "Lingua Franca" by Rick Perlstein (I think he is also going to do an articel on Bowles and Gintis) on experimental economics. The results of the experimentalists seem to me to be pretty thin. They appear to show that how people behave depnds in large part on the institutinal setting in which they find themselves. Can anyone on the list provide some insights into this field of economics. My alma mater (U. of Pittsburgh) is home to two of the stalwarts in this field, both of whom are paid well into the six figures for this stuff. On another matter, I have read "Moo" and found the economist to be pretty amusing. Many of my students do think of schooling as something to be purchased pure and simple. They also think that I come with the purchase and have a very limited right to get in the way of their obtaining the degree they have purchased. Generally speaking colleges are pretty debased places today, but is this new? Veblen was pointing this out a long time ago. Finally, I like to read novels set in academe (like Moo). I've read a lot of them, but I am always on the lookout for new ones. If you have any favorites, let me know. Michael Yates -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9161] Addendum
In response to private correspondence, I should have added some other categories: progressive adacemics (tenured and non-tenured) who are isolated from colleagues and access to big grants and publications in "prestigious journals" as a result of the stands they have taken and who, for their efforts, have managed to rack up extensive FBI files and have suffered other forms of retribution; nominally progressive academics who walk the line between nominally progressive positions and "mainstream" acceptance by attempting to turn Marx etc into neo-neo classicals and/or incorporate/legitimate neoclassical metaphysics withing nominally Marxian paradigms and analytical approaches; academics who know something is worng at their institutions but who feel they lack the power and numbers to make any difference and feel that hanging on to their own particular niches can make more significant contributions than taking on no-win fights etc. etc. Jim Craven *--* * James Craven * " For those who have fought for it, * * Dept of Economics* freedom has a taste the protected * * Clark College* will never know." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. *Otto von Bismark * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * * * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:9160] Re: utopianism -- final words??
Jim Devine: I see nothing wrong with Robin's mention of his experience with planning -- since, after all, it was more than relevant to answering Louis' accusations. Louis: The fact that Robin Hahnel spent some time at work in a Cuban agency is completely besides the point. As is the fact that he has taught "comparative socialism" for 20 years. I have spent about the same amount of time in Sandinista agencies and ANC exile headquarters, but so what? I have also been a socialist activist since 1967. Again, so what. What Robin Hahnel did not do was discuss my ideas. At first he says what's wrong with a little utopianism, then he turns around and says that since he spent time in Cuba, how can he be a utopian. I guess he is not sure how he feels about being labeled as a utopian. Perhaps he would be happier if I labeled him as a half-utopian. I personally don't think utopia is a dirty word and urge him to accept it more graciously. What is wrong with being placed in the company of such figures as Fourier, Saint-Simon, Robert Owens, etc. These people were saintly in comparison to the average apologist for capitalism in the 19th century. What's important is to criticize any "utopian socialist" scheme on the basis of whether or not -- and how -- it works, in both theory and in practice. Such as the possibility that Albert Hahnel's scheme might turn into a dictatorship of compulsive meeting-goers. Louis: Utopian schemes all work on paper. I can't think of a thing wrong with Albert-Hahnel, Pat Devine, Cockshott-Cottrell or even John Roemer. When I think of all of the cruelty of capitalist society, Roemer's utopia seems positively heavenly. Today's NY Times has 2 items that really stand out. One, is about how the mask of somebody getting electrocuted in Florida caught fire and flames were shooting a foot from his head. Doctors are pretty sure that he felt pain from the flames before he died. The other is about how rightist death squads in Colombia have been killing suspected supporters of the guerrillas, including a high-school teacher accused of "selling information" to them. If Roemer's blueprint for socialism was enacted in the US or Colombia, that would be a cause for celebration when events like this are an everyday occurrence, wouldn't it? The problem is that his scheme and all the rest will never be tested in practice. Louis, please tell us what's good about Cockshott Cottrell's proposal, how it's superior to AH's idea. Though maybe those authors are still on pen-l and can chime in. Louis: What's good about it is that it theoretically answers the calculation problem. What's not so good is that the calculation problem will be solved not by supercomputers alone, but by social and political institutions that emerge after a successful revolution. What caused a mismatch between supply and demand in the USSR in the 1920s and 30s was not the availability of reliable information to resolve calculation type problems. Stalin's GOSPLAN professionals gave him a 5 year plan that was based on goals that were realizable, provided that a whole set of conditions obtained (5 good years of harvests, etc.) He promptly tore up the plan and chose his own goals from year to year. And what caused Stalin to usurp these powers? That Lenin and Trotsky said in some speech somewhere that management practices from capitalism were worth emulating? For heaven's sake, all they were doing was endorsing Taylorism. We had Taylorism in the USA for the better part of a century, but no gulags, etc. Economic stagnation and inequality are functions of a set of class relations that have evolved historically, not of what management principles you subscribe to.
[PEN-L:9159] a new welfare capitalism
Roger Alcaly (who used to be a leftist, I believe) has an article in the most recent NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS on the new wave in corporate organization. Though it's got some interesting facts, it's pretty poor. He's praising the phenomenon of (some) corporations giving more power or privileges to their employees: his favorite case is United Airlines, which is actually (part) owned by some of its employees. (He never mentions that the flight attendants are not part of the deal, or were last time I heard.) Other examples, which are very different from the UAL case, seem like simply piece-rates merged with (some) job security, i.e., simply a management schme. He ends by criticizing Clinton for vetoing a bill that (it seems) would have opened the door for new forms of company unions. A few more comments: the current era in the US seems quite similar to the 1920s. As Sandy Jacoby documented in his "Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work in American Industry, 1900-1945," the phenomenon of large companies establishing paternalistic "welfare capitalism" (a decentralized and corporation-based "welfare state") was the exception rather than the rule in the 1920s. In general, the state of management/worker relations became worse for workers. Similarly, Alcaly admits that the new "welfare capitalism" is seen only in a small minority of corporations. Downsizing, stretch-out, out-sourcing, and speed-up seem to be the rule, now as in the 1920s. However, pundits (then and now) love to emphasize the minority of cases that make capitalism look good. Alcaly sees the downsizing (etc.) as contrary to corporate self-interest. In fact, it's against _everybody's_ self-interest. If we could just get away from our old habits of thinking and get together, everything would be hunky-dory. Here's an example of utopianism, Louis! I think of the cases that Alcaly describes as simply a new version of the primary labor market: some workers are under what Andrew Friedman called the "responsible autonomy" system of management and are paid relatively well (the primary jobs), while the others work because they're afraid of unemployment and they're under intense supervision (the secondary jobs). These two segments are symbiotic and cannot be separated, so that it's impossible for all workers to become primary-sector workers. This because part of the reason why primary labor market relations "work" (in terms of productivity and profitability) is because people are glad not to be in the secondary jobs. Also, the secondary sector provides cheap inputs that allow the primary-sector employers to pay higher wages. Also, there's no guarantee that capitalists won't find ways to replace the high-paid primary workers with low-paid workers elsewhere in the world; in fact, that's the general direction of the system. The problem underlying all of this is that work relations under capitalism are inherently conflictual. 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:9156] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 Workplace injuries fell in 1995 to their lowest rate in nearly a decade, says BLS, according to an item in The Wall Street Journal's "Work Week" column (page A1). A total of 6.6 million injuries and illnesses were reported that year, the latest for which statistics are available, making a rate of 8.1 cases for every 100 full-time workers. In 1973, the rate was 11 cases per 100 full-time workers. The Census Bureau estimates the U.S. population hit 265.3 million as of July 1, 1996. That's a 0.9 percent increase from the same date in 1995, a slightly smaller gain than in previous years. The increase comes from 3.9 million births and a net influx of 856,000 legal immigrants. The gain is partially offset by 2.3 million deaths and a net loss of 10,000 Americans living abroad. The numbers reflect a steady slowdown in the birth rate and an increase in the death rate every year since 1990. The country's median age rose to 34.6 years from 34.3 (USA Today, page 3A). Officials are starting early in their defense of the 2000 Census, says the New York Times (March 23, page A37). The Census Bureau is already offering a spirited and detailed defense of its plans for the census three years from now and says it expects to be sued if it does what it wants to do. The bureau's director Martha Farnsworth Riche, plus several groups that are interested in the accuracy of the census, are urging support for statistical sampling which the bureau plans to use for the first time to complete and correct its count of the population. The bureau also plans to continue using a controversial long-form questionnaire to document details of daily life
[PEN-L:9155] unemployment rates
Friends, Ellen Frank asked about comparative unemployment rates. Look at C. Sorrentino, "International Comparison of Unemployment Indicators," Monthly Labor Review, o.3, 1993, pp. 3-24. Michael Yates
[PEN-L:9154] experimental economics, etc.
Friends, I just read na article in "Lingua Franca" by Rick Perlstein (I think he is also going to do an articel on Bowles and Gintis) on experimental economics. The results of the experimentalists seem to me to be pretty thin. They appear to show that how people behave depnds in large part on the institutinal setting in which they find themselves. Can anyone on the list provide some insights into this field of economics. My alma mater (U. of Pittsburgh) is home to two of the stalwarts in this field, both of whom are paid well into the six figures for this stuff. On another matter, I have read "Moo" and found the economist to be pretty amusing. Many of my students do think of schooling as something to be purchased pure and simple. They also think that I come with the purchase and have a very limited right to get in the way of their obtaining the degree they have purchased. Generally speaking colleges are pretty debased places today, but is this new? Veblen was pointing this out a long time ago. Finally, I like to read novels set in academe (like Moo). I've read a lot of them, but I am always on the lookout for new ones. If you have any favorites, let me know. Michael Yates
[PEN-L:9153] Re: customers or suckers?
While I've got the opportunity, let me observe as a new subscriber, that there sure is a lot of petty sniping that goes on here masquerading as political criticism or analysis. My delete key is starting to wear out. You don't know the half of it. Just watch your spelling. A careless error might split the Fourth International. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:9151] comparative unemployment rates
Can anyone out there direct me to a study of how unemployment rates are defined and measured across OECD countries? I'm wondering whether America's "low" unemployment rates, given the amount of un- and under-employment they conceal, are really comparable with European unemployment rates? Thanks, Ellen Frank
