[PEN-L:9735] Re: Globaloney
Doug Henwood wrote: There's no historical trend in U.S. stock market volatility, to take one important example. Volatility rises and falls over time, but with no secular trend - at least when measured at daily, weekly, or monthly intervals. 5-minute volatility may be greater, but such figures weren't available until recently. All of the volatility studies I have seen suggest aggregate market volatility. Also, the markets did not have circuit breakers before. I'm being stubborn on these issues because I hear lots of citations of self-evident assertions accompanied by little actual proof. Citationality may be fine in cultural studies, but here I'd like to see some evidence and argument. I started out confessing that I had no evidence. I was just fishing for answeres. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9734] Re: globalization question
What exactly do you mean by investment goods? Capital goods, like self-reproducing machinery? Or more "knowledge-intensive" goods, such as medical equipment? I don't have the most recent data but a beakdown of US exports by type of goods shows that US exports (a small % of GDP) embody more of the high-tech. Aircraft and software being two examples from the Pac NW. The demand for these products is very high and growing in Asia and I think US capital has found a way to beat the insufficient demand. No wonder the US economy looks rosy just as we hear of the all bad news from the labor front. Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Senior Fellow Comparative International Development Department of Economics University of WashingtonNational University of Singapore 1103 A Street 10 Kent Ridge Crescent Tacoma, WA 98402 USASingapore 119260 On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, rakesh bhandari wrote: If Indonesian capital can escape the contradiction between production and consumption through the export of consumer goods--as suggested by Jim-- why can't US capital escape the same contradiction through the export of investment goods to markets in Asian and Europe? In other words, hasn't the "globalization" of investment demand allowed US capital to escape the limits of insufficient domestic consumer demand and thus terminate the Marxian contradictions? Rakesh Bhandari Ethnic Studies UC Berkeley
[PEN-L:9733] Environmental Economics?
I checked out Mother Jones today to see the responses to Paul Hawkin's el-yucko article on "Natural Capitalism" last month. Hawkin's article criticizes economists for not taking the environment seriously enough. In reply, James Galbraith wrote a letter that starts: Environmental economics has been an established branch of economics for perhaps 30 years. It's full of writings on such topics as the proper pricing of natural resources, the use of market mechanisms to control pollution, the general problem of externalities, and the limitation of the GDP as a measure of human welfare. Krugman also wrote a letter which stomps on Hawken, saying that most economists "are actually on his side": Let me quote from the textbook I used teaching Economics 1 at Stanford last year: "When a firm pollutes a river, it uses up some of society's resources just as surely as when it burns coal. However, if the firm pays for coal but not for the use of clean water, it is to be expected that management will be economical in its use of coal and wasteful in its use of water. Because no one pays for the user of dissovled oxygen in a public waterway, that oxygen will be used wastefully." The textbook's answer-- the same answer given in just about all textbooks--is to make people pay for the burdens they impose on the environment. Krugman goes on to talk about a letter than Redefining Progress had sent around advocating emission taxes to limit global warning that was sponsored by Robert Solow, Kenneth Arrow, Dale Jorgenson, William Nordhaus, and himself. In general, how seriously do mainstream economists take "the general problem of externalities"? I'm having trouble reconciling what Krugman says and what I read in the papers every day. I can't imagine that any reader of the NYT or WSJ or BW would come away with the idea that most economists think that when we analyze how our economy is doing we need to seriously worry about the environmental costs that individuals/firms aren't charged for. If they did, the Republican's attacks on environmental regulations would've gotten slaughtered as being stupid (rather than as being politically dangerous given that they provoked a grassroots backlash). I'm a little sleepy when I read the paper in the morning, but I can't believe I missed all this. Thanks, Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
[PEN-L:9732] Re: Globaloney
Michael Perelman wrote: I have no data to back this up, but I suspect that the pentium has made speculative movements move more quickly. Certainly, program ordering has made a certain type of autmatic investments possible. I do not claim that the pentium has necessarily changed the qualitiative nature, but I would appreciate learing more about the quantitative change that I suggested. There's no historical trend in U.S. stock market volatility, to take one important example. Volatility rises and falls over time, but with no secular trend - at least when measured at daily, weekly, or monthly intervals. 5-minute volatility may be greater, but such figures weren't available until recently. I'm being stubborn on these issues because I hear lots of citations of self-evident assertions accompanied by little actual proof. Citationality may be fine in cultural studies, but here I'd like to see some evidence and argument. Doug
[PEN-L:9731] Re: Globaloney
Doug Henwood wrote: Pentium. Just how has the speculation of the finance capitalist dethroned the industrial capitalist? How is it different now from, say, 1929, when the collapse of a speculative structure ushered in a massive debt deflation and a decade of depression? I have no data to back this up, but I suspect that the pentium has made speculative movements move more quickly. Certainly, program ordering has made a certain type of autmatic investments possible. I do not claim that the pentium has necessarily changed the qualitiative nature, but I would appreciate learing more about the quantitative change that I suggested. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9730] Re: Globaloney
This sounds like SAP, a client-server database application from a German company that ties together inventory, purchasing, general ledger, payroll, personnel, etc. My plan for socialism is to install SAP globally. That was a piece of the software that I posted a while back in my debate with Robin Hahnel. Louis Proyect On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, D Shniad wrote: I would like to see some support for this categorical statement that seems widely accepted here on Pen. I heard a management presentation from executives at BC Tel that described a $43 million system they're putting in place that will integrate all activity within the company on a single data base. This means that service reps will type in a customer's specs, which will generate ordering data for materials, schedule workers' time to do the related work, link up with accounting, etc.
[PEN-L:9729] Re: Globaloney
D Shniad wrote: You're right, Doug. This task was left to the finance capitalist, whose ability to engage in manic speculation has been greatly aided by the Pentium. Just how has the speculation of the finance capitalist dethroned the industrial capitalist? How is it different now from, say, 1929, when the collapse of a speculative structure ushered in a massive debt deflation and a decade of depression? 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:9728] Re: Nike (fwd)
Interesting that Clinton just signed this Bill on working conditions in offshore factories. Who was with him at the announcement but the Chairman of Nike. FYI. Sid Shniad
[PEN-L:9724] Investment imbroglio (fwd)
This editorial appeared in today's Journal of Commerce. April, 29 1997 Journal of Commerce Opinion Investment imbroglio The Multilateral Agreement on Investment is in trouble, a victim of complacency and politics. Last fall, the OECD effort to ease cross-border investment was considered all but a done deal. Negotiators were confident the treaty would be ready for governments' signature in May. Last week, however, they gave up and postponed the deadline for a year. Nobody is making any predictions anymore. U.S. officials, once the agreement's chief proponents, are no longer in the forefront. While the administration says publicly the treaty is a high priority, in fact the agreement has become too politicized to be acceptable to Congress. Neglect by the administration is partly to blame for the impasse. Neither President Clinton nor any of his Cabinet members has made a public statement in support of the treaty or laid the political groundwork in Congress to marshal legislative support. Complacency by the international business community is also to blame. Faint voices in support are being drowned by special interest groups and by the political far right and far left, which portray the treaty as a blueprint for world domination by multinational corporations. The treaty, sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is nothing of the sort. Its purpose is to lower barriers to capital flows and make national treatment the guiding principle of cross-border investment. That means any signatory country would have to treat foreign and domestic investors alike. It would not, as argued by various environmental, consumer and labor groups, outlaw all national restrictions and controls on foreign investment. Governments adhering to it would still be free to protect consumers, the environment and labor unions, as long as they don't discriminate against foreigners. This is a key principle on which international trade has been carried out for nearly 50 years, and on which hundreds of billions of dollars cross national borders each year. The OECD pact would be open for signature by any country willing to comply with its principles. More than 30 emerging nations, including Argentina and Egypt, already have agreed to abide by similar principles in bilateral investment pacts with OECD countries. Many of them said they would sign this treaty as well. The economic importance of the treaty is clear. Foreign investment, which exceeds $1.3 trillion a year, is increasingly flowing in both directions between rich and poor countries. The interdependence of national economies is on the rise, as is global competition for investment capital. The need to raise capital and invest it safely abroad is greater than it ever was. That is as true for an Indonesian company seeking capital in Hong Kong as it is for a U.S. company investing in a Malaysian car plant. While the market-opening measures of the treaty are being attacked by the left, its most innovative feature - the dispute settlement body - is being assailed by those on the right who claim signing the treaty means surrendering national sovereignty to international bureaucrats. The same argument, although just as unconvincing, very nearly scuttled the Uruguay Round trade liberalization agreements. And, amplified by special interest groups, it may well scuttle the investment agreement as well, unless the administration and the private sector speak out in its defense. Chantell Taylor Field Organizer Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch 215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE Washington, D.C. 20003 phone: (202)546-4996 fax: (202)547-7392 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9727] Re: Globaloney
I would like to see some support for this categorical statement that seems widely accepted here on Pen. I heard a management presentation from executives at BC Tel that described a $43 million system they're putting in place that will integrate all activity within the company on a single data base. This means that service reps will type in a customer's specs, which will generate ordering data for materials, schedule workers' time to do the related work, link up with accounting, etc. Now don't get me wrong -- I've heard pie in the sky from management before. But what this system is designed to do, basically, is to make the entire organization resemble a huge spreadsheet, in which the alteration of one factor has an influence on everything related to it. They have already got many satisfied corporate customers for this system because it basically delivers on its promise. Tell me this is incremental and not to make too big a deal about it. Sid Shniad Technological change by and large is incremental. It is the cumulative effect that is visible as radical or fundamental. It is more "development" than "research" as in RD. Over long periods of time a few innovations stand out but in reality hundreds, if not thousands of innovations, contribute to the overall fundamental shift. Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Senior Fellow Comparative International Development Department of Economics University of Washington National University of Singapore 1103 A Street 10 Kent Ridge Crescent Tacoma, WA 98402 USA Singapore 119260 On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, D Shniad wrote: I'm curious about the consensus which holds that "... recent technical innovations in communication and transportation are of an incremental character and are therefore relatively insignificant." This does not accord with my experience of the telecommunications industry. Sid Shniad
[PEN-L:9726] unemployment in Britain
In today's New York TIMES (April 29), there's a graph showing unemployment rates in Britain, compared to those in the US and the Continent, using "OECD standard measures." My question: though it is well-known that Thatcher's administration several times redefined unemployment rates so that they appeared more favorable, did this affect the OECD measure? 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:9725] A new wrinkle on US relations with Cuba
=A9 GRANMA INTERNATIONAL 1997. ELECTRONIC EDITION. Havana, Cuba = -- = U.S. companies launch campaign against Helm-Burton Act = =95 Influential business coalition including General Electric, IBM, Exxon and Mobil takes action against legislation directed against Cuba = A powerful coalition of major U.S. companies, including Exxon, General Electric, IBM and Mobil, has organized a campaign against the Helms-Burton Act and economic sanctions in general. Frank Kittredge, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, said in Washington that the country's principal business associations believe the U.S. government is striking out blindly with punitive measures that nobody understands, according to the Reuters news agency. Under the name of USA Engage, this influential coalition - which also encompasses corporations like Citicorp, Allied Signal Ingersoll Rand and Westinghouse, and represents the country's principal exporters of goods and services - is joining with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in launching a campaign aimed at waging a battle on the political front against the sanctions established in the Helms-Burton Act. According to Kittredge, their basic argument is that unilateral sanctions are highly inefficient, and end up being counterproductive. A study carried out by the National Foreign Trade Council revealed that over the last four years, the United States has approved 61 unilateral measures against 35 foreign governments. According to the results of the study, these U.S. sanctions had little or no effect on other countries but have, however, cost the United States billions of dollars in lost business opportunities and jobs. U.S. sanctions were not limited to developing or wayward nations. Washington also took trade-related reprisals against partners and allies like Canada and Italy, and military powers like Russia and China. The Clinton administration has pontificated on numerous occasions on the use of unilateral sanctions, even in cases when the United States has been clearly isolated, as in the long-standing economic embargo against Cuba. The reasoning usually put forward by U.S. authorities like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to explain why they stubbornly cling to such unpopular stances is that the United States is genuinely "indispensable." Up until now, it has been highly unusual for large corporations to voice their protest against these sanctions, which tend to represent better business opportunities for their foreign competitors. But this year, the United States must decide whether to resume granting trade preferences to China, predicted to become a rival superpower in the coming century. Michael Jordan, the president of Westinghouse, a U.S. conglomerate that manufactures everything from refrigerators to nuclear plants, wrote in the Journal of Commerce that his company had to eliminate 3500 jobs due to the prohibition on the sale of nuclear technology to China. Since 1989, he explained, because China was unable to buy this technology from the United States, it has bought or ordered eight billion dollars' worth of equipment from France, three billion dollars' worth from Canada, and four billion dollars' worth from Russia. For his part, Kittredge maintained that U.S. businesses also lose when automatic sanctions are applied as part of the so-called "certification" process, an annual evaluation carried out by the United States on how other countries are fighting drugs. Due to the fact that Colombia was deemed to have failed this evaluation in both 1996 and 1997, the U.S. Eximbank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) are prohibited from financing operations in Colombia. As a result, U.S. investment in Colombia last year was almost one half less than in 1995. U.S. companies also complain that Washington's propensity to impose sanctions affects their prestige as international suppliers. As Kittredge explained, foreign industries are often hesitant to use U.S. companies as suppliers, because they never know when the U.S. government is going to sanction a country and thus interrupt the delivery of parts or services. In the meantime, the German newspaper Berliner Zeitung reported that a group of extreme-right U.S. Congress members were working on reforms to render the Helms-Burton Act even tougher. One of those congresspeople, Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, reacted violently to the campaign announced by U.S. business representatives and wrote to them in an attempt to persuade them to cease their efforts. Elsewhere, negotiations between the United States and the European Union (EU) regarding the application of Helms-Burton, which the ANSA press agency characterized as a
[PEN-L:9722] Appeal from SAMWU (fwd)
Forwarded message: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Apr 29 15:22 PDT 1997 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: Normal Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:17:10 GMT Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: LabourNet [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Appeal from SAMWU Comments: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain;charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 5779 -Begin Included Message - Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:40:03 +0100 From: "Anna Weekes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:something else To: "LabourNet" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Chris, I was wondering if you could send an e-mail message of support for SAMW= U's campaign against privatisation of our water and waste services. We are = having one week of protest action against privatisation, starting May D= ay. If we get enough international messages, we can present them to governm= ent by May 8th. I don't know if it is possible, but could you ask others on= LabourNet?? And on each message, could they state country and organisation?? Thanks in advance! Anna Weekes, Media Officer, South African Municipal Workers' Union [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ SAMWU wages war on privatisation! Notwithstanding SAMWU's clear opposition to Private/Public Partnerships= , the government is awarding a 30 year concession to an as yet unnamed private company for the maintenance and operation of water and sewage servicing for the Nelspruit Transitional Local Council. SAMWU received = a tip-off from a journalist late in the afternoon of Friday that this was= to take place on Monday 7 April, 1997 at 10am. We were then notified that = the announcement was postponed until April 30th, 1997. Etienne Garnett-Bennett, a Nelspruit council spokesman, was quoted as saying that "This (public-private sector partnerships) has never been d= one in South Africa before, which explains why the unions are reacting this= way." The truth is that WSSA, a subsidiary of Lyonnaise Des Eaux (who is one = of the two main private sector companies currently seeking to control the world's water) is already operating in Fort Beaufort, Stutterheim, and Queenstown. SAMWU has conducted extensive research into examples of privatisation a= nd public/private partnerships in other parts of the world. We have a dedicated researcher seconded from an independent NGO working solely on= researching the water issue. Our planned protest actions are not reactionary - they are the result of months of careful consideration, n= ot only of our public sector workers but of the entire South African community. Why is SAMWU opposed to Public/Private Partnerships? Water is a life-giving scarce resource which therefore must remain in t= he hands of the community through public sector delivery. Water must not b= e provided for profit, but to meet needs. We say that privatisation of wa= ter is contrary to the spirit of the Freedom Charter and the RDP. Experiences in other countries where private companies have taken over concessions show that: the price of water rises the quality of water drops workers lose their jobs =85=85/more Multinational companies seeking to dominate the world's water resources= There are nine main companies which dominate the water and sanitation sector all over the world: Lyonnaise Des Eaux=09=09French Generales Des Eaux =09=09French SAUR/Bouygues =09=09French Aguas de Barcelona=09=09Spanish Northumbrian=09=09=09now Lyonnaise des Eaux North West=09=09=09British Severn-Trent=09=09=09British Thames=09=09 British Welsh Water=09=09=09British But the reality is that the world market is really divided between two large groups - Lyonnaise/Aguas de Barcelona, and Generale/Thames; and t= hree small groups - SAUR, Severn-Trent and North West Water. Corruption The multinational companies, like Lyonnaise Des Eaux, present in South Africa through their subsidiary, WSSA, have entered into concessions similar to the concession about to be awarded for Nelspruit. They stand= accused of corruption and fraud (for example, they have bribed official= s in order to win tenders). They also stand accused of cherry picking (only entering into contracts for areas where they know they will make a prof= it). Financial reasons to oppose privatisation The private company that has been awarded the concession will have to borrow money from commercial banks at far higher interest rates than wo= uld normally be granted to local government. History has shown that in order to meet high interest repayments and ma= ke a profit, private companies involved in
[PEN-L:9723] Re: Globaloney
The steam mill gave us the industrial capitalist, and both gave us the capitalist banker, but I don't think the Pentium has dethroned the industrial capitalist. Doug You're right, Doug. This task was left to the finance capitalist, whose ability to engage in manic speculation has been greatly aided by the Pentium. Sid Shniad
[PEN-L:9720] Women and Working Conditions in Mexican Border Industries
-- Forwarded message -- Emergency Alert support for Daewoo Workers requested The following emergency alert was issued by the Support Committee for Maquiladora Workers, Craftsman Hall, 3909 Centre St. #210, San Diego, CA 92103 Phone (619) 542-0826 Fax (619) 295-5879 The Support Committee for Maquilador Workers is affiliated with the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras. Emergency Alert Workers Take Action Against Sexual and Physical Abuse in Daewoo Maquiladora Workers at the Hyo Seung maquiladoras in San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico have filed actions with the Public Ministry and the Labor Board against sexual abuse, physical beating and multiple violations of labor law. The plant, which opened just several months ago, employs 66 workers, and is located near the Mexican border with Yuma, Arizona about 120 miles east of Tijuana. Women workers, who form the majority of the workforce, report that they have each been subjected to sexual harassment by the Company President Kwang Beom Shin and Company Directors Mr. Oh and Mr. Lee, including touching them and offering them money for sex, with the threat that they will lose their jobs if they do not agree. When the directors believe a worker has committed an error he or she is locked up in a "punishment room" where they are exposed to toxic solvents without ventilation. The company president regularly enters the women's bathroom to demand the women hurry to return to work, grabbing them and pushing them. Both directors and the president of the company regularly insult the workers, calling them "dogs" and other slurs and stating that one Korean is worth 10 Mexicans. Workers also report that they are made to take Korean medicines of unknown contents by the directors. No doctor or nurse is present when these "medicines" are distributed. The three Korean management personnel often are inebriated on the job, drinking in the plant and offering liquor to minors working in the plant. On March 3, a 17 year old worker was beaten repeatedly in the stomach by Mr. Oh, who accused the youth of stealing his wallet. The worker was then locked in the "punishment room" for one and a half hours and forced to sign a resignation from the company. Mr. Oh later found the wallet he had misplaced and nothing was missing from it. Workers report they are paid the equivalent of $3.37 per day and work from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with only one 40 minute break. Many are forced to work overtime until 10:00 p.m. with only one additional 15 minute break and without being paid extra as required by law. Workers are exposed to lead and solvents throughout the work day without proper protections such as safety glasses, masks and ventilation. Five Hyo Seung workers were unjustifiably fired in the two weeks prior to March 12 for speaking out against this abuse. Hyo Seung workers have formed an organizing committee and are demanding all violations of labor rights be corrected and that the fired workers be reinstated. The Hyo Seung plant in one of seven Daewoo plants in San Luis which produces remote controls that sell under the brand names of Daewoo, General Electric, Hitachi, and Sony. Other Daewoo plants in San Luis produce Daewoo televisions and VCRs. Daewoo is a Korean-based conglomerate that hopes to commandeer 10% of the world's electronics market by the year 2000. It has a history of worker abuse in many parts of the world. In January of 1993, for example, the International Labor Organization upheld a Pakistani union's complaints that Daewoo cooperated with Pakistani government officials to try to intimidate workers on a road- construction project from organizing a union. Union members reported they were arrested and sent to an insane asylum where they were subjected to police torture, including electric shock, having chili powder forced into their mouths and being forced to sit naked on blocks of ice. Urgent Action Requested: Please send letters demanding the Hyo Seung maquiladora cease its sexual and physical abuse of workers, end all violations of workers' rights and reinstate the workers who were illegally fired. Fax to: Soon-Hoon Bae, Chairman CEO Daewoo Electronics Corporation of America, 1055 West Victoria St. Compton, CA 90220 USA The fax number for Daewoo is (310) 763-0447. Fax a copy to: Support Committee for Maquiladora Workers (619) 295-5879 *
[PEN-L:9721] Global Social Label - Proposal from ILO (fwd)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2907 SWITZERLAND: ILO Proposes New Measures To Promote Labor Rights Paris AFP in English, 1600 GMT 22 Apr 97 Geneva, April 22 (AFP) - The International Labour Organization is proposing a new set of concrete rules to invigorate its drive to promote social progress along with trade liberalization, ILO Director General Michel Hansenne said here Tuesday. Chief among the new measures is a "global social label" that would be awarded to countries which show comprehensive respect for fundamental labour rights and principles, Hansenne said. Hansenne acknowledged that many private initiatives were currently being deployed, directed at improving working conditions. However, he said such intiatives risked being ambiguous and arbitrary. By benefitting some workers and perhaps leaving others outside of their scope, "we cannot be sure that they will not lead to some kind of disguised protectionism" he told journalists. A global social label controlled by the ILO is a "better alternative," Hansenne said, adding that it would include a system of "legally autonomous international inspections," under the framework of a Convention. The label idea is one of three steps promulgated in an ILO report issued Tuesday and which will be submitted to the annual International Labour Conference to be held in Geneva in June. The other core "moral" weapons in the ILO's planned armoury to promote humane conditions along with economic globalization are: - promoting ratification of the seven existing ILO conventions - a new Declaration complementing the ILO Constitution - periodic reports by the ILO on social progress or the lack of it in member states. The United States has not yet ratified all of the texts, which Hansenne called a "problem. They have not ratified a certain number of principal conventions befcause they say this would give rise to a whole number of legal problems." The idea of a Declaration, aimed to be adopted in 1998, is to provide strengthened "supervisory mechanisms" to promote ILO principles. "We hope for a consensus among members," Hansenne said. The ILO's aim that all workers should share in the fruits of globalization could be monitored through regular reports by the ILO. Tripartite debates -- between labour unions, governments and employers -- after such reports are issued would allow the public to evaluate the efforts made in each country to translate the economic development resulting from trade liberalization into genuine social progress, Hansenne said. The liberalization of trade "must go hand-in-hand with social progress," Hansenne said, adding "there must be evidence that its promises are not vain or illusory." The ILO was given a strong mandate to deal with the issue of promoting social progress along with trade liberalization at the World Trade Organization ministerial meeting in Singapore last December. *
[PEN-L:9719] Globalization
Pen-lers, I have had some enquiries by a member of the general public about a number of issues relating to corporations, the environment and globalization. Specifically, he asked "if you knew of a single useful source of information on the negative effects of globalization (a scientific paper or even a thorough magazine article would be fine.)" I promised to post his request on the list and ask for a suggested reading list that would be accessible to the intelligent lay person. Suggestions? Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9718] Re: Globaloney
At 09:47 AM 4/29/97 -0700, Doug Henwood wrote: I don't think the transformations wrought by chips and fiber optics are underappreciated by anyone, mainstream or radical. In fact, I think too much attention is paid to them, at the expense of some very old underlying social mechanisms (competition, profit maximization, etc.). I'll admit that some of my attack on globalization thinking is done in the spirit of former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther's maxim for journalism, "simplify and exaggerate," but it's needed. Perhaps so, but for those who seeks to keep alive the flame of Marxist analysis, over-simplification and exaggeration don't exactly lend themselves to an accurate understanding of reality and how things came to be as they are. And, as the old man was fond of reminding us, without a good analysis we won't be very successful at developing effective strategies, not to mention a clear concept of where we want to end up. But then what do I know; I'm not even an economist. (:-) It's understandable why bourgeois analysts would want to promote globalization and system-transformative technical change; liberal (U.S. sense) apologists like Columbia's Graciela Chichilnisky say that the knowledge revolution has made notions like ownership and even capital obsolete. No argument here, but then Graciela, not I, said that. And I guess postmodernists like the idea of an epistemic break between then and now; it makes it easier to dismiss Marxism and to stop thinking about social relations, or to treat social relations as entirely discursive. But radicals should, I think, follow Larry Summers' advice and dispense with "the breathless tone about technology." As someone who spent more than a few years trying to organize electronics workers in the Silicon Valley, I can tell technology is not a god, but its capitalist masters are in league with the devil. There ought to be some distinction between seeing all technological developments as undifferentiated, with differences of no substantial importance, and enshrining technologies like the microchip in a temple to which we must repeatedly offer human sacrifice. Somewhere between lies reality. Better to work at describing and understanding it than to brush it aside in the interests of a good argument. Besides, anyone who has ever tried to install computer software or set up computers are likely to be anything but "breathless," unless it is from utter rage and frustration. In solidarity, Michael
[PEN-L:9717] Barbara Ehrenreich and DSA?
In the latest Nation magazine Barbara Ehrenreich reviews 3 books on the subject of war while Susan Faludi reviews Ehrenreich's new book on the very same subject called "Blood Rites". I found all of it completely hostile to traditional socialist thinking on the subject. Is Ehrenreich still with DSA? I want to respond to this stuff on the net but don't want to smear DSA's pretty good name. Louis Proyect
[PEN-L:9716] ]e: Globaloney
Doug, I wonder if we wouldn't be better advised to think of the technology as a social relation (much the same way the Marx thought about manufacturing) and to understand the technology's influence on other social relations. Posted on 29 Apr 1997 at 12:50:16 by TELEC List Distributor (011802) [PEN-L:9708] Re: Globaloney Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Eisenscher wrote: But it would be as grave an error to ignore the qualitative, not just quantitative impact these technologies have had on the capacity for capital mobility, reorganization of the labor process, control, and the options these open for capital which were not available 30 or 40 years ago. I don't think the transformations wrought by chips and fiber optics are underappreciated by anyone, mainstream or radical. In fact, I think too much attention is paid to them, at the expense of some very old underlying social mechanisms (competition, profit maximization, etc.). I'll admit that some of my attack on globalization thinking is done in the spirit of former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther's maxim for journalism, "simplify and exaggerate," but it's needed. It's understandable why bourgeois analysts would want to promote globalization and system-transformative technical change; liberal (U.S. sense) apologists like Columbia's Graciela Chichilnisky say that the knowledge revolution has made notions like ownership and even capital obsolete. And I guess postmodernists like the idea of an epistemic break between then and now; it makes it easier to dismiss Marxism and to stop thinking about social relations, or to treat social relations as entirely discursive. But radicals should, I think, follow Larry Summers' advice and dispense with "the breathless tone about technology." 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 Marsh Feldman Phone: 401/874-5953 Community Planning, 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/874-5511 The University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815
[PEN-L:9714] Re: globalization question
Posted on 29 Apr 1997 at 11:20:25 by TELEC List Distributor (011802) [PEN-L:9707] Re: globalization question Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 08:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rakesh bhandari) If Indonesian capital can escape the contradiction between production and consumption through the export of consumer goods--as suggested by Jim-- why can't US capital escape the same contradiction through the export of investment goods to markets in Asian and Europe? In other words, hasn't the "globalization" of investment demand allowed US capital to escape the limits of insufficient domestic consumer demand and thus terminate the Marxian contradictions? Rakesh Bhandari Ethnic Studies UC Berkeley Yes. I believe this is the model Lipietz and others paint when they speak of global fordism. Marsh Feldman Phone: 401/874-5953 Community Planning, 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/874-5511 The University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815
[PEN-L:9712] globalization question
Rakesh writes: If Indonesian capital can escape the contradiction between production and consumption through the export of consumer goods--as suggested by Jim-- why can't US capital escape the same contradiction through the export of investment goods to markets in Asian and Europe? To some extent, the US has escaped that contradiction, in that way. The US isn't booming these days because of consumption demand. The US sells computers, etc., to the rest of the world. Among other things, as NPR reported yesterday morning, Clinton is pushing the sale of US weapons all around the world (more aggressively than any other President except Nixon, says NPR; my feeling is that relative to GDP, Clinton is probably more aggressive). However, the US, more than any advanced industrial economy in the world, is constrained by domestic markets, so the relatively high wages here help stabilize the US economy. Nonetheless, as the globalization trend continues, the US boom becomes more and more constrained by _world_ consumer demand and thus world wage income; as the "downward harmonization" of wages (relative to labor productivity) and social programs continues, it's going to drag the US down along with other countries. In other words, hasn't the "globalization" of investment demand allowed US capital to escape the limits of insufficient domestic consumer demand and thus terminate the Marxian contradictions? I don't think that the underconsumption tendencies referred to above (both by myself and by Rakesh) represent the sum total of the "Marxian contradictions." Even if world wages were to boom (relative to labor productivity), in other words, capitalism would have its crisis tendencies. And my attitude toward underconsumption is more complex than in the discussion above, which seems crudely underconsumptionist: see my 1994 article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY. 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 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:9713] productivity
Great moments in economic thought. This morning, the BLS released the 97Q1 employment cost index, which showed direct wages up 0.9% (q-to-q) but benefits stagnant. On CNBC a little while ago, CS First Boston chief investment strategist Matt Alexy described the benefits number as evidence of the great productivity performance of the U.S. economy in recent years. 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:9710] Re: Requiem for T. Blair?
Max Sawicky recently wrote: Alternatively we could see an LP melt-down analogous to that of the Mulrooney party, its name escapes me, in Canada. Comment: The LP melt-down could not be analogous to that of the MulrOney party, the Federal Conservative Party, because the Conservatives were the governing party with a large majority, whereas the Labor Party is in opposition. It was not the Mulroney party at the time of the election (except in the public mind!) for Mulroney resigned and the new leader was our first female prime-minister Kim Campbell. She led the party from being government to two seats, losing even her own seat in the process. Much of the blame can be placed on Mulroney though and his policies. However, if the Labor Party is reduced to two seats in the UK I think that this would be even more of a surprise than the Canadian result. Everyone hated Mulroney even Conservatives but I doubt that there would be the same reaction to Blair since he has never been in power to do the sorts of things that made Mulroney so hated by so many. CHeers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:9711] Re: Globaloney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I am sympathetic to Doug's view that talk of the obsolescence of ideas of ownership and capital may be used to dismiss the relevance of Marxism, Marx himself on occasion talks as if technology is of crucial significance: "Social relations are intimately connected with forces of production. In acquiring new forces of production, men change their mode of production, their way of earning their living; they change all their social relations. The hand mill will give you a society with the feudal lord, the steam mill a society with the industrial capitalist." But of course. You won't find that in most techno-tracts today, though: technology is treated as largely autonomous (one of the reasons, no doubt, for the fashion for science studies). The steam mill gave us the industrial capitalist, and both gave us the capitalist banker, but I don't think the Pentium has dethroned the industrial capitalist. 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:9709] Re: Globaloney
Doug recently wrote: I don't think the transformations wrought by chips and fiber optics are underappreciated by anyone, mainstream or radical. In fact, I think too much attention is paid to them, at the expense of some very old underlying social mechanisms (competition, profit maximization, etc.). I'll admit that some of my attack on globalization thinking is done in the spirit of former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther's maxim for journalism, "simplify and exaggerate," but it's needed. It's understandable why bourgeois analysts would want to promote globalization and system-transformative technical change; liberal (U.S. sense) apologists like Columbia's Graciela Chichilnisky say that the knowledge revolution has made notions like ownership and even capital obsolete. And I guess postmodernists like the idea of an epistemic break between then and now; it makes it easier to dismiss Marxism and to stop thinking about social relations, or to treat social relations as entirely discursive. But radicals should, I think, follow Larry Summers' advice and dispense with "the breathless tone about technology." COMMENT: While I am sympathetic to Doug's view that talk of the obsolescence of ideas of ownership and capital may be used to dismiss the relevance of Marxism, Marx himself on occasion talks as if technology is of crucial significance: "Social relations are intimately connected with forces of production. In acquiring new forces of production, men change their mode of production, their way of earning their living; they change all their social relations. The hand mill will give you a society with the feudal lord, the steam mill a society with the industrial capitalist." Marx Engels Collected Works I section 6 pp. 179-80 (from the Poverty of Philosophy) Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:9708] Re: Globaloney
Michael Eisenscher wrote: But it would be as grave an error to ignore the qualitative, not just quantitative impact these technologies have had on the capacity for capital mobility, reorganization of the labor process, control, and the options these open for capital which were not available 30 or 40 years ago. I don't think the transformations wrought by chips and fiber optics are underappreciated by anyone, mainstream or radical. In fact, I think too much attention is paid to them, at the expense of some very old underlying social mechanisms (competition, profit maximization, etc.). I'll admit that some of my attack on globalization thinking is done in the spirit of former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther's maxim for journalism, "simplify and exaggerate," but it's needed. It's understandable why bourgeois analysts would want to promote globalization and system-transformative technical change; liberal (U.S. sense) apologists like Columbia's Graciela Chichilnisky say that the knowledge revolution has made notions like ownership and even capital obsolete. And I guess postmodernists like the idea of an epistemic break between then and now; it makes it easier to dismiss Marxism and to stop thinking about social relations, or to treat social relations as entirely discursive. But radicals should, I think, follow Larry Summers' advice and dispense with "the breathless tone about technology." 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:9707] Re: globalization question
If Indonesian capital can escape the contradiction between production and consumption through the export of consumer goods--as suggested by Jim-- why can't US capital escape the same contradiction through the export of investment goods to markets in Asian and Europe? In other words, hasn't the "globalization" of investment demand allowed US capital to escape the limits of insufficient domestic consumer demand and thus terminate the Marxian contradictions? Rakesh Bhandari Ethnic Studies UC Berkeley
[PEN-L:9706] Re: globalization question
James Devine wrote: Anyway, the point is that the move from the northeast US to the South is not exactly analogous to that of movements further south and east. I agree that it is not analogous, but I would think that the move would be easier to the U.S. South. Marsh told us that the types of industry moved to the South were different -- branch plants of major producers. I still am at a loss as to why companies would be slower then than now. Is it more competition, lower profit rates (this does not seem to be the case for Nike), weaker unions ? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9705] globalization question
Michael Hoover suggests (correctly, I think) that the fact that the jobs in the southern US didn't pay well meant that there were inadequate consumer markets in the South, so that there was no self-sustaining growth; the actual growth was jump-started by military-related spending. If we go further south (and east), the direct foreign investment in places like Indonesia doesn't face the same market problem. Transportation (and communication) costs are much lower than they were before WW II, so that people in Indonesia don't have to buy Nikes and similar products to sustain that country's growth. Of course, nowadays, the fear is that growth will pull wages up in Indonesia (or encourage strikes, as recently), undermining its competitive advantage in offering a low-wage labor force. (Heck, that sounds like Greenspan's fears!) Anyway, the point is that the move from the northeast US to the South is not exactly analogous to that of movements further south and east. 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 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:9704] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1997 Productivity in the nonfarm business sector as measured by the federal government has been stagnating, or growing by small increments, for decades. Meanwhile, manufacturing productivity -- which is a component of the nonfarm business sector -- has surged since the 1980s, says the Daily Labor Report (page C-1). What this really says about whether overall productivity is up or down is unclear, as a number of economists interviewed for this article agree that statistical agencies and economists do not have a handle on how to track productivity gains in the fast-growing services sector. Analysts point to the methods used to measure the service sector as the culprit in driving down productivity numbers. It is not that service sector productivity is standing still or falling back, they say, it is just that economists do not know how to adequately capture productivity gains in services Edwin Dean, associate commissioner for productivity and technology, BLS, is quoted as saying, "My judgment is that the product side of the data is more accurate than the income data. The product side of the data is more complete and more up to date at the initial release of the data" The issue is extremely complicated and involves conceptual problems of defining a unit of service, says the Report It quotes a March 1994 Monthly Labor Review article by BLS economist Mark K Sherwood, citing some of the major difficulties Added to the problems is the role of the CPI-U in determining productivity. BLS's measure of productivity is labor productivity -- or output per hour of work -- adjusted for inflation Dean defended the productivity data, but said there is room for improvement, especially in measuring the service sector. Shifting the quarterly productivity report to a chain-weighted basis a little more than a year ago helped the data's accuracy, Dean said The closest Dean can come to answering what proportion of services are in the nonfarm business sector productivity report is "smaller than 54 percent." BLS is currently working on a research paper that should present a more precise answer, Dean said. BLS did not give a date when it would release the report. The International Monetary Fund puts a rosy spin on the erosion of high-paying factory jobs in the world's major economies: Don't try to stem the tide. "Contrary to popular perceptions, deindustrialization is not a negative phenomenon," a new IMF research paper contends, "but is the natural consequence of the industrial dynamism in an already developed economy." To change the terms of the debate, the IMF is moving away from the label "industrial countries" in its official lingo. The richest nations will instead be called "advanced economies" because, in fact, they are deindustrializing Says Jacob M. Schlesinger, in "The Outlook" column of The Wall Street Journal (page 1), "The disappearance of manufacturing jobs isn't necessarily a symptom of an economy's demise but could be a symptom of success. U.S. factory productivity is rising so quickly that fewer workers are needed to produce a car or a washing machine. In addition, some economists argue that as people become richer, they spend more of their paychecks on nonmanufacturing things such as travel or eating out" The average hourly wage for service jobs is now 92 percent of that for factory jobs, up from 77 percent in 1964, BLS says" In its unabashed celebration of market forces, however, the IMF both overstates the inevitability of deindustrialization and understates how painful it can be for the losers in this grand transition Schlesinger says that, even if a nation's total income rises, wages seem to fall for workers tossed out of their jobs in the process. The average earnings of Americans who lost jobs in 1993 and 1994 fell 14 percent, according to a survey by BLS The Wall Street Journal's "Tracking the Economy" feature (page A2) says that the Technical Data Consensus Forecast predicts that the Employment Cost Index for the first quarter of 1997, to be released Tuesday, will be up 0.9 percent. The previous actual figure was an increase of 0.8 percent. The unemployment rate for April, to be released Friday, will be 5.2 percent, the same figure as last month, according to the forecast. Payroll employment is expected to be up by 200,000. Health insurance has evolved into one of the most precious commodities in the modern workplace, and the fear of losing it has become a major consideration for many workers when they consider changing jobs, says The Washington Post (April 27, page H1) The central provision of a new law forbids companies and their health insurers from excluding preexisting health conditions for more than 12 months, or for 18 months for workers who don't enroll in the plan until some time after they come on board The law, known
[PEN-L:9703] Re: globalization question
Michael Hoover responded to my question about the integration of the U.S. South into the national economy, saying that the government expended considerable resources to encourage investment there. Why did they have to expend funds? Why was the investment so slow in coming. Michael Perelman Proponents justified the use of subsidies to attract new industries by arguing that areas lacking investment capital, consumer demand, and skilled workers needed special features to make them more attractive to potential investors. As I suggested in my previous post, the incentives often lured competitive sector, low-wage manufacturers most in need of savings. Thus, the South's early development, characterized by poorly paying, slowly growing industries, did not create rapid, self-sustaining expansion that might have generated more capital and demand. The subsidies helped to perpetuate the conditions that justified the use of the subsidies. Post WW2 military spending and the proliferation of military facilities and production plants in the South provided an important infusion of capital. These operations, in turn, led to growing in-migration of people. Later, when US industries such as auto and electronics began to face increasing foreign competition, southern locations that offered low-interest financing, cheaper labor, and lower taxes were attractive because of the aggregate savings they offered. And the enerby crises in the 1970s enhanced some of the South's climatic advantages. Wilbur J. Cash - in his 1941 *The Mind of South* - reflecting upon the half century that had passed since Henry Grady (the Atlanta Constitution publisher who coined the term "New South") had campaigned for industrial growth, wrote that the South had yet to move beyond its plantation past. A decade later, C. Van Woodward argued - in his *The Origins of the New South* - that a post-Reconstruction shift of power away from a weakened planter class to middle-class industrialists had occurred. The latter, however, maintained loyalty to the region's traditional socioeconomic and politcal relations. More recently, Gavin Wright - in his 1986 *Old South, New South* - suggested that the mobility of capital now links the two eras. Many of the forces that contributed to the nationalization of the South's economy also led to the southernization of the US economy...Michael
