[PEN-L:10181] Re: locality, loyalty, misc. comments
On Fri, May 16, 1997 at 14:48:23 (PST) Max B. Sawicky writes: From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] A "democratic central plan" sounds like a pizza/ice cream diet. Appealing in theory but hard to imagine in reality. It reminds me of some things you said about a legion of autonomous grass-roots groups pursuing a single national agenda. As long as you define "central" to mean "conceived at the center or top", then you will be guaranteed to find it difficult to imagine. A democratically organized economy which is run with a central plan is simply one which could be run with a *single* plan (varying in the degree of control embedded within it) and conceived democratically. The locus of conception need not coincide with the locus of scope of the plan. Furthermore, a democracy may also decide that a "central" plan could very well include segments of the economy that would run on market-style supply/demand logic (say restaurants?), perhaps retaining public financing, etc., and with much of the authority for setting various details of the plan retained locally. It need not be the horror of minute planning you seem to envision. Didn't Cockburn and Pollin write a piece in _The Nation_ some time back entitled, "The World, the Free Market, and the Left"? Bill
[PEN-L:10180] Re: locality -- loyalty?
Perhaps Jim Devine, who seems to have a cool head about this, can intercede and tell me if I am being unreasonable. I feel the flames rumbling---but that's how I respond when I feel that democracy is being swept aside as some romantic fantasy, and that engaging in queries about the forms of institutions which may be constraining it is labeled as some sort of semantic game. I intend no disrespect to Wojtek (or anyone else) despite my perhaps heated responses. My apologies for the length of this---I will try to leave this topic to others for the weekend. On Fri, May 16, 1997 at 09:31:10 (PST) Wojtek Sokolowski writes: At 02:28 PM 5/15/97 -0700, Bill Lear wrote: You say these production units "provided an actual opportunity" for democratic action, which was "mandated by law", and was, if I read you correctly, operating within a structure of governance rightly labeled "autocratic". Somehow this strikes me as profoundly undemocratic. Participation is "mandated by law"? How is that freedom, on which democracy is crucially and sensitively dependent? I reply: Let's not get into semantic arguments. Unless, of course, you believe that people by their very nature would form a just society, if they were only left free of the corrupting interefrnece form the authorities. If that is so, we differ in our beliefs. While I believe that the influence of the authority is oftentimes corrupting, it does not have to always be that way. Likewise, the free initiative from below is not necessarily good. I don't see how accurately quoting your description of something that could reasonably be considered a hindrance to genuine democratic decision-making is a "semantic argument." Nor do I see how the rest of this is anything but an overblown non-sequitur. The "people" obviously include those who set up structures of governance (laws, government institutions, etc.) to constrain democratic action, even render it completely impotent. Arguing about the actual existence of these structures is not a semantic game, nor does it logically follow that if one engages in such argument, one believes that people "by their very nature would form a just society" if the "corrupting [interference]" of authorities were absent. The point is, in the absence of democratic action, one must always ask to what extent it is being suppressed. Also, as I point out, this is not always a simple task---democracy is a sensitive instrument, highly dependent on laws, information, economic conditions, and, many other things. Suppose I were to point out to you that the framers of the U.S. Constitution explicitly attempted to shackle democracy in the U.S., and that this project has been going on, more or less, for 200+ years by those for whom manipulation of the law is essentially (but not entirely) reduced to how much money needs to be invested for properly obedient congressional representatives. Would this be a semantic argument, inevitably linked to the notion that were only these legal barriers removed that heaven on earth would dawn and democratic harmony would reign? That's like saying, give us a wad of silicon of sufficient purity and we'll give you a supercomputer tomorrow. It takes effort, time, planning to support a democratic society, just as it took similar effort to carefully craft a society which retards such action. Dismissing such concerns as "semantic arguments" is simply evading the issue. Also, if you truly believe that "free initiative", that is democracy, from below, or elsewhere is "not necessarily good", or that having a hierarchy of "aboves" and "belows" in which this initiative is to take place is unobjectionable, then we do indeed have a fundamental disagreement about what I consider to be the basic human right to self-determination. I am not saying, however, that democracy "always and everywhere" produces "optimum" results---it's just that the right to participate democratically in all aspects of society is a good in itself, and should be broadened indefinitely (and no, Max, I do not mean I'm interested in voting on the flavor of your toothpaste, or the color of your undershorts). I reply: Look, it is easy to say from the hindsight that this or that institutional was, in the end, undemocratic, and provide an ex-post-facto explantion of individual behaviour vis a vis those institutions. But that explanation amounts to a tautology. It amounts to no such thing, unless you completely distort the meaning of the word tautology. Suppose I come to your house with a gun and rob you at gunpoint, ordering you to do this and that in the meantime. It is hardly tautological to consider the conditions under which your actions were taken, and to use them to assess whether or not that had an affect on you acting freely. It is simply answering the following, "Why were ostensibly public institutions not used for democratic ends", with "Because these institutions were not designed for such a purpose and were, to the contrary,
[PEN-L:10179] Re: Tavis, you're *still* wrong
I'm enjoying this thread on beer, though I'd like to request that my name be excised from the title because I think "Tavis=wrong" is attaining meme status on pen-l (and will no doubt surface up years later as an addendum to the good times virus report) and this may create problems for my academic lumpencareer. By the way, just to note, beer production is a manufacturing industry and therefore easily globalizeable. My local bodega sells great beers from all over Africa (no doubt made under atrocious working conditions). I agree with Marsh's previous point, some jobs are globalizeable and some are not, and that "services" is a problematic agglomeration for a whole lot of different things. I suspect that some of the differences in views on globalization may come from geographic differences. In the manufacturing belts, it probably looks pretty scary. Here in New York, people's jobs aren't being threatened by employers moving abroad (with a few exceptions, like garments and some financial services like credit cards now done by telephone and mail). The big threat is government downsizing, workfare, and a city policy that prioritizes financial jobs for people in Westchester and Long Island over manufacturing and blue-collar service jobs for people in the Bronx (New York deindustrialized because the city government de-zoned all the manufacturing areas long before people were talking about globalization). I suspect that one effect of global competition (though also an effect of the shift to services and the general corporate attack) is to change which occupations and industries are part of the "core." In New York, manufacturing wages are lower than in Hong Kong. On the other hand, the transportation sector is doing stronger, as are some health care occupations (relative to other sectors, that is, not to twenty years ago) and some occupations in telecommunications. I would contend (okay, Sid, call me on this one :) ) that the substitutablity of labor has become more of a determinant than sunk capital of which occupations and industries generate shareable rents. Resistance is futile, Tavis On Thu, 15 May 1997, Marshall Feldman wrote: Yeah, but it can happen. My understanding of the beer industry is that it used to be very localized. Then a few majors took over. Beer was mass produced and shipped in concentrate to local branches where water was added and the beer was canned. Local breweries closed down. Now there's a resurgence of local breweries, but their market share is small and production does not have to be local. The "local" content is the recipe. For instance, I think Boston's Sam Adams is brewed under license in PA. I wouldn't be surprised if some tortillas are shipped frozen across country. Maybe the Hispanic population in LA can tell the difference, but how come you can buy tortillas in Cleveland?
[PEN-L:10176] The EU: response to Trevor
Trevor: For the last ten years, the very few (and limited) advances in workers rghts in Britain are all ones that orginated in the EU and which Thatcher and Major were unable to block. That is why the official trade union movement is so pro-EU in Britain. Sid: I think this is a good point. However, I think it remains to be seen how meaningful these few and limited advances will be in the context of the overall move to a neoliberal Europe. I, for one, believe that they will not mean a great deal in the context of a new Labour government which has announced its intention to maintain Britain's labour laws (characterized by Blair as among the most restrictive of any industrial society) and whose fundamental priorities can be seen in its unilateral move to jettison political control over Britain's central bank. Trevor: Sid says: 'The unprecedented demos in Europe are not because people see the process of unification as neutral or progressive.' Yes. But virtually none of the demos are against the EU. Or against monetary unification for that matter. They are against the cuts in social spending which result from the monetarist conditions embodied in the Maastricht treaty. Sid: I'm missing something here, Trevor. If people are demonstrating against the terms and conditions for achieving the monetary union embodied in Maastricht, which include the requirement to slash social spending in order to satisfy the terms of entry, what's the difference? Trevor: Isn't the issue at what level it is most possible to control large companies which already operate on a European-wide basis? As I said in a posting last week, I think this calls for strengthening the EU. Sid: Not if the underlying purpose of the EU and Maastricht is to strengthen the ability of transnational capital to impose anti-social standards. Not if, as is argued in The Ecologist article argues, "The project was business-driven from the start -- the proposal for the Single Market was drafted by, among others, Wisse Dekker, the Chief Executive of Philips, and Giovanni Agnelli, head of Italy's FIAT conglomerate -- and business has used the process of setting up the Market to boost profits at the expense of product quality; to drive smaller companies out of business; and to undermine (or block) environmental and public health measures deemed onerous to business." Trevor: One of the problems with the EU at present is the lack of democratic accountability of its institutions, and the marginal role of the European parliament. But (without getting carried away by liberal democracy), this is an argument for strengthening the European parliament, not for opposing the project of creating the EU. Sid: The Ecologist article makes the point that "Although the Maastricht Treaty extends the areas over which the Parliament currently has a right of veto, its new powers are in many respects illusory. On the major issues of state -- those relating to economic and monetary policy, foreign affairs and defence, fiscal policy, trade agreements with foreign countries, competition policy, taxation, state aid to industry, export policies, measures to protect trade or implement subsidies, Third World development -- there are no rights of veto. In these areas, the role of the Parliament is either purely consultative or restricted to making amendments only; if the Parliament rejects a proposal in any of these areas, the Council can (on a unanimous vote) still adopt it.[51] The powers surrendered by national parliaments under Maastricht -- powers which allow elected representatives to have a say over all areas of policy -- are not recovered by the European Parliament. Any checks and balances on the Commission have been framed in such a way that fundamental societal choices will be left to a handful of ministers and bureaucrats. Far from creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, 'in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen',[52] Maastricht will strip decision-making away from elected bodies, concentrating it in the hands of a cluster of institutions that are largely unaccountable and which have only come into existence to promote the pan-European multinationalism that lies at the heart of the EEC." Trevor: Given the mobility of capital within Europe, there are real limits to what can be achieved in any one country - as German workers are discovering - and pressure is only like to be effective if it is applied across the whole of the EU, so that the EU establishes similar standards for all its member countries. Sid: As the World Council of Churches (WCC) noted: "Manufacturers can, with the benefit of new technology, divide up their operations between different countries and shift production from one country to another when economic conditions dictate that they should . . . This has been done against the odds until now because of the many fiscal, technical and
[PEN-L:10177] The EU: response to Steven
Steven Zahniser: "Granting Maggie Coleman's important point that the EU is somewhat 'grounded' democratically and that NAFTA essentially is not..." Sid: I don't grant this at all. This is a supposition that has been stated as fact in the course of this discussion, in a totally uncritical manner. Steven: "... how many PEN-Lers think it is a worthwhile political project to push for the creation of some democratic, trinational institution in North America? Some of us (including me) would like at the very least that the world trading system be modified to allow countries to pursue alternative environmental and social policies without fear of having them classified as non-tariff barriers and dismantled." Sid: We and the forces we're sympathetic to have no access at all to the process involved in negotiating the terms and conditions which lie at the heart of the world trading system (terms and conditions which increasingly go far beyond trade.) Given this, I would argue that this those who advocate such a strategy are exhibiting the same idealist fantasizing that characterized many of the interventions on the part of those who saw NAFTA as potentially progressive in our earlier debate. To me the argue is essentially this: "We can't get progressive change out of Clinton or Chretien or Zedillo or Blair or Kohl, so let's leapfrog to the supranational level and make progressive change there." Can anyone please explain concretely how this can be done? (Bill Burgess -- I guess I couldn't avoid reverting to the earlier debates despite my warnings. :--] )
[PEN-L:10175] New Nike film
It appears all is not what it seems in Nike Land CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NIKE, BOX 1075, EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA T5J 2M1. PH. 403-988-3716 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5232 CANNES: MOORE RUNS AFTER NIKE CANNES-- Pro-proletarian director Michael Moore, who's 1989 docu- feature ROGER AND ME vilified General Motors and its CEO in particular, is now targeting Nike in his new film BIG ONE reports Variety. Like Moore's previous project, BIG ONE consists of interviews with downtrodden workers and culminates in a showdown with the company head. On this occasion Nike chieftain Phil Knight is confronted with questions about why his company manufactures its costly footwear outside the United States. Moore began filming last autumn during a promo-tour for his book, DOWNSIZE THIS! RANDOM THREATS FROM AN UNARMED AMERICAN. He arrived in Cannes with just one print of the film, which he completed last week. The picture was purchased at the fest by Mayfair Entertainment International.
[PEN-L:10178] Re: locality, loyalty, misc. comments
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10172] locality, loyalty, misc. comments The issue was whether some kind of plant-level industrial democracy would necessarily make for more enlightened decisions in national planning, and my comment was that it is less rather than more likely. As I said, pure workers' control has to be compromised to fit in with a central plan, which itself must decided upon democratically. A "democratic central plan" sounds like a pizza/ice cream diet. Appealing in theory but hard to imagine in reality. It reminds me of some things you said about a legion of autonomous grass-roots groups pursuing a single national agenda. That's because you're probably thinking of a "plan" as being the USSR-type. Yes, but only in the general sense that it embodies goals that are conceived at the center or top. If the economy is one thing there can only be one plan. The more decentralized a decision-making structure, from major industrial sectors and regions to individual enterprises and communities, the less the implied synthesis of plans, emphasis plural, justifies the label "planning." To try to simplify this, if enterprise A thinks their output should trade at a 2-for-1 ratio with the output of enterprise B, how is this resolved under "democratic central planning"? mystified, 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:10173] Re: Is there any silver lining in NAFTA?
Elaine and others who are focusing on the differences between the NAFTA and Maastricht experiences: I'd really urge you to read the analysis in The Ecologist article that I uploaded earlier this week. Cheers, Sid Shniad The argument that those of us who were opposed to NAFTA (including the side agreements) made was that it was designed have progressive government social action deemed as non-tariff barriers to trade. The labor side agreement in particular is a mess. It essentially has a 5 step process, none of which has any muscle. It was particularly strange for Canadians because unlike in the US and Mexico, most workers in Canada fall under provincial labor codes, not national law and while the US government has used the fact that ILO conventions (if ratified by the US federal government would violate "states rights") as an excuse for not ratifying most conventions, the Canadian federal government did go along with the labor side agreement (and I think a majority of provinces -- or at least enough provinces so as to constitute a majority of the population, have now signed on to the side agreement). It also needs to be remembered that a key difference between the EU and NAFTA, is that throughout the negotiations, all parties in the NAFTA emphasized over and over again, that it just about trade. This was in fact important to both the Canadians and the Mexicans, as they both have had long histories of fearing US encroachment of their rights of sovereignty. In Europe on the other hand, even back to the Treaty of Rome, there was an explicit desire to have a common market and a common community. Fear not, I'm not trying to look wishfully at the EU experience, only note that there were very different understands from the very beginning of these agreements. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:10174] Re: Is there any silver lining in NAFTA?
But it is crucial to note, Elaine, that this position (that NAFTA was just about trade) was strictly bullshit. Sid Shniad It also needs to be remembered that a key difference between the EU and NAFTA, is that throughout the negotiations, all parties in the NAFTA emphasized over and over again, that it just about trade. This was in fact important to both the Canadians and the Mexicans, as they both have had long histories of fearing US encroachment of their rights of sovereignty. In Europe on the other hand, even back to the Treaty of Rome, there was an explicit desire to have a common market and a common community. Fear not, I'm not trying to look wishfully at the EU experience, only note that there were very different understands from the very beginning of these agreements. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:10172] locality, loyalty, misc. comments
I substantially agree with what Wojtek said in response to my missive in this thread (locality == loyalty?). All I was saying is that one can't simply look at social geography. Class is also important, along with race and gender. I wrote ... democracy is an end in itself, rather than being a means to an end. Democratic sovereignty seems the only legitimate political principle. Max S. writes: Democratic sovereignty is an ideal, maybe a principle, but far too vague to mean very much in a practical context. I don't want to have a national assembly on whether my garbage is contracted out or provided by public employees. On the other hand, I don't want dictatorial control of, say, civil liberties. Of course, it's abstract, since principles always are. How democratic sovereignty (DS) works in practice has to be decided on a case-by-case basis using more information. But it's not especially vague. What DS means can best be seen in terms of the alternatives: it is a rejection the principle of "might makes right," even though in practice might does indeed make right (just as history is written by the victors). There is no moral basis to the rule of the mighty. DS is also not a Hobbesian principle where some individual or minority of individuals -- the sovereign Leviathan -- is seen as the decision-maker of last resort for society. The only justification of the power of the few is the conscious and active consent of the people; the decision-maker of last resort is the societal majority. It is also not a Locke-style principle where certain rights are asserted to be "natural" or god-given. Saying that something is "natural" does not necessarily mean it's good, while it's hard to know what is and is not a gift from the gods (assuming they exist). Usually, an argument that something should be a "right" ends up saying that it's good for people, for society. This seems nothing but an appeal to DS. In practice, rights in society are created by people; the issue is which people make the decisions about what rights exist and how such decisions are made. One thing is clear: DS is not the same thing as democratic decision-making about all absolutely all issues. Among other things, the societal majority will, in most cases, grant everyone certain rights (civil liberties, etc.) Democracy involves not only majority rule but minority rights. After all, individuals know that they can easily be in the minority. Put another way, the majority can benefit from civil liberties, directly and indirectly. Similarly, the societal majority (a national assembly) could easily decide that municipalities could make their own decisions about garbage collection. The full application of DS would, in my admittedly old-fashioned opinion, would involve the abolition of capitalism, so that the contracting out of garbage collection services to capitalist enterprises would be ruled out. I want to stress that the societal majority can easily make the wrong decisions (though it's hard to tell, since that majority's ability to make mistakes is so restricted and distorted by our current political-economic system). But in the end, they are the only ones who can decide whether or not these decisions are wrong. DS also says that a society should be able to learn from its errors rather than having some minority make mistakes for them. (As Luxemburg said, the mistakes of the mass movement of workers are worth more than the correct decisions of the elite.) Sure, I have my own moral standards and political views. But I cannot claim the right to stuff my own morality or politics down the throats of the majority. Rather, the aim is to educate and convince people, while pushing for a much less distorted method of the expression of popular sovereignty than capitalism allows. The issue was whether some kind of plant-level industrial democracy would necessarily make for more enlightened decisions in national planning, and my comment was that it is less rather than more likely. As I said, pure workers' control has to be compromised to fit in with a central plan, which itself must decided upon democratically. Even so, the fact that a democratic process could lead to a decision I don't like would not delegitimize the process for me. I wouldn't oppose workplace democracy in general. I simply have grave doubts that it would accomplish much, and even more that such an arrangement would facilitate economic planning. Decentralized, democratic deliberation seem to be the very opposite of the idea of a plan That's because you're probably thinking of a "plan" as being the USSR-type. Also, Max, it sure seems that your vison predicts that the Economic Policy Institute would be a collectively self-aggrandizing organization that would always be opportunistically taking advantage of others... Rather than respond to the details of Max's comments, I want to clarify my point: the EPI contradicts the theory that all decentralized organizations are anti-social.
[PEN-L:10171] OECD And WTO Use South Korea As Liberalization Model
The multilateral financial service talks resumed in Geneva, Switzerland, on May 4, under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO). At the talks, the U.S. is "expected to call for other WTO members to level up their financial liberalization to that of the OECD countries," said a senior official in the south Korean foreign trade ministry, a call which he said would "likely face considerable resistance." In 1995, U.S. negotiators walked out of the financial service talks, saying offers by other participants were insufficient. Last year, Washington also strongly called for south Korea's wider market opening in exchange for its approval of Seoul's membership at the OECD. Korea's liberalization schedule for its financial and capital markets passed entry tests of American and other OECD members at the time. Now South Korean trade officials say that "the U.S. officials appear set to make Korea an example for other WTO members to upgrade their liberalization levels to those of OECD nations." The U.S. is also expected to call for increased liberalization from Seoul. The U.S. steel industry has been raising what they allege is the Korean government's subsidization of local steelmakers, according to a report from the Korea International Trade Association's (KITA) Washington bureau. At a dialogue between American steel industrialists and the Congress Steel Committee on May 1, the U.S. Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports (CPTI) complained that Korean steelmakers, through capacity buildup aided by governmental subsidies, are supplying hot-rolled plates at cheaper prices than American makers, eroding the latter's market share. A CPTI representative then called for the administration to slap countervailing duties on imports from Korea, by applying the WTO's antisubsidy rule, according to the KITA report. At the same committee meeting, another steel industry group, Specialty Steel Industry Association of North America (SSINA), also said that it will file a complaint on imported stainless steel bars and wire rods, including those from Korea. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10169] Re: locality -- loyalty?
At 02:28 PM 5/15/97 -0700, Bill Lear wrote: On Thu, May 15, 1997 at 09:40:22 (PST) Wojtek Sokolowski writes: You say these production units "provided an actual opportunity" for democratic action, which was "mandated by law", and was, if I read you correctly, operating within a structure of governance rightly labeled "autocratic". Somehow this strikes me as profoundly undemocratic. Participation is "mandated by law"? How is that freedom, on which democracy is crucially and sensitively dependent? I reply: Let's not get into semantic arguments. Unless, of course, you believe that people by their very nature would form a just society, if they were only left free of the corrupting interefrnece form the authorities. If that is so, we differ in our beliefs. While I believe that the influence of the authority is oftentimes corrupting, it does not have to always be that way. Likewise, the free initiative from below is not necessarily good. Perhaps people realized that these were empty forms and chose not to use them? Perhaps their "selectively learned helplessness" is just the same as that existing today in the U.S., but needs translation: disgust with ineffectual political structures leads to opting out of the political system, concentrating on self-fulfillment, consumption of consumer goods, soap operas, etc. There is no need to resort to any sort of mystical explanation (not that you are, obviously). Costs to independent action, which did not follow the party line, were often severe---Siberia was not a myth or a spell cast on people. The same has been true in the U.S.---activists have often been jailed, beaten, fired, etc. I don't see those as fictional psychoses of citizens, but the costs to challenging real power. If you want to know how people "perceive and use social institutions" here in the U.S., there are reams of polling evidence showing that people feel the "system" does not represent their interests, but those of a narrow few. Voting turnout shows clearly that people see the two-faction, one-party system in the U.S. as a sham. To my eyes, people are seeing through the facade, and generally turn to action outside of the formal system, if not to mere diversions. --- snip --- I don't dispute that how institutions are used is important, but don't see how this really addresses anything here. That is, if the label of "autocratic" is accurate, why would we expect democratic outcomes from such a structure of governance? Also, I was under the impression that genuine forms of democracy that existed in workers' councils and the system of soviets were destroyed by Lenin (if not Stalin). Excuse my ignorance (seriously), but I thought that from, say 1920(?) or so, onward, they were indeed "autocratic from the beginning", perhaps becoming more so over time. I reply: Look, it is easy to say from the hindsight that this or that institutional was, in the end, undemocratic, and provide an ex-post-facto explantion of individual behaviour vis a vis those institutions. But that explanation amounts to a tautology. I work from the premise that while political repression was present in the x-Soviet bloc, it was much leass pervasive than commonly thought, especially after WWII. I would venture to say that it was limited to a handful of a high-profile political cases, but everyday life went its own course without much repression. Therefore, the fear of repression cannot account for th efailure to use formal institutions in this or that way. I will illustrate it with an example of the debate over the implementation of industrial norms in Poland during the heydey of stalinism in early 1950s. Most of Europe, including Poland uses DIN (Deutsche Industrie Norm or German Industrial Standard) whereas the x-USSR used GOST (that is closer to the US standards than to DIN). As Poland was being integrated into the COMECON system -- there were serious proposals to replace DIN with GOST. These proposals had obvious political overtones meaning "accepting the system of our allies and rejecting the system of our enemies" or vice versa. Yet, the "politically incorrect" camp (the DIN proponents) won, the specter of stalinist repression notwithstanding. Of course, the argument that prevailed was not a political one (Poland's "connection" to the West rather than the East) -- as the intellectuals may interpret it -- for the technocrats could not care less for such nuances. What convinced them was the enormous cost of re-calibrating all machinery and measuring devices to the new standards. This example illustrates that virtually every issue can be defined as "political" or "technical" and thus call for entirely different approaches. Just as Taylorism in the US or retention of DIN in Poland were defined as primarily "technical" problems -- so could have been other issues as well. One can use local party cells as a springboard for the struggle for self-determination against the autocratic rule of the
[PEN-L:10168] Re: Progressive web sites
Absolutely, Paul, please post the final list. Thanks. Pen-l-ers, At a benefit dinner for Canadian Dimension the other night, I was asked by a retired United Church minister who is now part of a collective of clergy who publish a progressive newsletter on social issues, if I could give him the addresses of progressive web sites (specifically with regard to NZ, but also US, Canada, etc.) which he could monitor for up to date info and opinion of a progressive or radical nature. I mentioned Doug Henwood's and EPI's site but I didn't have the URPs handy. In any case, he wants to put together a listing of the most useful progressive web sites so I am asking all on the list to send me their selection of the best progressive web pages. (Remember, this is for laypersons and retired clergy, not professional economists or related.) If you don't think the list would be interested, send your suggestions to me directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I get any response to this request and there is any interest, I will post the top 10 or 20 suggestions to Pen-l. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10167] Commerical Bank Profits Break Record
Here is the first item in this report. Those who want any of the rest can write me off-list or subscribe yourself. Michael == THE CONDE REPORT ON U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS Volume 1, Issue 17, Friday, May 16, 1997 "AND THE WALLS FELL" NEWS ITEMS OF SIGNIFICANCE IN U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS EDITOR: Francisco J. Conde, CONDE CONSULTING, An International Business, Marketing Communications Consultancy, 14500 Dallas Pkwy, Ste. 402, Dallas, Texas 75240-8315, TELEPHONE: (972) 392-1361, FAX: (972) 392-2683, INTERNET E-MAIL ADDRESS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +++ INDEX: 1.) U.S. COMMERCIAL BANK PROFITS ESTABLISH HIGHEST NET EVER FOR A FISCAL QUARTER 2.) CANADA'S MONARCH RESOURCES, LTD. FINDS LARGE GOLD ANOMALY IN DURANGO 3.) EMERGING MEXICO FUND ASSETS ON 3/31/97 REACH $122 MLN IN 1997 FROM $102 MLN 4.) NEW PRIVATE MEXICO RAILROAD OWNERS PREPARE TO FIGHT FOR U.S. RAIL TRAFFIC 5.) MEXICO'S NO. 2 TELECOM CO. AVANTEL PAYS OFF $150 MLN BRIDGE LOAN WITH NEW DEBT By The Conde Report U.S. COMMERCIAL BANK PROFITS ESTABLISH HIGHEST NET EVER FOR A FISCAL QUARTER CHARLOTTESVILLE, Virginia --(TCR)-U.S. commercial banks reported the highest net income for a quarter in any year in history, or $14.1 billion, according to a survey by SNL Securities, a research firm based here said Tuesday in a news release obtained by the TCR. A survey by the research firm indicated that the result broke the record for quarterly U.S. bank profits of $13.8 billion set in third quarter 1995. The firm surveyed 230 U.S. commercial banks representing 79 percent of the U.S. commercial bank industry assets. The 10 largest U.S. banks' net earnings grew by 9 percent in the quarter. Total lending by U.S. commercial banks, according to the survey, jumped to $88.92 billion in combined loans in the first quarter, compared to $86.99 billion a year earlier. Significantly, U.S. banks' credit quality showed improvement, with non-peforming assets (Ioans on which payments on interest have not been made for the previous 90 days) fell for the 19th consecutive quarter to 0.55 percent of total assets. The survey's results of U.S. banks' first quarter net earnings came after three consecutive years of record profits for U.S. banks. (TCR) EDITOR'S NOTE: The health and condition of U.S. commercial banks is critical to the health of the global financial system, which provides the fuel -- bank credit -- for economic growth worldwide. It is even more critical for Mexico since the U.S.' southern neighbor relies heavily in its sovereign and private credit and funding on U.S. public and private institutions and a healthy U.S. financial system. More importantly, as U.S. economic growth resumes a more moderate growth path over the next few years, it can be expected and forecast that U.S. financial institutions, just like their brethren private corporations in the U.S., shall seek out emerging markets where returns on capital and on equity can come at a faster-than-the-U.S. pace of economic growth from lower development levels -- that means Mexico. Official and private analysts have forecast Mexican annual average growth for the next five years at between 5 and 6 percent. +++ THE CONDE REPORT ON U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS strongly encourages its current 750 subscribers to pass on its contents to others who may have an interest in U.S.-Mexico relations and welcomes requests for subscriptions, which are free of charge. The Conde Report actively seeks comments and contributions by its readers in the form of News Items and E-Mail Letters to the Editor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] +++
[PEN-L:10166] women and men
As a preface, I don't' think that explanations of "women are x, men are y" are either useful or politically sound. For every "men are more arguementative" there's a "women are more 'nagging.'" For every supposed difference, we can find many more similarities. A quite little empirical work found that out of a list of 410 people, 45, or roughly 10%, are women. As Michael and others have pointed out, 90% of the discussion is generated among a dozen or so people. Perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is NOT one about gender, but rather why it is that 12 people are the ones in the debate (more interest in the topics at hand? more time to spend on-line?) I don't think women are welcomed less here than on any other lists, but I think it is harder for anyone to get a word in edgewise when the regs go off on their occassional (and sometimes arcane) tangents. Gina Neff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10165] Progressive web sites
Pen-l-ers, At a benefit dinner for Canadian Dimension the other night, I was asked by a retired United Church minister who is now part of a collective of clergy who publish a progressive newsletter on social issues, if I could give him the addresses of progressive web sites (specifically with regard to NZ, but also US, Canada, etc.) which he could monitor for up to date info and opinion of a progressive or radical nature. I mentioned Doug Henwood's and EPI's site but I didn't have the URPs handy. In any case, he wants to put together a listing of the most useful progressive web sites so I am asking all on the list to send me their selection of the best progressive web pages. (Remember, this is for laypersons and retired clergy, not professional economists or related.) If you don't think the list would be interested, send your suggestions to me directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I get any response to this request and there is any interest, I will post the top 10 or 20 suggestions to Pen-l. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba.
[PEN-L:10164] NAFTA resource/ globalization
Apropos of globalization and NAFTA discussion, a great document is available at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/lib/e_archive/NAFTA/ It is: The Effects of Plant Closing or Threat of Plant Closing on the Right of Workers to Organize, Submitted to the Labor Secretariat of the North American Commission for Labor Cooperation by Kate Bronfenbrenner, Cornell University The Labor Dept seems to be sitting on the report for reasons that are not hard to imagine. To quote from the summary, "The majority of private sector employers threaten a full or partial shutdown of their facilities during organizing campaigns, and a significant minority proceed to shut down the facility after the union wins the election." Reading this, together with Laurie Dougherty's very interesting descriptions of changes in air conditioner manufacture, begins to paint a picture of what "footlooseness," to use Bill Rosenberg's term, may mean. I still haven't seen a completely satisfying demonstration of the importance of these changes at the macro level (i.e. a riposte to Krugman's challenge), but it does seem plausible that there is deliberate building of excess capacity on a worldwide scale, making it much easier to switch production. (If true we may need to modify theories of capitalism a bit; i.e. capital itself is not scarce and MNCs instead get rents from control of marketing/distribution, but that's a new discussion.) Best, Colin
[PEN-L:10163] Re: Is there any silver lining in NAFTA?
The argument that those of us who were opposed to NAFTA (including the side agreements) made was that it was designed have progressive government social action deemed as non-tariff barriers to trade. The labor side agreement in particular is a mess. It essentially has a 5 step process, none of which has any muscle. It was particularly strange for Canadians because unlike in the US and Mexico, most workers in Canada fall under provincial labor codes, not national law and while the US government has used the fact that ILO conventions (if ratified by the US federal government would violate "states rights") as an excuse for not ratifying most conventions, the Canadian federal government did go along with the labor side agreement (and I think a majority of provinces -- or at least enough provinces so as to constitute a majority of the population, have now signed on to the side agreement). It also needs to be remembered that a key difference between the EU and NAFTA, is that throughout the negotiations, all parties in the NAFTA emphasized over and over again, that it just about trade. This was in fact important to both the Canadians and the Mexicans, as they both have had long histories of fearing US encroachment of their rights of sovereignty. In Europe on the other hand, even back to the Treaty of Rome, there was an explicit desire to have a common market and a common community. Fear not, I'm not trying to look wishfully at the EU experience, only note that there were very different understands from the very beginning of these agreements. Elaine Bernard
