[PEN-L:10279] Re: More on Canada
On Sun, 18 May 1997, Tom Walker wrote: > In reply to my comments, Bill Burgess wrote, > > >If we agree that nation states are still important, isn't it important > >to also identify exactly who has power in them, and specifically whether > >domestic or foreign capital predominates? Tom relied: > > Yes, it's important to identify who has power but, since the exercise of > power will have different consequences in different situations, I don't see > the need -- or even in many cases the feasibility -- for exact calculation > of the domesticity or otherwise of capital. At any rate, I'd be hard pressed > to see Conrad Black as somehow more benign that, say, the Body Shop just > because he's Canadian, eh? > Not an exact calculation, just one that tries to bring evidence to bear on the common perception among left and progressive forces in Canada that this country is a semi-colony (or something approaching it, or in ever-greater danger of slipping into this status, etc.). I hestitate to risk misquoting Sid S. again, but hasn`t he said this, for example, and connected it to (what I call) a nationalist basis of opposition to the FTA, NAFTA, MAI, etc.? In a similar vein, Paul Phillips also just made a commment to the effect that Canadian military expenditures are insignificant, which I think suggests Canada is not a "real" power. Of course, not compared to the US, and Canadian military expenditures are not as large relative to GDP as they are in a number of other countries, but neither are they insignificant. Im still on holidays and dont have my source (World Competitiveness Report) but if memory serves, Canada is in the mid to upper range of advanced capitalist countries in military expenditures\GDP. Apart from their recent uncharacteristically useful role in flood relief, th Canadian Armed Forces spend most of their time helping keep the world safer for imperialism, and in particular, Canadian imperialism. I agree there is little relevent difference between capitalists x and y in Canada. It is the left-nationalist school that has tended to insist otherwise. Some even suggest that the Canadian government\state acts in substantial part for foreign capital (rather than for domestic capital, as is usually presumed in other advanced capitalist countries). For example, PM Mulroney was characterized as a "traitor" for pushing "free" trade with the US, rather than being understood as representing the best interests of Canadian capital in a context of growing imperialist competition, trade blocks, threats of protectionism, etc. Mindful that other Pen-lers are by now probably weary of my "rant" (or was it "rail"?) against Canadian nationalism I will now try to limit myself now to new or different points or useful discussion of the evidence on this question. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:10281] Re: planning and democracy
An observation about "planning" that may, or may not be useful: A plan is, by definition a single outcome we all will live with. If one wants to add the adjective "central" to plan in recognition of this reality, I suppose that's OK. But the general equilibrium of a market economy is also a single outcome we all will live with, and few feel compelled to refer to this outcome as a "central general equilibrium." Regarding plans the relevant issues are: 1) Who makes them, how? 2) Is there any reason to believe that the procedure for arriving at the plan will generate a feasible outcome? And specifically under what conditions would the procedure do so, or fail to do so? 3) Is there any reason to believe the particular planning procedure being analyzed would yield an efficient plan -- defined as a Pareto optimal plan works for me, but if one had a different definition of efficiency then that could be used here as well. 4) Is there any reason to believe the particular planning procedure being analyzed would yield an equitable outcome or plan -- defined as compensation according to effort or personal sacrifice works for me, but if one had a different conception of equity that could be used here as well. I believe the adjective "central" is most usefully used to characterize the nature of the planning procedure -- which falls under #1, namely who comes up with the plan, how. The old Soviet procedure that went under the title of "material balances" in my opinion deserved the lable "central planning" as well because of who drew up the plan and how it was drawn up. Most criticisms of material balances in the planning literature focused on its inefficiencies rather than its anti-democratic characteristics -- namely its exclusion from participation the workers who would carry out the plan and the consumers who who benefit (or not) from the results of the plan. I have argued that the inefficiencies of material balances are technically fixable but that the anti-democratic tendencies of this genre of planning procedure are not. Now, however there are at least two coherent planning procedures deserving the adjective "democratic" or "decentralized" or "popular" or "participatory" that are available for scrutiny and criticism. Regardless of their other merits or liabilities they deserve the above adjectives because of who is involved in planning and how they are involved. Workers and consumers, councils of workers and consumers, and federations of workers and consumers are the groups who DO the planning in these procedures -- not an elite of central planners operating under instructions from a political elite who define the economic goals the planners are supposed to figure out how to achieve. See Pat Devine's system of "negotiated coordination" in Deocracy and Economic Planning, Westview 1988, Part IV and Albert and Hahnel, Political Economy of Participatory Economics, Princeton, 1991, chapters 4 and 5 in particular for participatory planning procedures.
[PEN-L:10282] Re: planning and democracy
> From: Robin Hahnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:10280] Re: planning and democracy > Max: You could profitably look at either Pat Devine's model of democratic > planning he calls negotiated coordination (Democratic Planning, Westview > 1988) or Mike Albert and my model of participatory planning (The Political > Economy of Participatory Economics, Princeton, 1991). Both treatments > deal with most of the "impossibility theorem" red-herrings you have been > offering in this debate. FYI every market socialist I know of these days > has conceded the technical possibility of democratic or participatory > planning and now objects on grounds of "too much trouble" and/or "too I concede it as well. To me the issues are what it costs and how well it works compared to alternatives in a heartless world (not that it is 'unfree'). You may have missed the very short post I made which started this whole thing, which criticized the idea that planning would be facilitated by democratic participation because enterprises would be so gladdened by the opportunity to participate in the plan that they would provide accurate information to the center. > unfree" compared to one or another version of market socialism. But most > of your objections have been answered and others no longer raise them. I won't try to further retail my red herrings, cowed by your citations of things I haven't read, except to say that in this exchange nobody has offered any solution to the allocation problem, according to either orthodox or alternative definitions. If the solution to this problem is what some sketchily-described (here, at least) democratic process disgorges, then the problem is solved by definition. 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:10285] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, MAY 19, 1997 Looking ahead the next year or two, employers should expect a gradual acceleration in health care costs rather than a rapid rise back to the double-digit increases of the 1980s and early 1990s, industry experts predict in a recent series of interviews by the Daily Labor Report. Projections for this year range from 4 percent, based on an employer survey, to more than 6 percent for some types of coverage. Most of the forces currently in play -- especially the squeeze on providers' profit margins -- will boost costs, recent studies and surveys indicate. Yet, intense competition in managed care and moderate overall inflation will help offset the upward pressures on health care costs, analysts say The medical care component of the CPI-U came down from a 12.6 percent increase in 1981 to a 3.0 percent advance last year. BLS said that 1996 was the first time since 1980 that medical costs rose less than the overall CPI-U. An improvement in methodology for measuring hospital costs, introduced by BLS in January of this year, should result in a somewhat slower rise in medical care costs from 1997 forward, economist Daniel Ginsburg of the price division of BLS said. However, the Bureau is not sure how much of a difference it will make in the annual change in medical costs, he said. Data from the Employment Cost Index, also compiled by BLS, tells the same story, but from the employers' perspective (Daily Labor Report, page C-1). Construction of new homes and apartments rebounded in April, as housing starts rise 2.6 percent after a decline of 7.7 percent the previous month, the Commerce Department reports The gain was fueled by a surge in apartment building (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). Two new economic reports on Friday dealt a blow to the recent confidence that the pace of business activity is slowing enough to keep inflationary pressures under control. Bond market interest rates rose sharply after the Commerce Department reported that housing construction jumped 2.6 percent in April. A separate report showed that consumers' confidence is surpisingly strong (Washington Post, May 17, page D1; New York Times, May 17, page 24; Wall Street Journal, page A2). At colleges and universities around the country, the class of '97 is graduating this spring into the most auspicious job market in memory, a product of today's soaring economy and, in many ways, the large-scale layoffs that cut a swath through their parents' generation Universities and professional schools are reporting record numbers of recruiters on campus, often offering more jobs than they can fill The current job market reflects the upswing in the overall economy with unemployment now below 5 percent and the go-getter predilections of a generation of students who have made junior- or sophomore-internships as big a growth area as full-time jobs for graduates. And Internet job searches, now the rule on most campuses, have made the process of finding employment much more efficient. But, the surge also reflects the years of layoffs for which many companies are now frantically trying to compensate (New York Times, page A1). Immigration raises the cost of public service in some areas with large numbers of immigrants, but the influx of non-American residents benefits the U.S. economy overall, a study by the National Research Council indicates. Immigrants -- legal and illegal -- may be adding as much as $10 billion to the economy each year and have little negative effect on job opportunities for most citizens, according to the study The National Research Council is a private, nonprofit group that operates the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It conducted the study at the request of the congressionally appointed U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (Washington Post, May 18, page A11; Wall Street Journal, page A5). Strong growth with little unemployment and low inflation doesn't have to peter out, says Business Week (May 19, page 31). Why? The productivity push. The cover story shows how prices can stay stable as profits and wages rise Years of squeezing out costs and gearing up for the Info Revolution keep paying off -- and with low inflation Graphs attributed to the Departments of Labor and Commerce show the unemployment rate, real increase in wages, price changes, corporate profits, and increase in output per hour for nonfinancial corporations. DUE OUT TOMORROW: Monthly Labor Review Cover Variety of Topics
[PEN-L:10290] Paper on NAFTA, etc. -- LONG
Anyone who resents receiving this lengthy piece has only Bill Burgess to blame! (I'm sending it in response to his repeated comments about not wanting to misstate my position re: international trade, etc.) Cheers, Sid Shniad G.A.T.T., THE CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND N.A.F.T.A.: ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING AND THE CORPORATE GAME PLAN A PAPER PRESENTED BY SID SHNIAD RESEARCH DIRECTOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS WORKERS UNION, VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA TO THE THIRD COLOQUIO DE XALAPA -- "REESTRUCTURACION PRODUCTIVA Y REORGANIZACION SOCIAL" OCTOBER 7 TO 10, 1992 "THE FUTURE AWAITING THE AMERICASA TIME FOR EMPOWERING THE POOR THROUGH NEW INVESTMENT, TRADE AND GROWTH. A TIME FOR CULTURAL RENEWAL. OUR EFFORTS -- AND THE EFFORTS OF MILLIONS OF CITIZENS OF THE AMERICAS -- CAN ACHIEVE NEW GAINS FOR HONEST, DEMOCRATIC AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT. AND TOGETHER, WE CAN USHER IN A NEW ORDER OF PEACE, A NEW TIME OF PROSPERITY, BOTH ANIMATED BY PERSONAL FREEDOM." U.S. President George Bush, explaining why he favours free trade. "A TRADE DEAL SIMPLY LIMITS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE U.S. OR OTHER SIGNATORY GOVERNMENT MAY RESPOND TO PRESSURE FROM THEIR CITIZENS." Michael Walker, Executive Director of the Fraser Institute, describing what he sees as a positive characteristic of free trade agreements. (The Fraser Institute is a corporate-financed right wing think tank located in British Columbia, with strong organizational and financial links to right wing think tanks the world over. Its Board of Directors has included such economic luminaries as Friederich Hayek and George Stigler, as well as Sir Alan Walters, Margaret Thatcher's chief economic strategist. The Fraser Institute has been the architect of much of the detailed planning behind the corporate assault on Canadian society that has occurred over the past fifteen years. It plays an active propaganda role as well, sponsoring speeches by notables such as Milton Friedman and has hosted speaking tours by Roger Douglas, the Finance Minister of New Zealand in the former Labor government whose economic program featured unprecedented deregulation of that country's economy.) FREE TRADE: THE BACKGROUND The economic stagnation that has gripped the world economy for the past twenty years appears to be deepening. Daily news reports from around the world bring word of increasing unemployment, collapsing real estate markets, currency devaluations and panicking financial markets. There is a growing realization that the global economic crisis -- the most severe since the 1930s -- is spreading. Responding to pressure from the corporate sector, conservative governments around the world have been following a political/economic strategy for economic restructuring designed by organizations like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In accord with this strategy, governments have privatized government-owned assets, deregulated the private sector (including financial institutions), cut back social spending, undermined progressive taxation, reduced corporate taxes, and imposed regressive consumption taxes. Corresponding efforts have been made in the realm of international trade negotiations. Although governments and corporations would have us believe that the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the 1992 Canada-U.S.-Mexico North American Free Trade Agreement stemmed from a modest desire to reduce tariffs and liberalize the rules governing international trade, this explanation has little to do with what is actually transpiring here. To understand what is really at issue in these negotiations and how these developments parallel other parts of the international restructuring strategy, we must take a brief look at the history of multinational trade discussions. When international representatives met in Havana in 1947 to discuss the establishment of an International Trade Organization (ITO), many delegates -- particularly the British, Australians and New Zealanders -- expressed a commitment to collectivist and socialist policies. The draft charter of the ITO reflected this commitment, obligating member countries to promote full employment, to guarantee labour standards, and to allow for the expropriation of the assets of foreign companies with compensation to be paid in local currencies. Hostile to the ITO's policy orientation, American business interests and their trade representatives worked to undermine the organization before it came into existence. Their efforts paid off; its charter was never presented to the American Congress. In place of the ITO, the U.S. promoted a plan for the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Established in 1948, GATT was designed to be an international trade body w
[PEN-L:10295] Re: planning and democracy
Max Sawicky wrote,
> in this
>exchange nobody has offered any solution to the allocation
>problem, according to either orthodox or alternative definitions. . .
If I may add just add a small voice of nonreason. . . I'm sympathetic to the
qualms Max has about democratic (by definition) planning. I'm also sure Max
is no laissez-faire lunatic. The reason nobody has offered a solution to the
allocation problem is because there is no solution. All "models" abstract
from the actual conditions that could bring the envisioned system into
being. This is equally true for "laissez-faire" markets and democratic
central planning.
It may sound like a quaint idea, but wasn't the whole notion of God (and
gods) concocted to deal with this problem of the mystery of origins --
namely creating something out of nothing, or something new out of something
completely different? Unless somebody wants to argue for a teleology of
reason that is itself above and outside of human agency, we're stuck with
the development of reason ('philosophy') from theology and of theology from
mythology -- fraught as all that is with residues and metaphors.
The flaw in any rational system is like a belly button. We may be able to
cover it up and forget about it. But it's always still there. An apparently
trivial reminder of our not-so-trivial mortality and natality.
In another message, Sid Shniad quoted Robert Kuttner,
>The second coming of laissez faire has multiple causes . . .
Kuttner's ironic allusion to the deification of the market (only two vowels
separate this act from defecation!) says enough. For the orthodox, the
market is not an analytical abstraction, it is a god. It would be well for
us to recall -- as a warning -- Goethe's "extraordinary saying": *Nemo
contra deum nisi deus ipse*: Against a God, only a God.
Or, to put it simply ethics can't be automated.
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^
knoW Ware Communications |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [and in spreadsheets]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-3286|
^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:10297] Commoner Symp: Nader, Mazzocchi, 5-30 nyc
Barry Commoner's Contribution to the Environmental Movement: Science and Social Action The Great Hall at Cooper Union New York, NY May 30, 1997 Program 9:00 AM Registration 9:30 AM Welcome 9:45 AM Peter Montague (Environmental Research Foundation) "Barry Commoner: Father of the Grass-roots Environmental Movement" 10:15 AM Dan Kohl (Washington University Department of Biology) "Barry Commoner's Science: An Anecdotal Overview" 10:35 AM Virginia Brodine (Central Washington Peace & Environmental Council) "The Day Before Yesterday. The Committees for Nuclear and Environmental Information" 10:55 AM Coffee/tea break 11:15 AM Ralph Nader: Keynote address 11:55 AM Panel Discussion (Moderator: David Kriebel) Eric Goldstein (NRDC), Vernice Miller (NRDC), John O'Connor (Greenworks Inc.) 12:35 PM Lunch everyone on their own 2:05 PM Tony Mazzocchi (Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union) "Affected by Barry Commoner for 30 Years" 2:25 PM Panel Discussion (Moderator: Tom Webster) Piero Dolara (Univ. of Florence), David Cleverly (U.S. EPA), Judi Enck, (NYPIRG), Taghi Farvar (UNDP; CENESTA) 3:10 PM Break coffee and ice cream provided 3:30 PM. Giovanni Berlinguer (University of Rome) "The Contribution of Barry Commoner to the Renewal of the Italian Left" 3:50 PM Chicco Testa (Enel, Rome) "An Italian Perspective" 4:10 PM Barry Commoner "What Is Yet To Be Done" Admission is free, but advance registration is requested. Phone: 718-670-4180; fax: 718-670-4189; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; web: http:\\idt.net\~cbns; mail: S. Peyser, CBNS, Queens College, Flushing, NY 11367. For Immediate Release Date: May 19, 1997 Contact: Sharon Clark Peyser, CBNS Phone:718-670-4180 Fax: 718-670-4189 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.qc.edu/CBNS http://idt.net/~cbns The Environmental Community Celebrates One of Its Founders Barry Commoner, one of the founders and leaders of the modern environmental movement, will be turning 80 this month. To celebrate the occasion and to honor his remarkable achievements over a 50-year career of environmental research and activism, a symposium is planned for May 30, at Cooper Union's Great Hall in New York City. The symposium will begin at 9:30 AM and conclude at 5:00 PM. Ralph Nader will give the keynote address; other speakers will include Peter Montague of the Environmental Research Foundation, Tony Mazzocchi of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, and Giovanni Berlinguer of the University of Rome, among others. Dr. Commoner will conclude with "What is yet to be done." Since the 1950s, Barry Commoner has played a leading role in nearly every important phase of the environmental movement, including opposition to nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s, the science information movement of the 1960s, the energy debates of the 1970s, as well as organic farming/pesticides, waste management/recycling and the toxic chemicals issues of the 1980s and 1990s. He realized that environmental debates were often shrouded in scientific jargon to deflect public scrutiny, and he championed the idea of empowering citizens by providing them with accurate and useful information. Time Magazine in its February 2, 1970, cover story called Barry Commoner the "Paul Revere of Ecology," and said he is "...endowed with a rare combination of political savvy, scientific soundness and the ability to excite people with his ideas." Twenty-seven years later, Commoner's views are deeply engrained in the body politic. Schools from kindergarten through high school incorporate environmental concepts across the curriculum, and many provide teacher training in environmental topics. The Earth Times in its October 21, 1995, issue hailed him as one of the "100 Who Made a Difference" world-wide in the past 50 years, and called Commoner "the dean of the environmental movement, who has influenced two generations." In 1981 Commoner moved his Center for the Biology of Natural Systems from Washington University in St. Louis to Queens College in Flushing, New York. There, the research team he directs has continued to make major advances in environmental science: the origin of dioxin in trash-burning incinerators; developing alternatives to incinerators and the economic benefits to communities of recycling their trash; and the development of a computer model that tracks the long-range air transport of dioxin and other pollutants from their numerous sources, through the food chain, into the human diet. The model is being used to evaluate dioxin contamination of milk on dairy farms in Wisconsin and Vermont. The symposium is titled "Science and Social Action: Barry Commoner's Contribution to the
[PEN-L:10298] Re: democracy & planning
At 03:33 PM 5/21/97 -0700, Jim wrote: >I think that in most cases the planners are pursuing their own career goals >subject to the constraints put on them by the large number of competing >interest groups. In our society, of course, the main shared characteristic >of most of these interest groups (especially the powerful ones) is >profit-seeking and the preservation of the societal status quo. >[...] > >Both the pressure from the business class and the need to cloak planning in >the mystique of expertise encourage undemocratic ways. Planners are also driven by a desire for power. Back in the 70s, there was a spate of writings about "democratically-controlled" clinics and the like, and what they reported time and again was that given half a chance, professionals will use their expertise to grab as much power as possible. It's a very serious problem for any attempt at democratic planning, whether at the local or national level (an issue I remember Lenin smartly addressed in an essay back before he came into power). Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
[PEN-L:10301] Soul economics
Last night I was present at an event deemed historic: the biggest crowd in all the years that Centennial Hall has been a vital part of Milwaukee's cultural life. The SRO crush was for wilderness writer Jon Krakauer, whose new book, Into Thin Air, somberly recounts the Everest climbing disaster of May 10th and 11th, 1996, to which he was an intimate and barely surviving party. Why did so many endure the wait, the stifling conditions, the unrelieved trauma of the story, and on a night of perfect weather when much happier diversions were available? My personal theory is that there was an almost cellular need being felt for a hero, and Krakauer's heroism lay in his obstinate refusal to wear the Homeric nimbus that the audience was only too willing to confer. Last night, in prior radio spots, and in the book itself, Krakauer made it quite clear that his survival was a matter of plain shithouse luck, and not attributable to superior intelligence, stamina, will, bravery, experience or any other laudable quality. Of course you have clean forgotten, but 2 years ago Air Force pilot Scott O'Grady was America's Hero For A Day, though his descent into the hateful slaughterhouse of former Yugoslavia was hardly as willful as Krakauer's climb up Everest or, for that matter, the incursion of the _ad hoc_ team that volunteered to bring him back. However, in a society where everything imaginable, now even our precious Net, is being minutely commodified in a frenzy to bring us many dubious goods and services, we occasionally need to be confronted with the exclamation point of obvious heroism, to be reminded, as once by both Gramsci and Sorel, that men kill and die for pregnant symbols and not for wage hikes. However, Krakauer is not only an ancient legend but also a heavily engaged contemporary; he has much to say about the increasingly blatant and sloppy commercialism that has engulfed the traditions of the Everest climb, trashing the mountain and blighting the lives of the indigenous Sherpas with a paradoxically deepening poverty. He has set up a foundation to deal with both problems, funded in part by royalties. In an earlier book Krakauer explored the life and death of an idealistic young man from suburban Washington who expired in the Alaskan bush while seeking a purer existence. In a country ruled by scum, where you can lose your house for a weed's presence in its vicinity, and where a 12-year-old girl just hung herself in a local "juvenile facility," I want to make clear that Jon Krakauer heads my slim list of heroes. valis Occupied America -- All lies have the same pedigree --
[PEN-L:10300] Re: The Plan Boss, the Plan
On Thu, May 22, 1997 at 12:54:45 (-0700) Max B. Sawicky writes: >Jim old boy, I note that Max seems to be ignoring what I write, perhaps because it is so devastating---or perhaps because I'm just ignorant and annoying. I'll comment on a few things and let Jim reply to the rest. >I'm still utterly unconvinced, at any rate, of >the following, which is what I think we have >been arguing about: > >* that democracy facilitates planning (which is > different from the proposition that whatever > planning we have *ought* to be informed by > democratic participation); Again, as I've said in other posts, nobody is claiming this. In fact, I have guessed that planning will be more difficult under democracy. So, if Max is unconvinced, he can join the crowd. >* that individuals and organizations will act > much more selflessly under socialist democracy; Again, I have posted quite a bit on this subject, which Max ignores. The immense effort to destroy democracy in Western societies is good evidence that there exists a great deal of potential that is found threatening enough to warrant such large expenditures for propaganda. Also, one must consider that these expenditures don't stop at propaganda, but are directed toward securing the political and legal systems from democratic input, as well as, naturally, economic units. To give one further example, Edgar Litt has produced some excellent studies on the education system, showing that much of it is directed toward securing obedience and docility, especially among the poor. My own belief is that a democratic economic system would be dependent on a widespread democratic structure throughout society, and would be rooted, inter alia, in our educational system. This growth of democracy would naturally take some time, and would probably produce a system of governance quite unlike anything seen on the planet (and no, this is simply not acceptable as an argument against democracy, as it was not against capitalism 500 years ago). Therefore, to hope that one could spell out, in any detail, what an economic (or any other) plan might look like under such a system is essentially futile (Jim and Robin may quite reasonably disagree). >* that democratic or un-democratic planning > is sufficiently practical (not absolutely practical) > to justify much interest for political reasons, including > visionary, long-term ones. > >I don't think I ever said that voting by dollar was >superior to democracy, only that in certain contexts >democracy was simply impractical or relatively >inefficient. As far as I'm concerned, nobody disagrees that democracy may be "relatively inefficient"; and Max has not shown in any way, shape, or form that democracy is "simply impractical", whatever that may mean. > The buried implication >seems to be that unbridled democracy is a good, in and of >itself or for its own sake. To me such a premise is moralistic >and ideological, rather than analytical. There is no such "buried implication", rather an explicit claim that the right to self-determination (democracy) is a good in and of itself, and it is the burden of those who would deny democracy, in any context, to show how it is positively a hazard (and no, this does not in any way imply that Max is a stalwart foe of democracy everywhere). So far, Max hasn't offered a shred of support for this. Bill
[PEN-L:10299] U.S. Banking "reform"
Dear Pen-lrs, After having just travelled across the country (in, I might add, a Penske truck rental that broke down FOUR times!!) and am now catching up on the news. I saw something about Clinton taking another crack at banking "reform." It sounds like yet another attempt to see if we can create a fiasco even worse than what happened with the S&Ls.Does anyone know more about the details or, more importantly, if this is something we need to worry about or if it'll be stomped to death by the conflicting financial interests? Thanks, Anders Schneiderman P.S. On my trek across the U.S., I ended up spending more time than I expected in Nevada, Nebraska, and Wyoming and had a chance to talk to a number of folks while waiting to get the ^%#$^*!@ truck fixed. Two things struck me: 1) I have a much better appreciation of how Americans living in small towns can feel like DC is on another planet and why they might feel so strongly about getting the federal government off their backs (which, as someone trying to get a union research job in DC, is a pretty useful experience to have). 2) If the Federal government ever did get off their back, Nevada, Nebraska, and Wyoming would cease to exist as states. I thought California relied a lot on the gumment, but shit, those states are totally dependent on federal highways!
[PEN-L:10296] Blair on labour and the EU
>From all appearances, Trevor, it doesn't seem that the EU will be dragging Britain in a progressive direction: The Daily Telegraph Thursday 22 May 1997 BLAIR TO PRESS FOR FLEXIBLE JOB LAWS By George Jones, Political Editor Tony Blair will deliver a blunt message to Europe tomorrow that it must move towards more flexible labour markets. He will tell his first European summit that Britain, while signing up to the social chapter, will veto attempts to impose high social costs. The Prime Minister has been invited to a mini-summit in the Dutch coastal town of Noordwijk to meet his 14 fellow EU leaders. While keen to show that he will bring a more co-operative approach to relations with the EU, Mr Blair is determined that Britain should not lose its growing competitive edge over leading European rivals. A report published yesterday claimed that Britain had been catapulted from 15th to seventh place in a league table of the world's most competitive countries and had opened up a substantial lead over Germany and France. During the election campaign the Conservatives claimed that, if Labour gained power, the rest of the EU would use the social chapter to force Britain to adopt Continential-style working practices and additional social costs, with the loss of 500,000 jobs. However, Mr Blair has told Cabinet colleagues that if Europe is to meet the global challenge - particularly from the "tiger" economies of south-east Asia - it must have flexible labour markets. He believes he can use the goodwill of the new Government to press the case for the rest of Europe to adopt the more flexible labour laws pioneered by Britain, which have resulted in a large number of overseas firms choosing it as a location for inward investment. Britain, he will argue, can use its experience to bring about change and greater flexibility in Europe through the social chapter. Mr Blair will tell his EU colleagues that there is a "third way" - between Tory-style laissez-faire policies and the kind of over-regulation that has imposed extra costs on employers in Germany and France. He believes more flexible labour markets must be underpinned by measures such as a minimum wage and education and training measures to improve the skills of workers - but that does not mean overburdening employers with regulations. He will make clear that Labour will not allow the social chapter to be used to introduce legislation that could damage British competitiveness. Mr Blair intends to serve notice that his Government will block any move to introduce qualified majority voting - which removes the national veto - on social security legislation and worker involvement on company boards. An authoritative Government source said last night: "We don't want to lose control of our social security costs. We would veto such extra costs being imposed here." Mr Blair's strong support for flexible labour laws will be seen as a further sign of New Labour's willingness to adopt the policies of the former Tory government. He is keen to demonstrate that he will lead a pro-business government. But his support for flexible labour markets will be seen as a further sign that he is keeping at arms length from the trade unions, who had seen Europe as a way of regaining many of the rights and privileges taken away during the past 18 years. Mr Blair told MPs yesterday that the Government would be able to get a "far better deal" than the Tories over lifting the beef ban. But he forsaw no early breakthrough. "We have inherited a quite appalling situation in relation to BSE - and not just the expense. The way these negotiations were handled was a disgrace. It will take time to sort out." Cheers, Sid
[PEN-L:10294] request for help with pen-l + spamming
First let me mention spamming. To stop it is difficult. We could do, but it would hurt us in other ways that I don't want to discuss because it will only make the situation worse. I will leave it as it is for now. I apologize. Now my plea for help. When vacations start, mailboxes fill up and I get the overflow bounced to me. Please help me with this. The best solution would be to send a message to listproc@anthrax postpone pen-l. You could unsub, but then I need to manually follow through on all your requests to resub. So postpone works better for me. When you return, just send a message resume pen-l. thanks. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10293] The Plan Boss, the Plan
Jim old boy, I seem to be losing this debate big time if the comments of others are any indication. I also feel my endurance flagging, but I'll try to summon my last reserves of strength. I'm still utterly unconvinced, at any rate, of the following, which is what I think we have been arguing about: * that democracy facilitates planning (which is different from the proposition that whatever planning we have *ought* to be informed by democratic participation); * that individuals and organizations will act much more selflessly under socialist democracy; * that democratic or un-democratic planning is sufficiently practical (not absolutely practical) to justify much interest for political reasons, including visionary, long-term ones. I don't think I ever said that voting by dollar was superior to democracy, only that in certain contexts democracy was simply impractical or relatively inefficient. Maybe I'm just too dense for all this. Or maybe every last one of you is crazy. Now let's go to the videotape. You said, in your latest message: Max wrote: >>I tried to put JD on the spot by asking how a specific relative price would be determined under so-called democratic planning. He then devoted three paragraphs on how a plan of democratic but otherwise unknown origin would set a production quota for a single good.<< [JD]: For someone who didn't read my original message, the above might lead to a distorted image. You _asked_ about a single good, so I talked about a single good. I also made it very clear that I was not trying to give a complete description of planning (being far from an expert on the subject). Me: Following is the unexpurgated text of a post from me to JD via PEN-L, minus most of the header. The key passage is at the end: === > 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 === NOW: Note the final paragraph, where two different enterprises and outputs are posited, not one. In the same vein, even the price for one good in sheckels would seem to imply an implicit rate of exchange with another. So I still think my question, not to mention the calculation problem writ large, has been displaced by discussion of (a) how a single good's quantity produced would be determined, and (b) how its distribution would be accomplished by means of coupons (e.g., MARKETS). Here's an exchange ripped out of the context of JD's latest post: Max asks: >>HOW MUCH money, who decides, and how?<< and >>Who says what costs are?<< [JD]: Good question, even though it goes beyond the original issue (i.e., Max's implication of the impossibility of democratic planning). The general principles of what determines the costs would or (or should) be decided upon democratically. The planners would then decide how these principles work _in practice_. The top planners should be elected (and subject to recall) in order to make sure that they obey the popular will. Albert & Hahnel's planning scheme also tries to automate the process so that human decisions play a minimal role. Me: Is there anyone else here who agrees that this paragraph resembles a plate of spaghetti? If not, I promise to seek professional psycho-analytic help. In closing: My point in noting the invocation of markets to distribute consumer goods is that my questions about allocation have been met, but not answered, by the use of market devices or democratic procedures, neither of which contains any hint of the content of a plan, much less why said content would be commendable on grounds other than that the people somehow or other decided it. The buried implication seems to be that unbridled democracy is a good, in and of
[PEN-L:10292] RE: Very HOT new Company Generating INTENSE Interest
We have been spammed. How can we prevent this? Roger -- From: pen-l Subject: [PEN-L:10274] Very HOT new Company Generating INTENSE Interest Date: Wednesday, May 21, 1997 3:34PM Chosen "Company of the Month" for May '97 in Network Opportunities Magazine **HOTTEST NEW MLM ON THE NET REQUIRES NO SPONSORING!!** ""EASIEST HOME BASED BUSINESS THAT ANYONE CAN DO"" Failsafe Sponsoring can make you between $600 and $13,000 per month.!! This is simply the most explosive company in MLM history!!! The simple facts are: 1. No personal selling of products! 2. No personal sponsoring required! 3. No meetings! 4. No distributor kits to buy! 5. No sign-up fees! We have designed a system that enables the 95% of MLMers who have never earned more than a few hundred dollars to finally earn between $600 and $2000 per month within their first few months. This allows most families to no longer have to rely on the income from one job and one boss. Receive this Powerful High-Tech Recruiting System and Online Enrollment Database plus these benefits: 1. Distributors placed in your downline at no cost to you! 2. Only one customer needed-yourself! 3. A 100% committed downline! 4. Commission checks increase every month! 5. Most lucrative pay plan in the industry! 6. Earn thousands in your first few months! 7. COMPLETELY AUTOMATED SPONSORING SYSTEM! 8. Company provides FREE business tools! This without a doubt the most aggressive MLM company that almost guarantees that anybody can earn money without sponsoring even one person! They even guarantee you a check the VERY FIRST MONTH!! To learn more about the opportunity of a lifetime just e-mail me and put and put "opportunity" in the subject area and I will get the address back to you propmtly. This is for real. I look to hear from you soon. The time is now! Sincerely, Mitch --- Our research indicates that the preceding material may be of interest to you. If you feel that you received this letter in error, please respond with the word "remove" in the subject field and our software will automatically remove you from our mailing list.
[PEN-L:10291] RE: Very HOT new Company Generating INTENSE Interest
remove -- From: pen-l Subject: [PEN-L:10274] Very HOT new Company Generating INTENSE Interest Date: Wednesday, May 21, 1997 3:34PM Chosen "Company of the Month" for May '97 in Network Opportunities Magazine **HOTTEST NEW MLM ON THE NET REQUIRES NO SPONSORING!!** ""EASIEST HOME BASED BUSINESS THAT ANYONE CAN DO"" Failsafe Sponsoring can make you between $600 and $13,000 per month.!! This is simply the most explosive company in MLM history!!! The simple facts are: 1. No personal selling of products! 2. No personal sponsoring required! 3. No meetings! 4. No distributor kits to buy! 5. No sign-up fees! We have designed a system that enables the 95% of MLMers who have never earned more than a few hundred dollars to finally earn between $600 and $2000 per month within their first few months. This allows most families to no longer have to rely on the income from one job and one boss. Receive this Powerful High-Tech Recruiting System and Online Enrollment Database plus these benefits: 1. Distributors placed in your downline at no cost to you! 2. Only one customer needed-yourself! 3. A 100% committed downline! 4. Commission checks increase every month! 5. Most lucrative pay plan in the industry! 6. Earn thousands in your first few months! 7. COMPLETELY AUTOMATED SPONSORING SYSTEM! 8. Company provides FREE business tools! This without a doubt the most aggressive MLM company that almost guarantees that anybody can earn money without sponsoring even one person! They even guarantee you a check the VERY FIRST MONTH!! To learn more about the opportunity of a lifetime just e-mail me and put and put "opportunity" in the subject area and I will get the address back to you propmtly. This is for real. I look to hear from you soon. The time is now! Sincerely, Mitch --- Our research indicates that the preceding material may be of interest to you. If you feel that you received this letter in error, please respond with the word "remove" in the subject field and our software will automatically remove you from our mailing list.
[PEN-L:10289] MAI ACTION ALERT! (fwd)
> Subject: MAI ACTION ALERT! > > Ok MAI enthusiasts, it's time for some action. > > As you know, the OECD Ministerial meeting is May 26-27 in Paris. This was > the original completion date of the MAI, but thanks to the effective > opposition organized by citizen's and activists LIKE US, they have delayed > the completion date a couple months (ok - the delay was actually caused by > "unresolved issues" in the text, but regardless, we got a couple more > months). > > I want you to take 2 minutes of your time today and write to the OECD. > > Tell them what your concerns are with the MAI. You can do this two ways: > (1) go to the following website and click on "feedback" at the bottom of > the page, it's a long one... > http://www.oecd.org/news_and_events/release/nw97-41a.htm > (2) write directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The advantage with option (1) is that you can read some interesting reports > written about the MAI by OECD officials. Either way, do it today! > > And if you have more than 2 minutes (which I'm sure most of you do) call > your Congressmembers/elected officials. Ask them what information they have > on the MAI and if they have been consulted in the negotiations. Tell them > your concerns - that the MAI liberalizes investment flows without holding > corporations accountable for their actions; that the MAI will cause greater > capital flight, environmental degredation and exploitation of labor; that > the negotiations have been conducted in virtual secrecy without the > scrutiny of citizens, elected oficials, the media and NGOs. > > To get you real fired up before sending your email to the OECD and placing > your calls to your representatives, the following are some quotes I pulled > off the OECD web site written by officials involved in the MAI > negotiations: > > "...90 per cent of the text of the Agreement has been essentially > completed..." > > "By the OECD Ministerial meeting in late May, our Ministers will be able to > take note of the advanced state of the texts of all the major elements of > the agreement with only a limited number of open issues" > > "The MAI will cover all phases of investment, including the entry and > post-establishment phase and will include stronger dispute settlement > provisions." > > In reference to MFN and GATS, "...the scope of the MAI is much broader than > these agreements since it includes all economic sectors, including > manufacturing and natural resources as well as services." > > Refering to the context of the Ministerial meeting this weekend: "The > issues are set in a current context of a rapidly globalising world driven > by the twin forces of technology, investment and trade. Governments must > adapt quickly to these new realities." > > "Trade and investment are the driving forces behind globalisation creating > a 'borderless world.'" > > > 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] > > *To receive reports, updates and articles on the Multilateral Agreement on > Investments (MAI), subscribe to the MAI listserv. Write to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] reading ONLY: > subscribe MAI-NOT your name organization state > ie: subscribe MAI-NOT Chantell Taylor Public Citizen DC > >
[PEN-L:10287] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1997 RELEASED TODAY: The U.S. Import Price Index decreased 0.9 percent in April. The monthly decline was the fourth in a row with both petroleum and nonpetroleum import prices contributing to the April drop. The U.S. Export Price Index declined 0.6 percent in April, led by falling agricultural export prices The Wall Street Journal has a front-page article that says the gains in productivity and profits curb inflation despite pay increases The Fed left interest rates alone because firms are more robust and the overall economic climate is benign A look at businesses that are raising wages suggests, so far, that there isn't much to fear. Many employers, ranging from computer makers to fast-food companies, are boosting efficiency fast enough to afford the higher pay. Others are using hefty profits to pay wage increases. Few seem compelled, or able, to match them with price increases Economy wide, wage increases have been modest. In the past year, the government's best gauge of wage and benefit costs, the employment cost index, is up just 0.2 percent after inflation. That compares with a 0.1 percent decline in the prior 12 months and no change in the 12 months before that. (Inflation-adjusted wages alone are up at a 0.6 percent rate so far this year, compared with 0,3 percent last year). Adjusted by the prices of goods and services they produce -- as opposed to those they consume -- workers' compensation rose 0.8 percent in the past year, the government says. Over time, economists say, workers' wages can't rise faster than their productivity, their output per hour worked, without triggering inflation. According to the best estimates, productivity is rising about 1 percent a year. That suggests that, however pay is measured, employers can afford to raise wages faster than they have been. And though statistics on productivity don't show an upward trend, anecdotal evidence suggests that its growth is beginning to accelerate, increasing employers' ability to boost wages without boosting prices. Moreover, some economists say pay growth could safely exceed productivity growth temporarily to offset past short-falls __The Washington Post (page C13) says stock prices jumped back to near-record territory as investors applauded the Fed's decision not to raise short-term interest __The New York Times (page A1) says the Fed voted to leave interest rates unchanged, betting that the economy was slowing sufficiently to avert a resurgence of inflation __The Wall Street Journal (page A2) reports that the Fed, apparently convinced that the economy is likely to slow enough on its own to avoid an acceleration of inflation, decided to leave its key short-term interest rate unchanged It's a riddle wrapped in a mystery. With U.S. unemployment at a 24-year low, you might think wages would be taking off. Yet labor costs have remained unusually subdued -- leading experts to speculate that some new development is inhibiting wage demands. While the explanation du jour seems to be widespread job insecurity, one trend clearly deserves more attention: an unexpected leap in the labor force. After posting gains of just 1.3 million a year from 1993 to 1995, the labor force -- people working or seeking work -- has grown by 3.7 million in the past 16 months. That's more than twice as fast as the working-age population Labor force participation has been rising among nearly all demographic groups It appears that better job prospects and widespread wage gains are luring many discouraged workers back into the job market (Business Week, May 26, pg. 30). Christopher Cornwell, University of Georgia, and Peter Rupert, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, followed a sample of men from their late teens through their mid-30s. In line with other studies, they found that married men earned 6 to 7 percent more than their unmarried peers of similar age, education, experience, and background. When the researchers looked at wage trends over time, however, they found that married and single men's paths were similar. That is, married men's wages rose no faster than their single peers. And, when they looked at married men's earnings in the years before they tied the knot, they found that their wages were already higher than those of the men who stayed single. In short, the study suggests that men who tend to get married already possess qualities that are rewarded by employers (responsibility, discipline, and loyalty) before they "tie the knot." To the extent that their wages rise a bit, the gain seems to reflect a one-time increase in the time devoted to work (Business Week, May 26, pg. 30). Among several factors likely to restrain inflation in the months ahead, says a Citibank economist, is the low price of oil. Since early January, he notes, the tab for a barrel has plunged from
[PEN-L:10288] Performance requirements
I've been meaning to respond to one of Doug's missives from last week, but have neglected to do so. Doug asked (rhetorically? sarcastically?) whether folks really are opposed to increased international trade per se, citing the example of Japanese car manufacturers setting up production facilities in the U.S. and asking what was wrong with this activity. (Correct me if I'm misstating your question, Doug.) I don't know of anyone who opposes foreign investment per se. What I, for one, am concerned about, is the neoliberal/deregulatory impact of the international "trade" deals that are being negotiated today. One key deleterious effect of these pacts is that they are explicitly designed to prevent countries from imposing performance requirements (environmental, mandatory investment, job creation, etc.) on foreign companies. The fact that Japanese car companies are setting up show in the States can be attributed at least in part to the pressure from the U.S. government on Japanese car companies to reduce their imports of cars produced in Japan. A major reason for this pressure to reduce imports has been concern that the high level of Japanese imports was putting enormous downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. In other words, in this case Washington was de facto imposing a performance requirement on Japanese car manufacturers. Given its economic clout, the U.S. is in a position to do this unilaterally. But ironically, it is precisely this kind of activity -- forcing foreign companies to set up shop domestically if they want access to a country's domestic market -- that the new international "trade" deals are designed to prevent. Cheers, Sid Shniad
[PEN-L:10286] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1997 An article, "Engine of Economic Change" by Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post (page C1), says that "thriving Milwaukee challenges the Fed's assumptions about inflation Despite a tight labor market that should give workers the upper hand, base wages are rising modestly, the cost of living is holding steady, and the prices charged by many companies are going down, not up. The experience in Milwaukee offers a direct challenge to the traditional Fed view that strong economic growth and tight labor markets inevitably lead to higher wages, and higher wages inevitably lead to higher prices. And it demonstrates how thoroughly inflationary expectations have been wrung out of the economic pipeline Summer jobs go begging, as unemployment stays very low, says The Wall Street Journal in its page A1 "Work Week" column With unemployment at 4.9 percent, and companies working hard to fill even good full-time jobs, managers are scrambling to fill summer jobs _The same feature says that the number of major work stoppages in the U.S. -- strikes and lockouts affecting at least 1,000 people -- rose to 37 last year, up from a record low of 31 in 1995, according to BLS. In a quiet workplace revolution, many small and midsize businesses are leasing their workers from professional employer organizations. The shift is changing the employee-employer relationship Companies that lease workers are growing by such bounds that they will employ 37 million by 2007, up from 3.5 million in 1995, according to the article. Go to work for one, and you will report to the same job at the same place and to the same manager. But you will have to resign your present employer. Your new employer of record -- which keeps personnel files and has the ultimate authority to hire and fire -- will be Staff Leasing, Administaff, or another of the companies scrambling to establish themselves in this new industry. Although it's best known as employee leasing, the industry now calls itself professional employer organization (PEOs) in a bid to improve its image after a decade of fraud and bankruptcy. Don't confuse PEOs with temporary agencies. PEOs don't send over a few workers when things get busy. PEOs permanently employ everyone at a small company from the president down Why will so many go to work for PEO companies? Because many small company owners are tired of being distracted with human resources headaches, such as workers' compensation, family and medical leave laws, and discrimination lawsuits (USA Today, page 1B). Just 12 percent of facilities managers say their workplace has a child-care area, according to a graph in USA Today (page 1B). Most common building and grounds amenities provided employees are shown: 68 percent have a cafeteria, 56 percent have a lounge, 52 percent have an outside eating area, 47 percent have a smoking area, and 43 percent have an art collection. DUE OUT TOMORROW: U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes -- April 1997
[PEN-L:10284] democracy & planning (II)
I'll skip most of what Max said in this thread because Bill Lear already answered it. I agreed with all or almost all of what he said -- and it would be tedious to go through what Bill said to figure out if there are any points that need to be strengthened or dropped. I'll stick to the technical details of planning. Before I get into that, I want to emphasize one of my points from the thread awhile back on utopias. I do NOT see the planning scheme as ever being realized exactly as described. More importantly, I do NOT wish to impose this scheme on the democratic organizations of popular power that are absolutely necessary to the establishment of (democratic) socialism. Rather, the point of such utopian dreaming is to provide grist for the popular discussion, to help people decide for themselves how they want the society and economy organized before they actually have to do the job of organizing it. (I also agree with the point that most real-world planning (by corporations, governments, etc.) is basically a matter of public relations. However, we should strive to make planning real and democratic. We have to figure out ways to make democratic means more effective.) Max wrote: >>I tried to put JD on the spot by asking how a specific relative price would be determined under so-called democratic planning. He then devoted three paragraphs on how a plan of democratic but otherwise unknown origin would set a production quota for a single good.<< For someone who didn't read my original message, the above might lead to a distorted image. You _asked_ about a single good, so I talked about a single good. I also made it very clear that I was not trying to give a complete description of planning (being far from an expert on the subject). For that, Max should go read Pat (NR) Devine or Albert & Hahnel. Or the market socialists, some of whom explain how "transitional planning" (see below) might work. I did not simply talk about setting of a production quota but how it would be applied, involving both workers' control and consumer choice. Max had asserted (if I understand and remember him correctly) that planning and workers' control were like oil and water and couldn't be mixed (except temporarily). Refuting that assertion was the main point of my comment. Now Max wants me to be a substitute for a professor of planning. The plan was of course of "unknown origin" because I can't say what people will decide the plan should entail; that's up to them. The phrase "tried to put JD on the spot" implies that I weaseled out of answering the question. The only thing I avoided was the specific issue of a workers' co-op deciding to charge too high a price. But if a co-op tries to charge too high a price (meaning requiring too many ration coupons given the quality of their product), consumers won't buy the product. In the end, the "price" is limited by "demand" (what consumers are willing to put up with) and "supply" (the cost to the co-op of producing the item). I had said: > Consumers would decide which co-op to buy from, rejecting the X that is of low quality. Those co-ops who produced products of sufficiently high quality would be able to sell them and redeem the ration coupons for money (or other kinds of ration coupons) from the planning authority, thus covering costs. . . .< Max asks: >>HOW MUCH money, who decides, and how?<< and >>Who says what costs are?<< Good question, even though it goes beyond the original issue (i.e., Max's implication of the impossibility of democratic planning). The general principles of what determines the costs would or (or should) be decided upon democratically. The planners would then decide how these principles work _in practice_. The top planners should be elected (and subject to recall) in order to make sure that they obey the popular will. Albert & Hahnel's planning scheme also tries to automate the process so that human decisions play a minimal role. The way I would set costs in this hypothetical schema is as follows: the resource cost per unit that is paid for in resource markets (either in terms of money or in terms of ration coupons, or both) MINUS the external costs involved in the production of the product. The extent and nature of external costs has to be decided democratically, perhaps in an Albert/Hahnel way. Wages would be set centrally, but there might be an opportunity for a co-op to benefit from excellent quality production. I had said: >If quality could be quantified (which of course it cannot), one might think of the ratio of number of coupons to quality of X as a "price." In the example, consumers play a big role in determining this "ratio" in a quasi-demand and supply scenario. Individual co-ops would have limited effect on this ratio.< Max writes: >>Quality has nothing to do with the basic problem. "Planning" comes down to using markets to ration preset allotments of consumer goods. << The introduction of planning and rationing coupons into the "markets" m
[PEN-L:10283] Re: The general election in Ireland
Dear Comrades: Just some hasty comments on the general election camapign in Ireland. In the run-up to the general election in Ireland which takes place on June the 6th next the principal bourgeois parties are competing with each other concerning the income tax reduction packages they promise to seek implement if they form the next government. The packages may look attractive to elements within the electorate. However the attractiveness is a an illusion created by the res of the purgeoisie to hoodwingk the masses.What is not made so clear is that these tax packages are in many respects a variation on the very tax package agreed to by the government, the employers and the trade union movement in what is known as Partnership 2000. In effect then these parties are offering essentailly nothing much beyond what has been already agreed to. This means that they are essentially offering the electorate nothing in this respect. Indeed each of these individual parties will be unable to implement their particular package even if they form part of the next Irish government since they will more than likely have to negotiate a government tax programme with their coalition partner or partners. Furthermore they will also have to negotiate with both the employers and the trade union movement concerning any future tax package especially if it is to be linked in with the level of wage increases. Consequently the outcome will be a substantively modified version of what is being offered by any of these parties. Then there is the question of how serious these parties are concerning seeking to implement their respective tax reduction packages if they are in the next government. When all is said and done then the party political tax packages amount to very little. Indeed the entire attempt to bribe the electorate is essentially a fraud. Significantly they nor the bourgeois media never mention the possibility of conpenstating for any shortafall in inocme tax revenue by raising indirect taxes Apart from all this the whole question of the link between tax reductions, state borrowing and spending has been conveniently ignored by these parties. Parties that have been ranting on over the need to control state spending have now to all intents and purposes ditched this consideration. The tax packages assume things which are unassumable such as the Irish economy continuing to sustain boom conditions over the given period. They also fail to take account of the fact that EU structural funds invested in Ireland will not granted to Ireland on as large as scale as before. In short basing the election campaign principally on the issue of taxation is fraudulent and in a sense irresponsible. The Green Party in many ways shares much in common with these parties. It promises, if in government, to reduce taxation considerably while enormously increasing state spending and eliminating the national debt. Nothing could be so absurd. It is imposible for capitalism to achieve this. Furthermore they promise to introduce a safe food culture, eco-friendly technology to industry. Even if they could achieve these promises inflation would rise which would impact seriously on the other above mentioned promises. But the point is that multinational giants are not going to be dictated to by a puny Irish state concerning safe food and eco-friendly technology. Profit maximisation is their goal not meeting people's needs The Green Party is a cpatilais party in the sense that it does not subscribe to the elimantion of the capital relations and its replacement by the socialist communal relation. It miselads the masess bys susggesting that capitalism is radically reformable into a good guy capitalist social system. This is poppycock. Karl Carlile Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:10280] Re: planning and democracy
Max: You could profitably look at either Pat Devine's model of democratic planning he calls negotiated coordination (Democratic Planning, Westview 1988) or Mike Albert and my model of participatory planning (The Political Economy of Participatory Economics, Princeton, 1991). Both treatments deal with most of the "impossibility theorem" red-herrings you have been offering in this debate. FYI every market socialist I know of these days has conceded the technical possibility of democratic or participatory planning and now objects on grounds of "too much trouble" and/or "too unfree" compared to one or another version of market socialism. But most of your objections have been answered and others no longer raise them. Hence, Lear's growing impatience.
