Re: Dilbert

[maxsaw]

> Date:  Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:15:46 -0500
> Reply-to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From:  Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:   Re: Dilbert

> Dilbert is a perfect way for cubicle-bound office drones to blow off steam
> in a socially harmless way. The author's politics are a perfect fit for the
> way the cartoon is consumed. Don't rebel, don't unionize - laugh at the
> stupid boss!

I said this was a waste of time, and here I am
wasting more time.  My brain goes into low-
power consumption mode after 8 pm.

Laughter can be prelude to rebellion.
I hypothesize that desperation and gloom
less often are.  I would bet that an office of 
'Dilbert' readers are more likely to unionize 
than an office of 'zippy the pinhead' fans.

The hierarchical structure of Dilbert bears
some review.

The boss is a perfect idiot, but he's the least
of the power structure.  At the top of the food
chain is Dogbert and his 'special body of
armed men,' Bob the Dinasaur.  Dogbert
is able to con and/or intimidate everyone
and is a reasonable model of the fundamental
illegitimacy of the social order and the market.
He routinely sells products utterly lacking in 
utility.  Bob the D of course is pure physical 
force, amoral and relentless; his specialty is 
wedgies, which he is even capable of delivering 
over the phone lines.  Then there is Catbert, 
"evil director of human resources." who offers 
nothing in the way of workplace productivity and 
devotes himself to tormenting workers for the 
pure pleasure of it, emphasizing the alienation 
of the w.c. at the point of production and the 
amorality of capitalism.  Finally there is 
Ratbert, a complete sucker, the apotheosis of the 
helpless victim of corporate culture.

Then there are the gallant workers.
There is the female engineer with the
big hair, a worthy representative of
assertive feminism.  There is Wally,
who resists and survives by reveling in his 
unpro-ductivity.  And finally there is Dilbert
himself, who routinely ridicules his
boss to his face without the latter's
knowledge and still manages to get
his job done.  He is clearly more 
qualified to run the company than the boss 
himself, though it is not clear he could best the 
diabolical genius Dogbert in quasi-competitive 
markets.  Which points up the need for radical 
solutions to the likes of Dogbert and his goon 
Bob.

Some reactionaries have produced great
art, and some draw pretty good comic strips.

Next week we can tackle an advanced subject like 
the dialectics of Dirty Harry.

MBS
==
Max B. Sawicky   Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200
202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-0819 (fax)   Washington, DC  20036

Opinions here do not necessarily represent the
views of anyone associated with the Economic
Policy Institute.
===

Re: Dilbert

[Doug Henwood]

Dilbert is a perfect way for cubicle-bound office drones to blow off steam
in a socially harmless way. The author's politics are a perfect fit for the
way the cartoon is consumed. Don't rebel, don't unionize - laugh at the
stupid boss!

Doug

Re: Decaying Capitalist Economy

[Dave Markland]

>Shawgi wrote: 
>> > The other major problem caused by the basic internal
>> >contradiction is that private ownership of the means of
>> >production determines that the motive behind production is the
>> >creation of maximum capitalist profit. 
>> 
>> (snip)
>> 
>> > As long as there is class society, as 
>> >long as there is private ownership of the means of production there
cannot be
>> >efficient use of the productive forces. 
>> 
>> The lesson of Yugoslavia shows us the problem with such statements (as well
>> as the myopia of "Market Socialism").  They eliminated private ownership but
>> kept the market, resulting in the inefficiencies of that social construct.
>> further, the market deepened class divisions in society.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> dave
>> 

Shawgi wrote:
>   Dave, I don't understand your observation here. 

I was pointing to the dubiousness of an assertion like "as long as there is
private ownership of the means of production there cannot be efficient use
of the productive forces".  In a system of Market Socialism (which I know
you did not mention, but it helps illustrate my point), there is no private
ownership but we don't see "efficient use of productive forces".  Thus,
eliminating private ownership is at best a necessary, but not sufficient
cause of efficient use of productive forces.

Sorry for the confusion- i was trying to keep it short.

Regards,
Dave

re: dialectics, etc.

[Ajit Sinha]

At 08:49 8/12/97 -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
>Concerning the Marx's early 1844 EPM on alienation vs. his later CAPITAL,
>Ajit Sinha writes: 
>
>>But i think there is a difference here. In the *Manuscript* alienation is
>seen as a natural process of Man realising his potential, reappropreating
>himself. It is kind of a jurney of self realization. As a child recognizes
>himself first in the face of his father, similarly Man in the very process
>of reproducing his life alienates himself from nature, then society, and
>then his creativity in the process of history only to regain his species
>being--which is being a natural being, a social being, and a creative
>being--at the historical third stage of communism. The fact that Capital
>dehumanizes workers and turns them into an appendage to the machine will
>not be denied or protested against either by Althusser or myself or any
>variety of Marxists. The question is that, whether this is seen as an
>essential process of Man's self-realization? The question is whether the
>problematic in *Capital* is a humanist problematic, concerned with self-
>realization of Man? <
>
>I think that Marx's views definitely changed between the EPM and CAPITAL,
>especially with his theses on Feuerbach and his (with Engels) GERMAN
>IDEOLOGY, where German idealism and Feuerbach are criticized and
>transformed. However, I don't think that the idea of self-realization is
>abolished as much as transformed. 
>
>In the EPM, disalienation ("self-realization of Man") seems almost an
>individual process, with the distinction between individual and class fuzzy
>(at least to me). On the other hand, in later work, it shows up as a
>clearly collective process, the collective self-liberation of the working
>class as a whole as summed up by Marx's slogan that "the emancipation of
>the working class must be won by the working class itself." See Hal
>Draper's KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION (especially vol. II, 1978: ch. 6)
>for exegesis of Marx's (and Engels') political ideas. Once workers liberate
>themselves, as noted in the 1848 MANIFESTO (again with Engels), "the free
>development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (p.
>491 of the second edition of Tucker's MARX-ENGELS READER). It's clear (to
>me) that Marx envisioned some kind of collective disalienation,
>self-realization. 
_

Just a few brief points:

1. In the passage quoted from *Capital* by Harry it is quite clear that the
*cause* of so-called 'alienation' or rather dehumanization is capital. In
the EPM, however, it is the alienation that is the cause of capital--
Capital comes into being due to alienation rather than the other way round.

2. The big problem we need to solve is whether the concept of *class* can
be reduced, at some level, to the concept of *Man*. If not, then there is a
theoretical problem in drawing a direct link from the EPM to *Capital*. As
you have suggested above, in EPM the distinction between individual and
class is fuzzy. I think this fuzzyness exists in the *German Ideology* as
well. Apparently, the fuzzyness is between the concept of social division
of labor and class division. Since social division of labor is explained on
the basis of the natural individual division of labor, the conflation is a
serious one. In *Capital* the social division of labor and the class
division are defined on very different footings. And this leads to the
theoretical question I have been raising. I have discussed this issue in my
recent paper in *Research in Political Economy* as well. Cheers, ajit sinha

Re: Subversive symbol? II

[Max B. Sawicky]

> From:  valis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > What a colossal waste of time to get diverted by this.
> 
> Nope, it scarcely took a moment, 
> but dare one speak of colossal wastes of time on these premises? 

Touche.
 
> > Next we'll have, 'why television cop shows aren't
> > revolutionary art.'  Oh wait.  We already did that.
> 
> Then what about, `How the social profile of the armed forces 
> has markedly changed, and what this could mean politically'?

Answer:  a) black; b) nothing.

Cheers,

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
http://tap.epn.org/sawicky

Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===

Re: The strike at German Universities goes on

[Dennis R Redmond]

On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Sid Shniad posted:

> > Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 09:48:57 -0800
> > From: Andreas Hippin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: The strike at German Universities goes on
> > 
> > 100.000 FIGHT BACK THE NEOLIBERAL ATTACK ON EDUCATION IN GERMANY
(text cut)
> > In contrary to 1968 today's generation of student protestors isn't
> > decided yet whether to try to negotiate all the way through the
> > institutions like their predecessors did. Confronted with the arrogance
> > of the former rebels who denounce their protests as "apolitical" or
> > "economic demands" there is a sense of confrontation growing stronger
> > amongst today's protestors. More and more students consider themselves
> > part of job-qualifying schemes which makes it simpler to connect their
> > actions with other people's struggles against social cutbacks.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Central Europe is going to be
a central vortex of the class struggles of the 21st century. All this is
going down in a country which probably has the most generous social
subsidies and welfare payments in the world; universities are still free,
health insurance is subsidized and available for all; social benefits and
housing subsidies still exist; and 30% of the workforce is unionized.
Yeah, the Kohl Government has snipped and cut at the welfare state,
but the thing still exists and has even regrown, like any good radical
hydra, the shorn-off tentacles of long-term unemployment compensation in
things like hospice and elder care, as well as disability benefits. It's
all just several hundred thousand light-years away from the kind of
brutal, degenerate, neoliberal savagery unleashed by the Clinton thugs on
AFDC recipients and welfare kids.

Actually, the German students are about two years behind the French,
who've been raising an inordinate amount of hell over in the Hexagon for
awhile now. Look for similar outbursts in Spain, Italy and the richer
parts of Eastern Europe in the near future, as the popular rejection of
Maastricht monetarism builds, and the dismal hegemony of the Eurorentiers
is suddenly confronted with the one power on earth capable of kicking its
ass: Eurosocialism, a.k.a. the dragon of Red-Green mobilization, is taking
wing, and its trajectory is going to change the course of the planet.

-- Dennis

Re: Barrons on monthly effect

[Jay Hecht]

Jim,

Which Barrons article had the stuff on "December effect." RE: Seasonal
Adjustment, the guys I work with (actuaries) refuse to deal with the Gov't
Seas Adjust problem; they'll take a lot more autoregression from using 4QMA's
rather than the stupid revisions due to bizarre seasonal factors.  While I use
the "official" seasonal adjustment algorithms (e.g. X-11 w/wo trend), the fact
that the gov't only uses 3 years of data for monthly seasonal factors is a
problem.

Bottom line - use yr/yr growth rates for monthly data!

Jason 

Bad Risks and Profitability

[Jay Hecht]

In a message dated 97-12-08 13:56:25 EST, you write:

<< 
 This is also true, incidentally, of banks, who tend to make money on only a
 very small portion of their checking account clients.  These are yet two of
 many examples of why the unrelenting chorus of "let's have more competition
 and we'll all do better" is such bullshit.
  >>

Actually, you can make money on unprofitable risks - provided you charge
higher rates to reflect the higher variance in expected costs.  The non-
standard (i.e. risky) auto market is highly profitable for a number of
insurers (e.g. Progressive, Integon).  The problem is to keep the "better"
sub-standard risks from migrating to a preferred insurer.  Rates and risk
classifications should be designed (according to the actuaries) so that thet
are not "unfairly discriminatory" (actual wording of statute!).  So while
skimming preferred risks is desirable, it is not a necessary condition for
profitability - what is necessary is an understanding of the loss distribution
and associated expected value.

Jason

Re: Subversive symbol? III

[valis]

> > > Next we'll have, 'why television cop shows aren't
> > > revolutionary art.'  Oh wait.  We already did that.
> > 
> > Then what about, `How the social profile of the armed forces 
> > has markedly changed, and what this could mean politically'?
> 
> Answer:  a) black; b) nothing.

Words fail me on both ends, apparently.  
Time to seek some real communication 
with a chimp or macaw, preferably a Hayekian. 

valis

Re: Straight talk from William Greider

[Michael Eisenscher]

Balance of the article is provided below.

At 02:52 PM 12/9/97 -0600, valis wrote:
>Appearing in The Nation:
>
>
>SAVING THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
>
>By WILLIAM GREIDER
>December 15, 1997

>
>Enough. Americans will be infuriated, I expect, when they grasp what's
>happening. Progressives should propose some forward-looking bargaining 
>demands the public can support. No bailout money until the borrowing 
>nations undertake concrete reforms on labor rights. No more financial 
>relief for banking and capital markets unless they concede the centrality 
>of the w
>
>cdp ignored 5566 excess bytes
>
>[Greider's analysis, as received, stops here and thus.
> Is anyone able to supply the conclusion?
> valis] 


Enough. Americans will be infuriated, I expect, when they grasp what's
happening. Progressives should propose some
forward-looking bargaining demands the public can support. No bailout money
until the borrowing nations undertake concrete
reforms on labor rights. No more financial relief for banking and capital
markets unless they concede the centrality of the wage
problem, the need for capital controls and other reforms. If bankers spurn
these proposals, let them eat their own losses.

A U.S.-financed rescue of the deeply corrupt Suharto regime in Indonesia
seems especially obscene. His bloody record runs
from massacres in East Timor to the brutal smashing of Indonesia's
independent labor movement. At the moment, the heroic
leader of Indonesia's independent labor federation, Muchtar Pakpahan, is in
prison and gravely ill, charged with "subversion," a
capital offense. His movement has been crippled, perhaps beyond recovery,
but he refuses to give up. Will our Treasury
Secretary ask Suharto to free Pakpahan when he signs off on the loan? Will
our President? (In fact, Representative Bernie
Sanders charges that the I.M.F. loan being speeded to Indonesia is illegal.
A 1994 law sponsored by Sanders and
Representative Barney Frank requires the United States to insist that labor
rights be an element considered in all I.M.F. workout
loans.)

Capital Controls: Restoring Stability 
Whatever happens next, the globalizing financial markets will continue to
produce panics and collapses until some moderation is
imposed on the lightning-quick flows of capital across borders. How many
times must the world flirt with breakdown before
governments recognize that unregulated capital is dangerous? Rescuing
reckless investors with periodic bailouts does not
produce either stability or equity.

The desire for national controls has growing support among developing
countries held hostage by the quirky enthusiasms of
foreign capital. But even the largest developing nations, like Brazil, dare
not express their anxiety--not in the present crisis. If
they did, they would be savaged by global finance for apostasy.

So, Americans have to open this subject for debate because it is our
orthodoxy that rules; our bankers who are demanding that
other governments surrender sovereign control of their domestic financial
systems. Reviving controls on foreign exchange might
include modest transaction taxes that will yield enormous revenues while
nicking the profits of speculators. At a minimum, poor
nations need the right to impose temporary controls on capital when they are
faced with panic flight or speculative assaults.
Capital controls would not stop development and foreign investment but would
restore some accountability to the system.

Corporate Loyalty: The Buried Contradiction 
Americans already know that premier multinationals--I.B.M., Boeing, General
Electric and others--are determined to become
known as "global" corporations rather than U.S. ones. Yet it is still U.S.
taxpayers who pony up billions in direct subsidies and tax
breaks for these same companies, even as they shed ever more U.S. workers.
Leading exporters have even demanded that the
Export-Import Bank relax or abolish its U.S.-content rules so that they can
use more foreign labor in their "U.S. exports."

It's time to force a showdown on this issue: Target the various forms of
public subsidy for these corporations and abolish them,
perhaps shifting the aid to smaller domestic enterprises. If the
multinationals want to offer a compromise or alter their globalizing
strategies, that's fine, let's talk. But the old claim that exports
translate into general prosperity should no longer be believed,
because it no longer matches reality.

Confronting the 'Dark Satanic Mills' 
Lurid examples of the random inhumanity in global production are abundant
and not restricted to sweatshops. We are talking
about elementary matters like fire protection in factories and control of
toxic chemicals, or simply obeying labor laws. None of the
abusive behavior by major corporations is necessary to global commerce or to
anyone's prosperity. It continues because no one
stops it. Americans can.

We can start by imposing some firm rules on U.S.-based
companies-

Re: Subversive symbol? II

[valis]

> What a colossal waste of time to get diverted by this.

Nope, it scarcely took a moment, 
but dare one speak of colossal wastes of time on these premises? 
 
> Next we'll have, 'why television cop shows aren't
> revolutionary art.'  Oh wait.  We already did that.

Then what about, `How the social profile of the armed forces 
has markedly changed, and what this could mean politically'?

  valis

Re: Subversive symbol?

[Max B. Sawicky]

> From:  valis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> ===> Norman Solomon, reachable at [EMAIL PROTECTED], is a writer 
>  dedicated to alerting us about the perverse relationship between
>  politics and public language, a realm now almost wholly taken up 
>  by the covert combat of spin doctors.  . . .

I like Solomon's work and haven't read his book, but
from your post it sounds like much ado about nothing.
I follow Dilbert religiously and never got the impression
that it was in great part supposed to be about corporate 
downsizing.

Dilbert is funny because it's about the idiocy of 
bureaucratic culture in general and the natural follies
people who happen to be in a corporate/technical
environment.  Note that most Dilbert strips could be about
workers in a public agency, a non-profit, or, for that
matter, a progressive think tank.

What a colossal waste of time to get diverted by this.

Next we'll have, 'why television cop shows aren't
revolutionary art.'  Oh wait.  We already did that.

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
http://tap.epn.org/sawicky

Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===

The whole Greider article

[Sid Shniad]

The Nation  December 15, 1997

SAVING THE GLOBAL ECONOMY 

By William Greider

Converging events in U.S. politics and the global economy have 
created a watershed moment, I believe: a time to teach and agitate but also 
to think anew about what is possible--and not just for Americans but for 
those distant others who make the goods we buy.
The House Democrats' defeat of fast-track trade authority for the 
President demonstrates that, given the muddled condition of America's 
party alignments, the liberal-left-labor minority has real political leverage, if 
it clearly understands the principles it is defending. Minority leader Richard 
Gephardt, A.F.L.-C.I.O. chief John Sweeney and the others who joined to 
thwart Clinton and the financial-business elites have reignited our 
optimism.
The fast-track politics resonates like a loud warning bell for the 
establishment because it coincides with the gathering crisis in the global 
system itself. Multinational commerce and capital are beginning to grasp 
that they are at a perilous moment, as financial markets deteriorate in Asia 
and Latin America, pulling once-vibrant economies down with them.
The apologists' initial claim that this is some strange "Asian flu"--and 
thus no concern to Americans--is both condescending and ludicrously 
wrong. Americans will pay, dearly and directly, in multiple ways. The 
contagion of collapsing currencies and stock markets is vivid confirmation 
of the new interconnectedness that globalizing corporations and financiers 
have fashioned. But it is also the logical consequence of their reckless, 
unregulated global system.
The system's political stewards (headed by Federal Reserve Chairman 
Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and President Clinton) 
are trying, once again, to patch over the damage before it degenerates into 
something far worse--a worldwide deflationary meltdown. No one can be 
sure they will succeed this time. What we do know is that they are 
proceeding with the same banker's mentality they applied to previous 
crises: Bail out endangered financial institutions and investors, punish 
innocent bystanders with austerity measures and continue to ignore the 
underlying economic and human contradictions that make the global system 
so vulnerable to breakdown.
This is morally wrong, for sure, but it's also potentially dangerous. 
Forcing the usual financial remedies upon the troubled developing 
economies may simply feed the imbalances that already exist, aggravate 
instabilities and possibly set off a chain reaction of collapsing credit and 
economic activity that not even the Federal Reserve Chairman will be able 
to reverse. No one knows where these events are leading, but the world is 
flirting with a historic disaster while U.S. leaders indulge in self-
congratulations.
The first great task is to begin explaining these things clearly. And the 
first message that should be delivered is this: Like it or not, we are all in 
this together now, rich nations and poor alike, all riding on the same 
runaway train. Globalization of markets means there's no place to hide. 
Americans are not going to get out of this--the continuing loss of good 
jobs, the long-term depression of wages--until they learn to think globally, 
and to devise remedies that do not depend on throwing poor people over 
the side.
I emphasize this because, as things get worse and Americans are asked 
to bail out more players (rival trading nations, corrupt dictators, global 
banks and investors), the natural impulse to withdraw from the world and 
defend hearth and home will intensify--and will be encouraged by nostalgic, 
right-wing protectionists. But even if pulling up the bridges were a 
plausible course, it would be profoundly unprogressive. Think, instead, of 
the grand new vistas that have been opened for human relations around the 
world.
The great strategic opportunity before us is to target the fundamental 
fissure that already exists within conservative ranks (free-market reformers 
versus working-class cultural conservatives) and break it wide open. The 
natural majority of citizens in this country are already opposed, in varying 
degrees, to the status quo regime. The challenge is how to mobilize their 
potential leverage over political decisions. When you think about it, many 
Americans have already done pretty well at sorting things out for 
themselves. After all, popular skepticism about the free trade mantra is why 
fast track lost. What follows are suggestions for a progressive offensive.

The Economic Rationale for Labor Rights  

Labor rights is about saving U.S. jobs and about human freedom, for 
sure, but people also must understand that labor rights is fundamentally 
about saving the global economy from its own threatening excesses. If 
workers at the bottom of the global industrial syste

Dilbert

[Sid Shniad]

I heard the author of Dilbert interviewed on national CBC radio a while
back. The guy's a reactionary individualist whose perspective is a kind
of with it cynicism about anything social (i.e. unions, politics, etc.)

I think that too many people embrace his stuff without reading between the
(fairly prominent) lines.

Sid Shniad

> >
> From: valis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 
> > ===> Norman Solomon, reachable at [EMAIL PROTECTED], is a writer 
> >  dedicated to alerting us about the perverse relationship between
> >  politics and public language, a realm now almost wholly taken up 
> >  by the covert combat of spin doctors.  . . .
> 
> I like Solomon's work and haven't read his book, but
> from your post it sounds like much ado about nothing.
> I follow Dilbert religiously and never got the impression
> that it was in great part supposed to be about corporate 
> downsizing.
> 
> Dilbert is funny because it's about the idiocy of 
> bureaucratic culture in general and the natural follies
> people who happen to be in a corporate/technical
> environment.  Note that most Dilbert strips could be about
> workers in a public agency, a non-profit, or, for that
> matter, a progressive think tank.
> 
> What a colossal waste of time to get diverted by this.
> 
> Next we'll have, 'why television cop shows aren't
> revolutionary art.'  Oh wait.  We already did that.
> 
> 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
> http://tap.epn.org/sawicky
> 
> Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
> of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
> Institute other than this writer.
> ===
> 

Straight talk from William Greider

[valis]

Appearing in The Nation:


SAVING THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

By WILLIAM GREIDER
December 15, 1997


Converging events in U.S. politics and the global economy have created 
a watershed moment, I believe: a time to teach and agitate but also to 
think anew about what is possible--and not just for Americans but for 
those distant others who make the goods we buy.

The House Democrats' defeat of fast-track trade authority for 
the President demonstrates that, given the muddled condition of
America's party alignments, the liberal-left-labor minority has real
political leverage, if it clearly understands the principles it is
defending. Minority leader Richard Gephardt, A.F.L.-C.I.O. chief 
John Sweeney and the others who joined to thwart Clinton and
the financial-business elites have reignited our optimism.

The fast-track politics resonates like a loud warning bell for the
establishment because it coincides with the gathering crisis in
the global system itself. Multinational commerce and capital are 
beginning to grasp that they are at a perilous moment, as
financial markets deteriorate in Asia and Latin America, 
pulling once-vibrant economies down with them.

The apologists' initial claim that this is some strange "Asian flu"
--and thus no concern to Americans--is both condescending and
ludicrously wrong. Americans will pay, dearly and directly, 
in multiple ways. The contagion of collapsing currencies and stock
markets is vivid confirmation of the new interconnectedness that 
globalizing corporations and financiers have fashioned. 
But it is also the logical consequence of their reckless, 
unregulated global system.

The system's political stewards (headed by Federal Reserve Chairman 
Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and President Clinton) 
are trying, once again, to patch over the damage before it degenerates 
into something far worse--a worldwide deflationary meltdown. No one 
can be sure they will succeed this time. What we do know is that they 
are proceeding with the same banker's mentality they applied to 
previous crises: Bail out endangered financial institutions and 
investors, punish innocent bystanders with austerity measures and 
continue to ignore the underlying economic and human contradictions 
that make the global system so vulnerable to breakdown.

This is morally wrong, for sure, but it's also potentially dangerous.
Forcing the usual financial remedies upon the troubled developing 
economies may simply feed the imbalances that already exist,
aggravate instabilities and possibly set off a chain reaction of 
collapsing credit and economic activity that not even the
Federal Reserve Chairman will be able to reverse. 
No one knows where these events are leading, but the world 
is flirting with a historic disaster while U.S. leaders 
indulge in self-congratulations.

The first great task is to begin explaining these things clearly. 
And the first message that should be delivered is this: Like it or
not, we are all in this together now, rich nations and poor alike, 
all riding on the same runaway train. Globalization of markets
means there's no place to hide. Americans are not going to get out 
of this--the continuing loss of good jobs, the long-term depression 
of wages--until they learn to think globally, and to devise remedies 
that do not depend on throwing poor people over the side.

I emphasize this because, as things get worse and Americans are asked 
to bail out more players (rival trading nations, corrupt dictators, 
global banks and investors), the natural impulse to withdraw from
the world and defend hearth and home will intensify--and will be 
encouraged by nostalgic, right-wing protectionists.
But even if pulling up the bridges were a plausible course, it would 
be profoundly unprogressive. Think, instead, of the grand new vistas 
that have been opened for human relations around the world.

The great strategic opportunity before us is to target the 
fundamental fissure that already exists within conservative ranks
(free-market reformers versus working-class cultural conservatives) 
and break it wide open. The natural majority of citizens in this 
country are already opposed, in varying degrees, to the status quo
regime. The challenge is how to mobilize their potential leverage 
over political decisions. When you think about it, many Americans
have already done pretty well at sorting things out for themselves. 
After all, popular skepticism about the free trade mantra is why
fast track lost. What follows are suggestions for a progressive 
offensive.


The Economic Rationale for Labor Rights

Labor rights is about saving U.S. jobs and about human freedom, 
for sure, but people also must understand that labor rights is
fundamentally about saving the global economy from its own 
threatening excesses. If workers at the bottom of the global
industrial system don't win the freedom to organize and bargain 
for a fairer share of the returns, then the depression of U.S.
wages will cont

Subversive symbol?

[valis]

===> Norman Solomon, reachable at [EMAIL PROTECTED], is a writer 
 dedicated to alerting us about the perverse relationship between
 politics and public language, a realm now almost wholly taken up 
 by the covert combat of spin doctors. 
 His current accusations against Dilbert cause me neither shock 
 nor sorrow.  Toward the end of the period last year that the 
 little dink spent hanging around this meeting hall I happened
 to brush against him in the elevator, and it was obvious that
 he was wearing a wire, small matter for whom.
 valis
 

[San Francisco Bay Guardian, Nov. 26 - Dec. 2, 1997]
 
DOWNSIZE DILBERT
 
 Oakland author and syndicated media columnist Norman Solomon
has clearly touched a nerve with his new book, "The Trouble With
Dilbert: How Corporate Culture Gets the Last Laugh" (Common
Courage Press, $9.95). The book reveals that the comic strip
character, who has been portrayed as a working class hero by
nearly every major media outlet, is a fraud.
 
 Dilbert's creator, Scott Adams, is unmasked in the book as
an unabashed supporter of corporate downsizing who has said, "My
only intention is for people to transfer money to me."
 
 Adams lives just on the other side of the Caldecott Tunnel
from Solomon, in the exclusive gated community of Blackhawk. He
told us he hadn't read the book but had been following the news
stories about it, and that its contents didn't bother him. "I'm
generally in favor of demagoguery, whether it is [Solomon's] or
mine," Adams told us.
 
 And does he really support corporate downsizing?
 
 "Is there anybody who doesn't?" he replied.
 
 The fact that corporate downsizing is good for the economy
is indisputable, Adams said, adding that anybody with an I.Q. of
more than 80 would agree.
 
 Adams turned down an offer to appear with Solomon on MSNBC
to discuss the book, saying he was busy. Would he agree to a
debate some other time?
 
 "If I didn't have anything better to do For example, I'm
about to get on my StairMaster for a workout. If MSNBC called
right now and asked me to debate Solomon, I'd have to decline."
 
 Despite Adams's dismissive attitude, the Dilbert backlash
may have begun.
 
 "Dilbert, Corporate Stooge?" reads a Nov. 17 Washington Post
headline. New York Newsday went so far as to write an editorial
on the subject titled: "Could Dilbert Be a Capitalist Tool?
Here's How."

Re: U.S. productivity

[Doug Henwood]

Tom Walker wrote:

>Isn't this one for the entire period, rather than an annual average?
>
>>93Q1-97Q3   4.3% 15.3%  (Clinton years)

Ooops. Yeah. In fact the whole bottom half of that table was mislabeled.
Here's the way it should read. A thousand apologies.

Doug



U.S. LABOR PRODUCTIVITY
---
all nonfarm business and manufacturing, through 1997Q3


AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE BY PERIOD
  nonfarm   manuf'g
1947-52
1952-57   2.7%
1957-62   2.2%
1962-67 3.2%  2.7%
1967-72 2.2%  3.9%
1972-77 2.1%  2.9%
1977-82 0.0%  1.1%
1982-87 1.9%  3.9%
1987-92 1.1%  2.1%
1992-97 0.8%  3.0%

1950-60 2.5%  2.2%
1960-70 2.5%  2.6%
1970-80 1.9%  2.9%
1980-90 1.1%  2.8%
1990-97 1.1%  3.1%


CUMULATIVE GROWTH
93Q1-97Q3   4.3% 15.3%  (Clinton years)
1991-97Q3   1.1%  3.1%  (1990s expansion)

26Qs after:*
49Q4   19.2% 15.6%
54Q2   13.6% 12.3%
58Q2   23.3% 21.6%
61Q1   26.4% 23.8%
70Q4   17.5% 24.2%
75Q19.3% 13.9%
82Q49.9% 21.3%
91Q18.6% 23.8%

*length of current expansion; starting points are previous business cycle
troughs

Micro$oft/GTE to Takeover CA University Technology System

[Nathan Newman]

Please Repost

NetAction Action Alert
Dec. 9, 1997
For more info, send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.

MICROSOFT AND CORPORATE ALLIES WANT TO CONTROL CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY'S TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM

-- CETI plan will set up a for-profit corporation with $3.12 billion
in projected revenue

In an unprecedented grab to privatize technology at a public
university, the California State University (CSU) system is moving to
hand control of its inter-campus computer and telecommunications
system to a private consortia managed by Microsoft and its hardware
allies, GTE, Hughes and Fujitsu.

The proposed consortia, called the California Education Technology
Initiative (CETI), will be a for-profit partnership expected to
generate over $3.12 billion in revenues over the next ten years,
largely by creating a captive market for technology purchases by an
estimated half million students, faculty and staff annually.

For more information on the CETI plan, read the attached background and
see:   .

HELP STOP THIS CORPORATE GRAB OF TECHNOLOGY AT A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY!

Hearings are scheduled in the state Assembly on January 6, 1998. Send
a fax to the leadership of the Assembly's Higher Education Committee
and Education Budget Committee.

NetAction has set up an automatic fax server at:


You can also contact the chairmen of these committees on your own to
make your concerns heard:

Assembly Higher Education Chairman Ted Lempert
916-445-7632 (phone)916-324-6974 (fax)
Assembly Education Budget Chairman Jack Scott
916-445-8211 (phone)916-323-9420 (fax)

We also urge you to call the leadership of the state Senate committees
responsible for higher education:

Senate Education Budget Chairman  Jack O'Connell 916-445-5405
Senate Education Committee Chairman Leroy Greene 916-445-7807

While email is less effective, you can send messages to:
Ted Lempert
Jack Scott 
Jack O'Connell 
Leroy Green

NetAction is asking the state Legislature to block the CETI proposal
and establish a computer and telecommunications policy for the state
university system based on the following principles:

1.  There should be no corporate management of educational
institutions by companies with a direct financial interest in the
products purchased by the campuses or students.

2.  Any outside management support should be committed to training
students in a diversity of technologies and be committed to supporting
open computer standards across the board.

3.  Any proposal must include an explicit commitment to full and equal
access to technology on campus regardless of economic ability to pay.

4.  Educational curriculum should be designed by educators dedicated
to the long-term interests of their students, not corporations looking
to lock in "customers" to proprietary software.

5.  No proposal should be approved without a thorough analysis of its
possible impact on technology standards and monopolies outside the
university.

To add your organization's endorsement to NetAction's StopCETI!
campaign, please send your organization's name and contact info to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

BACKGROUND

NetAction, along with staff, faculty and students across the state,
are opposing the CETI proposal as an undemocratic and disastrous
corporate takeover of technology at a public university.

1.  CETI locks campuses into proprietary technology. This ill-serves
education which should be based on open access to a range of
technology.

2.  CETI is a dangerous commercialization of the University that will
cost students, staff and faculty over the long-run and threatens to
increase inequality between richer and poorer students.

3.  Given the size and importance of the California State University
system, CETI's monopoly nature will give Microsoft a massive strategic
advantage in its ongoing effort to monopolize global software and
Internet standards.

The California State University (CSU) will serve over 500,000 students
annually in its 22 campus system within ten years.  Microsoft and its
corporate partners intend to use that captive market and the
endorsement of the CSU system to market products from the enterprise
to CSU students, faculty and alumni and sell its products to
university and business organizations across the country.  The
Business Plan for CETI explicitly notes that "the education market is
a strategically important market for each of the partners," marking
the corporate advantage they will each gain over competitors through
the CETI contract.

For Microsoft, control of the central servers and software standards
for the largest university system in the country will give it an
unprecedented opportunity to expand its control of computing
standards.  Microsoft's monopoly goals are clear in the CETI's plan's
statement. The proposa

BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1997:

The economy added 404,000 nonfarm payroll jobs, seasonally adjusted, and
the unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent in November.  Analysts say
the stronger-than expected employment report indicates the economy is
not slowing as expected.  The unemployment rate fell 0.1 percentage
point to a new 24-year low, tying the rate set in October 1973.  Not
since March 1970 - when the jobless rate was 4.4 percent - has the
unemployment rate been lower.  The November job gain number - derived
from a separate establishment survey - showed the swiftest monthly
advance since February 1996.  Job gains proved widespread in November,
and were not just concentrated in pre-Christmas hiring (Daily Labor
Report, page D-1; Statement of BLS Commissioner Katharine Abraham on the
release of the November Employment Report, page E-1).
__The Washington Post (December 6, page 1) includes an article by John
M. Berry that says the nation's jobless rate fell to 4.6 percent, the
lowest level in more than 24 years, as the economy continued to churn
out hundreds of thousands of new jobs and higher wages each month, the
Labor Department reported.  With inflation still at bay, the Fed has
raised short-term interest rates only once this year, by a
quarter-percentage point, and analysts expect central bank officials to
leave interest rates alone again when they meet December 16.  The major
reason for the lack of action to slow a booming economy is not
complacency about inflation, analysts said, but the uncertainty created
both for financial markets and the U.S. economic outlook by the
financial turmoil in several Asian nations.
__The New York Times (December 6, page 1) carries an article by Robert
D. Hershey, Jr. that says the American economy showed  surprising
strength last month, yet the jump in jobs and wages comes with little
sign of inflation.  And the recent economic troubles in Asia will
probably mean lower-cost imports into the United States, putting further
downward pressure on consumer prices. The number of jobs created was
double what had been forecast.  On page B1 of The Times is an article on
the impact of job data on the financial markets. It says many investors
appear to think bailouts by the International Monetary Fund are
containing the problems in Asia, and that the drag on the American
economy will actually be a benefit, because it could keep the Fed from
raising rates.
__The Wall Street Journal (page A2) reports that the U.S. economy
continued to create jobs at a fairly rapid clip in November, pushing the
unemployment rate down another notch and raising questions about whether
the good news can last much longer given Asia's financial turmoil.Three
charts illustrating the article give BLS as the source of their data.
The Journal's page 1 "The Outlook" feature by Bernard Wysocki, Jr.,
reports that the employment data convinced traders of the strength of
U.S. economic fundamentals, leading them to buy dollars.  A strong
dollar could intensify the trade tensions starting to build between East
and West.  Moreover, a strong dollar will make it harder for U.S.
companies to export to Asia, especially given the weakened state of many
economies.  Next year's U.S. trade deficit could rise about 15 percent,
says a University of Chicago economist.  But even if U.S. imports
increase sharply and U.S. exports turn sluggish, few observers believe
that the Asian crisis will derail America's economic expansion.  
__As the unemployment rate continues its dizzying descent, companies are
digging deeper and deeper into the pool of labor to try to keep up,
raising questions about just how much further they can go. So far,
they're not scraping bottom.  But some economists - and employers - fear
they may be about to, if the economy doesn't slow down first.

Personnel in senators' offices in the Washington area earn only
two-thirds as much as executive branch workers here, a gap that has
grown dramatically during the 1990s, according to a study released today
by the Congressional Management Foundation.  The foundation also reports
that Senate staff members stayed an average of 2.8 years in their
current positions and a total of 5.6 years in congressional offices.
Nearly 40 percent of Senate chiefs of staff have been in their position
2 years or less, according to the study.  "The pay gap is increasing,
while the trend is toward shorter service," said the executive director
of the foundation.  An accompanying chart says that the average pay for
federal workers in the D.C. area has outpaced inflation, while Senate
paychecks have not.  Average pay for Senate jobs in 1997, by occupation,
is listed, as well as the change from 1995, as well as the change from
1995, inflation adjusted (The Washington Post, "The Federal Page," page
A17).
 
The Washington Post's "Odd Jobs" feature (December 7, page H4) reports
that 15 percent of 202 big U.S. companies accept the concept of a
"knowledge organization" - one tha

re: dialectics, etc.

[James Devine]

Ajit writes:>1. In the passage quoted from *Capital* by Harry it is quite
clear that the *cause* of so-called 'alienation' or rather dehumanization
is capital. In the EPM, however, it is the alienation that is the cause of
capital-- Capital comes into being due to alienation rather than the other
way round.<

that's my impression from my reading too. 

But causation can go both ways as part of a dynamic (dialectical) process.
Capitalist exploitation and the production of surplus-value -- the
developed form that alienation takes in CAPITAL, which is based on the
domination of labor by capital in production, which dehumanizes labor --
allows the expansion of capital. Then, the expansion of capital allows the
further dehumanization of labor. 

To my mind, much of the EPM and CAPITAL are complementary rather than in
conflict.

>2. The big problem we need to solve is whether the concept of *class* can
be reduced, at some level, to the concept of *Man*. If not, then there is a
theoretical problem in drawing a direct link from the EPM to *Capital*. <

the theoretical link would involve Marx breaking with Feuerbach, studying
the empirical world in much greater detail, reading and criticizing
political economy, etc. Marx's vision became clearer over time, as he
preserved some of the aspects of his earlier works and expunged or
transformed others. But as far as I can tell, there is no complete
rejection of the EPM's conceptions. 

I don't see humanism -- which centers on the concept of "Man" (abstract
humanity) as conflicting at all with Marx's later perspective, in CAPITAL
and the like. This can be seen in the fact that he saw not only the
workers, but the capitalists as alienated, so that all of humanity is
alienated under capitalism: capitalists suffer from the fetishism of
commodities, the illusions created by competition. Further, they are
"accumulation machines" -- unless they want to drop out of their class. See
Bertell Ollman, ALIENATION, 1976, ch. 23 for more on capitalist alienation.  

Clearly, the capitalists' alienation is qualitatively different from that
of workers, but in the end they share the characteristic of being humans. 

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.

Re: U.S. productivity

[Tom Walker]

Isn't this one for the entire period, rather than an annual average?

>93Q1-97Q3   4.3% 15.3%  (Clinton years)

Regards, 

Tom Walker
^^^
knoW Ware Communications
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 688-8296 
^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/

The strike at German Universities goes on (fwd)

[Sid Shniad]

> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 09:48:57 -0800
> From: Andreas Hippin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: The strike at German Universities goes on
> 
> 100.000 FIGHT BACK THE NEOLIBERAL ATTACK ON EDUCATION IN GERMANY
> 
> More than 40.000 students and pupils took part in a manifestation on
> Thursday in Duesseldorf, the capital of the federal state of
> Northrhine-Westphalia. Traffic came to a standstill while student
> protestors were marching through the central business district to the
> state assembly. More than 100.000 took to the streets in Germany as a
> whole to fight back the fiscal attack on education. 
> 
> Although Anke Brunn, the social democrat secretary for education had
> left the social democrats annual convention in Hannover to discuss with
> the students the protestors made it very clear that they would not talk
> to her. Anke Brunn is responsible for all the cutbacks in education in
> the state of Northrhine-Westphalia. Her party is as eager to streamline
> higher education according to the interests of the industry as the
> conservatives are.
> 
> The introduction of tuition fees would make it impossible for children
> from poorer families to get a university education. University education
> in Germany is still free of charge at the moment, but the conditions
> students have to study under are miserable. Apart from overcrowded
> seminars and lectures many professors are neither willing nor able to
> fulfill their obligations in teaching. 
> 
> The contents of education is trimmed according to the demands of mighty
> sponsors, e.g. the WestLB, a major bank, pays for an academic chair
> dealing with "Modern China" at the University of Duesseldorf. Kloeckner
> and Haniel are paying for East Asian area studies at Duisburg
> University. It's getting more and more difficult to study the topics you
> are really interested in. There are more and more obligatory classes,
> etc. 
> 
> So one of the questions raised during the protests was why students
> should pay tuition fees for this kind of job-qualification measures
> adjusted to the needs of the industry while, their colleagues who are
> receiving an education within the industry are getting paid for it. Who
> wants to pay for job-training schemes?
> 
> In contrary to 1968 today's generation of student protestors isn't
> decided yet whether to try to negotiate all the way through the
> institutions like their predecessors did. Confronted with the arrogance
> of the former rebels who denounce their protests as "apolitical" or
> "economic demands" there is a sense of confrontation growing stronger
> amongst today's protestors. More and more students consider themselves
> part of job-qualifying schemes which makes it simpler to connect their
> actions with other people's struggles against social cutbacks.
> 
> Duisburg's students decided to continue their strike until next Tuesday
> on a mass meeting attended by 2.000 students on Wednesday. Their demands
> are still the same: the prohibition of tuition fees, social welfare
> benefits for everyone, an end to discriminating laws against foreigners
> living here and more democracy within the university's institutional
> framework.
> 
> After all still more than 70 institutions of higher education are on
> strike in Germany.
> 
> Andreas
> 
> More information at the following URLs:
> http://fsrinfo.uni-duisburg.de/streik/
> http://www.lahn.net/streik/
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: U.S. growth

[Doug Henwood]

anzalone/starbird wrote:

>Actually the gender gap, at least in income is not narrowing by BLS
>statistics, it is widening. ellen

Huh? Which BLS stats? Census Bureau numbers for 1996 show the narrowest
gender gap in history.

Doug

Alleviating Poverty Not A Consideration For Chretien Liberals (Canada)

[Shawgi A. Tell]

The number of people relying on food banks has doubled since
1989, growing to about 670,000 from 330,000. The executive
director of the Canadian Association of Food Banks, Julia Bass,
pointed out on December 5 that the increase is due to the
elimination of national standards and funding. 
 Since the federal Liberals eliminated the Canada Assistance
Act in 1995 which set national welfare standards, and cut
transfer payments to the provinces by almost $7 billion,
provincial governments have passed legislation and/or implemented
measures which target welfare recipients for attack. Loren Freid,
executive director of the North York Harvest Food Bank pointed to
the example of the Harris government which has cut welfare
payments by 22 percent. "Punitive policies like workfare and
fingerprinting welfare recipients caused by Mr. Martin's
elimination of national welfare standards create a public
impression and attitude that there is something illegitimate
about simply being poor and simply helping those who are poor,"
Freid said. She pointed out that donations to food banks have
concurrently fallen by 25 percent. 
 Organizations which provide food for the poor through food
banks are demanding that the federal government reinstate
national standards to require the provinces to provide adequate
aid to the poor. Sue Cox, executive director of the Daily Bread
Food Bank, called on the First Ministers to endorse poverty
reduction targets, like the targets Federal Finance Minister Paul
Martin employed to cut the deficit. However, Intergovernmental
Affairs Minister Stephane Dion made it clear that there was no
way the government would do this. He diverted the issue by
promoting "cooperative federalism" as if its aim is to get
results. "We need to work with the provinces," Dion said. "What
is the use of national standards if it's not something that is
supported?" 
 The point is that the excuse of "working with the provinces"
is precisely the means being used to abolish national standards
so as to open the door to the privatization of all social -
programs. 

TML Daily, 12/9/97

Shawgi Tell
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Decaying Capitalist Economy

[Shawgi A. Tell]

Greetings,

On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Dave Markland wrote:

Shawgi wrote: 
> > The other major problem caused by the basic internal
> >contradiction is that private ownership of the means of
> >production determines that the motive behind production is the
> >creation of maximum capitalist profit. 
> 
> (snip)
> 
> > As long as there is class society, as 
> >long as there is private ownership of the means of production there cannot be
> >efficient use of the productive forces. 
> 
> The lesson of Yugoslavia shows us the problem with such statements (as well
> as the myopia of "Market Socialism").  They eliminated private ownership but
> kept the market, resulting in the inefficiencies of that social construct.
> further, the market deepened class divisions in society.
> 
> Regards,
> dave
> 
Dave, I don't understand your observation here. The passages you 
abstracted from my post say nothing about so-called "market socialism."
In fact, my entire post says nothing about "market socialism."  
Basically, the post brings to the fore the objective features of
capitalist society, a form of class society, and the basic contradiction
of capitalism (social labor, private ownership) which is demanding
resolution.  It points to how and why capitalism is decaying and the need
for abolishing capitalist private property and ushering in socialist
society by harmonizing the forces and relations of production.  Throughout
the post the need for scientific planning of the economy, for calculated
human intervention in the economy and for doing away with the reckless
operation of the law of value are highlighted.  The point is also made
that classes and not only the exploitation of persons by persons must be
abolished.  The so-called "free market" is exposed for what it is: a
euphemism for the anarchy of production inherent to capitalism.


Shawgi Tell
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Higher Earnings That Aren't, continued

[Doug Henwood]

john gulick wrote:

>To what do you attribute rising service sector wages ? Netscape and Oracle
>yuppies getting rich ?

They're probably not included in the averages, since they cover
nonsupervisory workers only.

>Or renewed class struggle among janitors, health care
>workers, and so on ? There has to be some kind of class struggle explanation
>in here somewhere -- it can't be a complete supply and demand kind of thing
>(or at least so I hope).

The tightness or looseness of the labor market is a kind of passive class
struggle, no? It changes the balance of forces between K & L.

Doug

U.S. productivity

[Doug Henwood]

There was a question the other day about productivity performance in the
U.S. Here are some numbers, current through last week's downward revision
of the 1997Q3 stats. Though there was a bounce in the 1997Q2 & Q3 figures,
performance over the whole cycle is underwhelming.

Manufacturing is doing a lot better than services, though this may be the
result of contracting out a lot of service activities that no longer appear
in the manfuacturing sector.

A brief commercial announcement: it takes a lot of time & effort to keep
these numbers current. If you don't already subscribe to LBO, hey why not
do it now, and help keep this little enterprise going.

U.S. LABOR PRODUCTIVITY - AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE BY PERIOD
all nonfarm business and manufacturing, through 1997Q3

  nonfarm   manuf'g
1947-52
1952-57   2.7%
1957-62   2.2%
1962-67 3.2%  2.7%
1967-72 2.2%  3.9%
1972-77 2.1%  2.9%
1977-82 0.0%  1.1%
1982-87 1.9%  3.9%
1987-92 1.1%  2.1%
1992-97 0.8%  3.0%

1950-60 2.5%  2.2%
1960-70 2.5%  2.6%
1970-80 1.9%  2.9%
1980-90 1.1%  2.8%
1990-97 1.1%  3.1%

93Q1-97Q3   4.3% 15.3%  (Clinton years)
1991-97Q3   1.1%  3.1%  (1990s expansion)

26Qs after:*
49Q4   19.2% 15.6%
54Q2   13.6% 12.3%
58Q2   23.3% 21.6%
61Q1   26.4% 23.8%
70Q4   17.5% 24.2%
75Q19.3% 13.9%
82Q49.9% 21.3%
91Q18.6% 23.8%

*length of current expansion; starting points are previous business cycle
troughs

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217 USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice  +1-212-874-3137 fax
email: 
web: