We got their attention; Hearing: Impact of Asian EconomicCrisis; Nicaraguan Labor Rights Abuses
Global Economy Needs Salesmanship THINKING AHEAD / Commentary International Herald Tribune Tue, Feb 24 1998 A worthwhile attempt to improve and streamline the rules governing international investment has become the latest target of zealots seeking to stem the tide of economic globalization by fair means or foul. The campaign against a proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, currently being negotiated by the 29 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, has reached a level of hysteria out of all proportion to reality. One opponent, Jack Lang, the former French minister of culture, maintains that the agreement would create "a kind of world economic soviet" to promote the interests of large corporations, beyond the reach of popular control, and jeopardize the future of European integration. Others have made wild charges that the proposed agreement would prevent action to head off future Asian-style financial crises and that it would have kept apartheid alive in South Africa by barring economic sanctions against the former white-minority government. There is absolutely no evidence for any of these extravagant claims, which are based on little more than pure fantasy. In fact, the international business community is displeased that many of the more ambitious aims of the exercise, such as the elimination of double taxation, have been dropped. The truth is that much of the proposed accord, intended to ban discrimination against foreign investment, reflects existing international policies and agreements. Many of the critics' more serious objections have been met. What's more, following inconclusive high-level talks in Paris last week, the whole thing could fail. But none of that is likely to stop the propaganda barrage against the agreement, which is fast becoming a textbook case of how a relatively small number of activists, usually claiming to represent labor and environmental causes, can undermine economic liberalization initiatives. Although such initiatives are generally beneficial the agreement, for instance, would help to make investment more efficient, generating more jobs, higher growth and improved living standards they also need to be clearly explained by governments if their advantages are to be properly understood. If governments do not carefully prepare the political ground, as they have lamentably failed to do for this agreement, the way is left open for the activists to launch potentially devastating misinformation campaigns. The technique has become depressingly familiar. First come allegations that the international agreement in question has been hatched in complete secrecy, or that its implications are being deliberately kept hidden from the general public. Next is a claim that the whole thing is a conspiracy cooked up by multinational corporations with the aim of evading government controls. Finally, the agreement is said to erode national sovereignty, threaten the environment and jeopardize the jobs and wages of ordinary workers. In the United States, these one-size-fits-all allegations were used unsuccessfully against the North American Free Trade Agreement and the establishment of the World Trade Organization and more recently, and with greater effect, against President Bill Clinton's request to Congress for renewed "fast-track" trade negotiating authority. The success in blocking "fast track" has emboldened the opponents of the proposed accord even though most of their assertions are demonstrably false. It is just not true that the agreement has been negotiated in secret or that labor and environmental representatives, and other interested parties, have not been consulted. Big difficulties remain to be settled, mainly between the United States and the European Union, on issues such as the protection of national cultural assets, subsidies and economic sanctions. There may in the end be no agreement. That would be a pity, but not a tragedy. The tragedy would be if elected governments failed to learn that they must get smarter than the saboteurs who seek to disrupt the global economy. (Copyright 1998) _via IntellX_ Copyright 1998, International Herald Tribune. == The transcript of this hearing can be found at the following URL: http://www.infoseek.com/Content?arn=ix.FNST80543653qt=trade,+strike,+global ization,+NAFTA,+MAI,+privatization,+downsizing,+free+trade+%7C+%2Bfeed%3Agbp col=IXkt=Aak=news1486 Hearing of the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee Subject: Effects of Asian Financial Crisis on Us Trade; Activities of Apec Chairman: Representative Philip Crane (R-IL) Witnesses: Stuart Eisenstat, Undersecretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs David Lipton, Undersecretary of Treasury for International Affairs 1100 Longworth House Office Building Washington, Dc 1:00 Pm Est Tuesday, February 24, 1998 Federal News Service -
Re: david harvey
Bill Burgess: It is not sectarian in the least to identify the class content in different environmentalist positions, or to note the reactionary edges (he reminds us the Nazis were the first radical ecologists to hold state power). Well, that's the problem. As I have pointed out a number of times, the Bolsheviks had a much more radical view on ecology. Percentage-wise, much more land was protected from development in the former Soviet Union in the 1920s than in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. I am afraid that Harvey, for all his brilliance, is not aware of this. This amalgam between the Nazis and environmentalism first came up in the 1970s, when the Springer press in Germany wrote unceasingly about Nazi youth in lederhosen going out on nature hikes. It is depressing to see David Harvey raise this canard in 1998. Harvey's political complaint is that middle class environmentalism fixates on non-urban 'pristine nature', while cities choke from pollution and the best way to locate toxic waste sites is to visit lower-income minority communities. I don't think Lenin's "tribune of the people" set aside his/own own class politics, in fact they are what makes it possible to take up broader concerns. I agree that it is important for the green movement to embrace environmental justice demands. However, I think it is wrong to sneer at concern for wildlife, old-growth forests, etc. If anything, the bourgeois wing of the movement (this is a more accurate description than 'middle class') has been complicit in the destruction of the forests. Jeff St. Clair has done more than anybody to reveal Clinton's role in turning the national parks over to timber companies. The Democratic Party has also been responsible for gutting the EPA as well. This means that the cities suffer from the same overall corporate offensive. It is also unfair to suggest Harvey closes his eyes to ecological constraints to (current) society. He repeats the elementary materialist fact that planet earth can be altered but not destroyed. And who exactly thinks the problem is that the planet will be destroyed? This is a caricature of what people like John Bellamy Foster are saying. His "Vulnerable Planet" is filled with statements like this: "Hunger exists not because of physical limitations but because of the way food is produced and distributed. As the population increases, however, the physical limitations to food production may become increasingly important." And what does Harvey get in an uproar over? The use of the word "vulnerable". This is really stupid. Everybody understands that the planet earth will "survive" nuclear war, global warming, new horrible plagues like ebola or AIDS, etc. What is "vulnerable" is nature as we value it as civilized people. This includes endangered species like the orangutan, which is being tracked down and murdered as palm oil plantation owners set fire to the Borneo rainforests. Do we shrug our shoulders because palm trees are just as "natural" as orangutans? I am reminded of the old song by Bruce Cockburn, "If I had a rocket launcher"... I am anxious to find the time to read Harvey's book from cover to cover. All I know is that when I dip into it from time to time, I just wince. The big problem is that the left needs inspiration and leadership. Mostly what Harvey is up to seems akin to the sort of fights I used to witness in the Trotskyist movement, when "true revolutionaries " defended the proletarian line against the middle-class fakers. Louis Proyect
Canadian petition opposing Canada's role in Iraq crisis
If you would like to sign an online petition protesting Canada's role in supporting what the U.S. is doing in the Iraqi crisis, click on the following URL: http://w-3productions.com/cgi-bin/miva?/petition/petition.hts
Smithoian
I love this one! "in the name of science" Ok, the story behind this... There's this nutball who digs things out of his back yard and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labeling them with scientific names, insisting that they are actual archeological finds. The really weird thing about these letters is that this guy really exists and does this in his spare time! Anyway... here's a letter from the Smithsonian Institute from when he sent them a Barbie doll head. Paleoanthropology Division Smithsonian Institute 207 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20078 Dear Sir: Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin: 1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone. 2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids. 3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that: A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on. B. Clams don't have teeth. It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin. However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench. Yours in Science, Harvey Rowe Curator, Antiquitie *---* * "In the development of productive * * James Craven forces there comes a stage when * * Dept of Economics productive forces and means of inter- * * Clark College course are brought into being which * * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. under the existing relations only * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 cause mischief, and are no longer * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] productive but 'destructive'
Re: the Titanic
Date sent: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:32:23 EST Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: the Titanic In a message dated 98-02-24 12:12:01 EST, you write: The character Rose as a metaphor for all the women who are told that the ultimate and pinnacle of achievement is to become an ornament of some rich scum and who seek self-actualization and independence in a system that commodifies everything and turns people into things/commodities and things into personifications and power structures into "the natural/eternal order of things." Jim Craven shit, you mean i shouldn't try and find a rich husband? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Response: Well, with a divorce rate of 50% and climing, and the fact that the rich scum like that in the movie have expensive lawyers who write airtight and highly restrictive pre-nuptials, probably the odds are better in Vegas. ;-). Or, "a woman without a rich man is like a fish without a bicycle"? Jim Craven *---* * "In the development of productive * * James Craven forces there comes a stage when * * Dept of Economics productive forces and means of inter- * * Clark College course are brought into being which * * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. under the existing relations only * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 cause mischief, and are no longer * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] productive but 'destructive' forces. * * (360) 992-2283 (Office)...individuals must appropriate the * * (360) 992-2863 (Fax) existing totality of productive forces* * not only to achieve self-activity,but,* * also, merely to safeguard their very * * existence." (Karl Marx) * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
boucher,epi,coal
Well, before getting into this I should 'fess up that in the mid-1970s I participated as a low-level flunky at the State of Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Bureau of Water Quality in setting up the very first tradeable permits scheme ever established anywhere (a pretty ineffective actually), for BOD emissions from pulp and paper mills on the Fox River going into Green Bay. Anyway a few observations on permits and taxes. 1) For the same "price of pollution" there will be less reduction in economic activity and thus less reductions in employment with tradeable permits than with taxes. That is indeed because those who can afford to cut back will do so and those who can't won't. Jobs will be saved. This was a major factor in the decision to do the Wisconsin scheme, there being lots of p and p mills up there on the Fox with lots of workers in them. 2) Obviously either system seriously depends on the details of how it is set up. Systems that lead to scams like this LA used car bit are ridiculous. Also there need to be enough emitters to make some kind of a market, etc. 3) After emphasizing distributional issues, Robin recognizes that even with taxes the distributional impact is murky. A lot of ink, trees, and computer time has been spent on determining "who bears the corporate profits tax" and although stockholders do bear some of it, a lot of it gets passed on to consumers and workers (partly depends on industry structure too). I am more for that tax than for a lot of others still anyway. 3) To replace other kinds of taxes would mean that one would not be using the system to reduce pollution significantly. If one did, there would be little in the way of tax revenues collected. 4) Just as corporations manipulate permit schemes, so do they manipulate tax schemes where they exist (which they don't largely in the US). Thus they have taxes in France and Germany and they are used to subsidize firms for pollution cleanup. May not be a bad way to go, but it certainly doesn't reduce tax burdens for workers. 5) Given that Robin has spent a lot of time thinking about how things would work under some kind of socialism, perhaps that is a question that should be addressed, also. Prior to the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia they had taxes on pollution. They were either not collected or they were rebated through soft budget constraints back to the state-owned enterprises. Indeed I think that we all know that one of the driving forces that overthrew the ancien regime in the Soviet bloc was the environmental movement that had much to complain about, some of the biggest pollution disasters we have ever seen. This is not to say that a good environment and socialism are antithetical, but to ask how one would handle the issue under socialism. I think tradeable permits would do better than taxes under a system that had some kind of markets. The only other alternative would be command and control, which is very unlikely to be efficient in any meaningful sense, and certainly was not effective in the old USSR, even if Lenin did put a lot of land into nature preserves early on. 6) Under any scheme there needs to be some mechanism to make sure that the poor and workers do not end up being the pollutees, or at least the major pollutees, as there will inevitably be some pollution in any system. Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Green
Before we assume that the environmentalists present a viable arena, we should be aware that, at least in the leadership, they have been acquainted with socialism and have found it distasteful. The following is from Sam Smith, local DC curmudgeon, national Green Party figure, and (I had thought) one of the more important local progressive naysayers. I am forwarding this piece because it is so reprehensible: it says a lot of what is wrong with Smith and the Greens. Examples -- "a stolid, unyielding, suspicious, passive-aggressive leftist and liberal establishment right in the middle of the path leading to a new America -- sitting, as Disraeli once said of the opposition bench, like a range of exhausted volcanoes. "an unappealing blend of Marx and tofu. "The very idea of left vs. right is challenged by green thought as is the need to choose, say, between capitalism and socialism. "If the problem were only the major media, it would be bad enough. But you find many of these issues only rarely treated in Mother Jones or The Nation, either. After all, who has time to discuss alternative economics when you have a book on the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to review? Or lengthy defenses of Noam Chomsky for his views over the years on Cambodia? "It has collaborated with, defended, and covered up for, the most reactionary and anti-democratic president of modern history, one who in less than two terms has laid waste to constitutional protections, un-raveled decades of liberal and left reforms, and created a culture of immune corruption never before seen in Washington. "The president has taken the country deep into places from which it will be hard to return and the left, sadly, has helped him do it. The result has been major damage to our democracy, our liberties, our economy, our environment, and even to our local, state, and national sovereignty. It has been an assault on everything the liberal/left claims to honor. "The new politics is green, it is populist, it is progressive, and it is based the primacy of communities" To Sam Smith and his Greens, Chomsky is the same as Clinton and The Nation is the same as the Washington Post. Moreover, Chomsky and The Nation are responsible for the Clinton debacle. Where was Sam Smith and the Greens? Why didn't THEY stop Clinton? In this reading, the Green goal is Communitarianism, harking back to a movement consisting, among others, of Brook Farm, the Shakers, and various socialist groupings. Founded on love, hope, charity, and peace, Communitarianism sadly played itself out in the 19th century. In its heyday, and hopefully now, it was a movement that would have found little place for Sam and his shabby Green sectarianism. Dave -- From: McLarty, Scott T.[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 1:15 PM To: Subject:Excellent reading for your holiday pleasure Hey, boys 'n' girls Read Sam Smith's essay below. It's one of the best assessments of leftism, and of the position and potential of the Greens, that I've seen for a long time. It's the kind of stuff you won't find in The Nation or The Village Voice or Z Magazine or Mother Jones. (Thanks, Sam, for allowing me to circulate it I included your usual promotional stuff at the bottom.) Scott DC Greens Waiting for Lefties: How liberals and the left hold up change From The Progressive Review No. 352, December 1997 (Slightly shortened to make the Pen-l 50KB limit.) There are things happening elsewhere in the world that you don't hear much about in America. Like polls finding the Green Party to be the third most popular party in Germany. Or the news that one of Brazil's 26 state governors is a Green. Or that the French environmental minister is one also. Or that the Green Party candidate for mayor of Stuttgart came in second with 40% and exit polls showed him the most popular candidate among all voters under 50. Or that there are now Green parties in over 70 countries, all without any central organization or even that much collaboration. There are some good reasons why it's hard to find out about such things in America, such as the disinterest of the media in matters foreign and its love of the conspiracy for the restraint of political trade known as the two-party system. The media also hates complexity, especially any that muddies up its essential message to America, namely that there are winners and losers in life and trust us to tell you which are which. The centrist establishment isn't going to help you learn about a new politics either, because its power depends in no small part upon maintaining the absurd myth that it will come up with every new idea worth discussing. Meanwhile, the right, which has conned the rest of the establishment -- from media to White House -- into adopting its jargon, premises, and economics, has little interest in anything that might disturb its marvelous scam. But there is another problem. Those working to
Re: the Titanic
In a message dated 98-02-24 12:12:01 EST, you write: The character Rose as a metaphor for all the women who are told that the ultimate and pinnacle of achievement is to become an ornament of some rich scum and who seek self-actualization and independence in a system that commodifies everything and turns people into things/commodities and things into personifications and power structures into "the natural/eternal order of things." Jim Craven shit, you mean i shouldn't try and find a rich husband? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Earth Day and Lenin
In a message dated 98-02-23 18:28:31 EST, you write: The John Birch society used to make a big deal that Earth Day was celebrated on Lenin's birthday. This is very funny. Which one were they trying to disparage -- earth day or Lenin? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: boucher, epi and coal
Max B. Sawicky wrote: Replies to Perelman, Schneiderman, Hahnel, Meyer, Proyect Farmer Perelman said: Emissions trading is a crock. If you want to give polluction credits, why not give everybody an equal credit instead of rewarding people for historical patterns of pollution? This is not AT ALL the way permits would work. It is not the way that corporations and corporation collaborationist environmental groups would have them work. But they certainly could "work" this way -- and if this was the policy it would have the same effect on the environment as giving away permits to corporate polluters for free and it would be MUCH, MUCH more equitable. I made a limited statement (below) and Hahnel has dropped a thirty-pound treatise on my head. All I sent were 3 short paragraphs of email. But a hard copy of the treatise explaining the logic of pollution permits, taxes, and regulations is in the mail. But in re: Perelman's 'crock' I should confess I think tradable permits are a good idea in principle. Max B. Sawicky wrote: If government gives away emissions permits, then clearly corporations do not benefit as a group, since one firm's sale is another's purchase. If the government sells them, corporations are net losers in the aggregate. Hahnel says: For every tradable pollution permit policy in which the government sells the permits there is an "equivalent" pollution tax policy that yields the exact same outcomes: same overall reduction in pollution, same individual reductions for each polluter, same overall cost of reduction to polluters as a whole, same individual cost of reduction to each polluter, same gain in government revenue (from permits sales in one case, from taxes paid in the other). EXCEPT... I agree there is a tax equivalent that yields the same aggregate result for pollution but I can't see how it is possible for a uniform tax to yield the same distribution of costs over firms, and therefore the same aggregate cost. I'm sorry you can't see it, but it does. Hint: How much does a permit sell for in a tradable permit policy? Answer, a uniform market price for the permit. If the uniform tax rate per unit of emission is the same as the uniform market price for a permit to issue one unit of the pollutant then the decision the polluter has to make -- pay the tax or buy the permit, vs. reduce emissions -- is exactly the same. Alternatively, there is a cost-equivalent tax in aggregate with a necessarily different pollution outcome. The reason is that permit trading can discriminate among firms and taxes can't. So I'm missing something or Robin is wrong. Let's go with option "A" rather than "B" since I teach this stuff for a living -- and the entire professional community of environmental economists agrees with me on this one. What you're missing is that a uniform emissions tax "discriminates among firms" in the same way a tradable permit system does: Firms with high costs of pollution reduction will buy permits and continue to pollute, or pay the tax and continue to pollute. Firms with low costs of pollution reduction will not buy either permits or pay the tax for polluting. Instead they will reduce their pollution as long as the cost of reduction is lower than the price of the permit or tax. It isn't that the tax or permit price discriminates among firms buy being different for different firms. It's that firms with different reduction costs behave differently in response to the same economic stimulous -- the firms discriminate amongst themselves, so to speak. One must assume that the permit market is competitive and functions perfectly smoothly finding its theoretical equilibrium infintely quickly, etc. etc. -- the usual convenient and unrealistic assumptions, where no such assumptions are necessary for the pollution tax to be efficient. In the abstract this is correct but it imposes too great a practical burden on permits and neglects any comparable problem with taxes (e.g., evasion, avoidance, politically- based distortions). Evasion, avoidance, and politically-based distortions are EXACTLY AS DIFFICULT FOR A PERMIT PROGRAM AS FOR A TAX PROGRAM. Anyone who cheats on paying a pollution tax could cheat on buying a permit -- monitoring and punishment problems ARE IDENTICAL. I know that the mainstream environmental policy community talks about these things as if there were different practical problems for permit and taxing policies -- but it is a classic case of mainstream bull shit. Many in the mainstream don't know any better, but spout this common NON-wisdom. Those who know better don't say it themselves, but do not bother to correct those who do. Since the LIE serves the powers that be, everyone goes along with it. It is our job not to. The above means there is always a pollution tax policy that is equal to or superior to any permit policy on purely technical grounds. As I said, I
david harvey
I'm glad Louis P. intends to look at David Harvey's new book more
carefully, because I think Harvey has been somewhat misrepresented (there
are clearly also real political differences).
Harvey is no point-of-production-only 'Marxist'. Quite the contrary. I
don't know what he said on this at the forum Louis referred to; given how
he has been hammered for 'totalizing metanarative' etc. in his 1989 book on
postmodernism, perhaps he occasionally has to restate the facts of life
about class society. (My own take on his 1989 book is that while correctly
trying to relate the emergence of pomo to the changing nature of
capitalism, he fails to really incorporate the crucial intermediary in his
explanation, namely class.) Harvey has been trying to bring space and place
into Marxism for decades.
The point Harvey makes over and over in his 1996 book _Justice, Nature and
the Geography of Difference_ is the impossibility of referring to nature,
the environment, etc. as separate or external to human society. I would
have thought Louis would appreciate his provocation that "...in a
fundamental sense there is nothing unnatural about New York city..."(p. 186).
It is not sectarian in the least to identify the class content in different
environmentalist positions, or to note the reactionary edges (he reminds us
the Nazis were the first radical ecologists to hold state power). Harvey's
political complaint is that middle class environmentalism fixates on
non-urban 'pristine nature', while cities choke from pollution and the best
way to locate toxic waste sites is to visit lower-income minority
communities. I don't think Lenin's "tribune of the people" set aside
his/own own class politics, in fact they are what makes it possible to take
up broader concerns.
It is also unfair to suggest Harvey closes his eyes to ecological
constraints to (current) society. He repeats the elementary materialist
fact that planet earth can be altered but not destroyed. As I recall it,
his criticism of apocaliptic accounts is more for their de-politicising and
demoralizing effects (this is never a socialist stance) as it is any
particular evaluation of the scientific evidence on this point.
Harvey does take a crack at Michael Perelman, along with Ted Benton and
James O'Conner, for the way they take up the issue of natural limits
("capitulation to capitalist arguments" - p.146). However, he also notes
the obverse error has been all too common among Marxists, and goes on to
think about what a more adequately dialectical formulation of the problem
might be. I didn't find any breakthrough, but the effort deserves more
respect than Louis' comments suggest.
Bill Burgess
Re: Darwin
Rakesh, I have a paper on this in the March 1992 issue of JEBO. Barkley Rosser On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 01:44:10 -0500 (EST) Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, does anyone have any favorite readings about Darwin in relation to political economy from which he derived analogies, homologies, and/or metaphors for the development of his theory of descent with modification through the mechanism of natural selection? There is of course a chapter review in Geoffrey Hodgson's Economics and Evolution, the bibliography is quite good as well. But if anyone has any further recommendations, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Rakesh "...the industrial revolution directed interest into a field of objective quality subject to rapid change; that of biology. It made Man look for change everywhere, and began the development of all the evolutionary sciences: not merely biology, but also geology, cosmogony and the like. This [Darwinian] picture of evolution was also given a characteristic distortion." --Christopher Caudwell, The Crisis of Physics, 1939 "Schumpeter's basic idea was that evolution is the result of qualitative novelties, which in economics have their roots in the continuous product of our minds: inventions. These in turn led to economic innovations, which according to Schumpeter were not limited to the technological domain. We owe to Schumpeter the essential...distinction between growth (mere accretion) and development (in economics or in biology). His splendid aphorism, "Add Successively as many mail coaches as you please,, you will never get a railway thereby," tells a lot about what evolution means... "...Schumpeter's theory...was independently thought up some thirty years later by a renowned biologist, R Goldschmidt (1940). Against the prevailing neo Darwinian view that speciation results from the accumulation of small, imperceptible modifications, Goldschmidt maintained that species derive from the emergence of 'successful' monsters. By analogy a railway engine is a successful monster in comparison to a mail coach. "To gauge the depth of Schumpeter's vision we should note that explanation of speciation by successful monsters has recently been revived by one of the greatest minds in contemporary biology, Stephen Jay Gould." --Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, 1990. -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
metaphors for capitalism
The main suggested metaphors for capitalism received so far, along with my categorical comments: the Walrasian model. a big two-person noncooperative game. Dante's Inferno -- why not just say that "capitalism is hell"? Sisyphus -- this is Rosa Luxembourg's metaphor for the labors of the unions, which might be extended to all reform movements: they struggle mightily to give capitalism a human or pro-nature face, they succeed for a time, but then the damn ball rolls down the hill again as capitalism figures out ways around the reforms. Faustus -- is is very good: seeking profit any way it can, capitalism unleashes forces that bounce back to screw up capitalism's own operations (crises). But it doesn't deal with the role of liberals Democrats and their "rearranging deck-chairs on the Titanic." Maybe capitalism is Faustus, but the reform movements are Sisyphus. Dancing the tango? These metaphors are getting beyond control... To be honest, the first two were not suggested by pen-lers. The first is the dominant metaphor among economists, along with the idea of imperfections (the capitalism we see is an imperfect shadow, reflecting the perfect "form" that is invisible to all but the elite economists; the rest of us our prisoners chained to the cave wall). The second is Alan Carling's model, that appeared in SCIENCE SOCIETY a few years ago. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html Los Angeles, the city of your future: the city of smog, earthquakes, fires, floods, mudslides, civil disturbances, OJ, the Menendi, and Heidi Fleiss (daughter of our nephew's pediatrician).
Re: Harvey and environmentalist movement (Re: Boucher's entirearticle
Yes, there are grassroots environmental groups with a broader consciousness, Earth First! being an obvious example, but they are so marginal to the broader movement that it's a bit like citing the United Electrical workers and saying the union movement during the Cold War was not hostile to leftists. --Nathan Newman When Nathan speaks of the "broader movement," we must translate that into plain English. This is nothing else but the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, to which he is strongly attached. It is interesting that Nathan attacks the Sierra Club for selling out the movement, when mainstream green groups such as these are so cozy with the Clinton adminstration, which he supports. The twists and turns of reformist politics are almost impossible to decipher. Louis Proyect
WHC: APPEAL FOR ASIAN CONFERENCE (fwd)
Subject: WHC: APPEAL FOR ASIAN CONFERENCE Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 08:03:02 - From: Alan Benjamin [EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTE: The Continuations Committee of the Western Hemisphere Workers¹ Conference Against NAFTA and Privatizations received this ³Appeal for an Asian Conference² from Brother Tafazzul Hussain, President of the National Workers Federation of Bangladesh (BJSF), with the request that we forward it to all the participants at the San Francisco conference and to the U.S. trade union movement as a whole. Brother Hussain, as you will recall, was one of the speakers at the conference's Saturday, Nov. 15 plenary session. APPEAL FOR AN ASIAN CONFERENCE IN DEFENSE OF WORKERS¹ AND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS: (DACCA, BANGLADESH -- MAY 26-27, 1998) Dear Friends of all the Countries of Asia: We are sending you this letter from Bangladesh on behalf of a group of trade union leaders, leaders of peasant organizations, professionals, and political activists known for their unrelenting struggle in defense of workers' and democratic rights who are calling at the end of May 1998 a convention to form a political organization devoted to the defense of workers, peasants, professionals and youth of Bangladesh, to the struggle for democracy and the defense of the sovereign rights of the people of Bangladesh. We propose to take the opportunity of that Convention to organize an: ASIAN CONFERENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LABOR AND DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENTS ALL OVER ASIA This initiative is taking place in the midst of an unprecedented onslaught of multinationals and international financial institutions against all the people of Asia. "THE PEOPLE MUST PAY!" The crisis which started in Asia in the form of a financial crisis with the domino-like downfall of the currencies is now returning forcefully to its starting point as a destructive social crisis. In the name of globalization people must pay for the bankruptcy engendered by the main financial powers. Officially, the evaluation of the immediate consequences in terms of job losses forecast for 1998 is as follows: Thailand: 2 million Korea: 3 million Indonesia: 9 million China: 11 to 15 million A country like ours is sometimes presented as escaping from this disaster because it is less integrated into the world economy. What is the truth? More than ever before, under the conditions of the general crisis, the IMF and World Bank are proceeding to implement the so-called "structural adjustment plans" that are leading to the total destruction of the jute industry, which was the life-line of the Bangladesh economy: 50% of the people, directly or indirectly dependent on that industry. The privatization of the textile industry, fertilizers, mineral resources, power-generation and public services, industry and railways has resulted in hundreds of thousands of lay-offs in a country where 50% of the active population is unemployed without any social benefits. Bangladesh is being carved up by the oil giants of the world. For instance, in the region of Sylhet, the American multinational Occidental was drilling oil when an explosion set off a forest fire (in June 1996) which is still burning. In fact, one fifth of the territory of Bangladesh is cut off. The company refused to take any responsibility for the losses and simply withdrew from the area. Isn't this fact a crystal clear expression of the way multinationals and international speculators treat our country: They walk in, devastate and leave the disaster behind them, the people are supposed to pay so that the multinationals and the speculators recover their losses. In accordance with the needs of multinationals and world financial institutions, Bangladesh is being dismembered: regional agreements are set up between Bangladesh and states of India -- such as Assam, Tripura, and West Bengal -- without going through the federal government of India. Bridges on our highways have been leased to American companies who look after the toll, which means that all Bangladesh traffic is taxed for the benefit of foreign companies. THIS IS NOT OUR FATE ALONE This is not the fate of Bangladesh alone. Of course, when one speaks of the forest fires in Bangladesh, one is reminded of the catastrophe which took place in Indonesia. But beyond those examples, it is a fact that hot money was poured into our countries, not to help in the development, but to yield fast profits on the basis of a speculative boom increasing the shares of international swindlers which feed upon the labor and misery of our peoples, upon over-exploitation, the spreading of special economic zones where the country's laws do not apply any more, where trade union rights are curtailed or suppressed. We all know that was the basis of the so-called Asian prosperity. THE
Harvey and environmentalist movement (Re: Boucher's entire article
-Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Harvey's] latest book is a highly sophisticated attempt to set directions for Marxist participation in the green movement. Anybody who took his advice to heart would soon alienate green activists. It is filled with lectures about the need to break with green reformism. Deep ecologists are regarded with barely disguised hostility. The problem is that any social movement--feminism, gay liberation, black liberation--has its own dynamics. You can not project "correct" Marxist schemas on such movements from the sidelines. That is what the Spartacist League does. The great misfortune of the US Marxist left is that it treated this movement with disdain or hostility from its inception. This means that anti-Marxists, either of the liberal or anarchist variety, have had a field-day. Marxists should participate with an open mind and even attempt to learn from green activists. I certainly have. Harvey's book, unfortunately, is an agenda for trying to "correct" the movement. As someone who started out his political career in the mainstream environmental movement, as a student activist in the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, and moved into a more "left" activism because of its failings, I think there is much to correct in the environmental movement from any position, left, right or center. As we speak, the Sierra Club is having a national vote on whether to restrict immigration as a core solution to pollution problems. The Wilderness Society has already passed a resolution defining immigration as an environmental problem. You don't have to be a Marxist to see those kinds of resolutions as profoundly anti-internationalism, racist and xenophobic. It is environmentalists who have continually split their own movement by systematically alienating whole blocks of people in often callous disregard for jobs, environmental racism and coalition-building. Not that there are not environmental activists of the highest caliber who are concerned about all of those things, but as a "movement", environmentalism has become largely a checkbook industry playing to the narrowest middle-class concerns possible in order to attract contributions. In my younger days, I was a telephone fundraising supervisor at a firm that did fundraising to members of: Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Audobon Society and almost the whole list. To maximize their contributions, they divided environmental issues into bite-size nuggets they could specialize in while ignoring the deeper unifying issues at the root of environmental exploitation. Frankly, the middle class members on the phone were far more committed to broad alliances and ending artificial divisions than the "movement" leadership which enjoyed their individual fiefdoms. Emblematic of these problems is the secession of the environmental justice movement from those groups, in the form of the Southwest Network for Environmental Justice and a range of other regional and national network of primarily working class people of color committed to environmental survival and economic justice. At this point, you can set up a political coalition around any issue from welfare to peace to jobs and the civil rights groups will be there, the peace groups will be there, the unions will be there (usually), the religious community will be there, but the environmentalists will most likely say "that's not our issue" and stay in their little cubbyhole. I consideder myself an environmentalist and my early activism informs my work, but as a "movement", environmentalism is largely a decayed and rotting set of check-book fiefdoms with little commitment to any issue that doesn't keep the checks rolling in. Yes, there are grassroots environmental groups with a broader consciousness, Earth First! being an obvious example, but they are so marginal to the broader movement that it's a bit like citing the United Electrical workers and saying the union movement during the Cold War was not hostile to leftists. --Nathan Newman
Re: complexity
I think that I posted this once before, but what the hell! Pool, Robert. 1989. "Strange Bedfellows." Science, vol. 245 (18 August): pp. 700-5. 701: Physicists at the Santa Fe institute were amazed at how mathematically sophisticated economists were. 701: The economists were shocked at the physicists' lack of rigor. Because physicists have so much data, they can follow their noses or use computer simulations. Because economists' data is so sparse, they must carefully lay out their assumptions. 701: The economists thought that science meant mathematical proofs of theories and econometric tests. The physicists spend most of their time trying to explain phenomenon, such as agricultural economists and economic historians. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the Titanic
OK how about Faustus? To add to the Titanic Metaphor list: The character Rose as a metaphor for all the women who are told that the ultimate and pinnacle of achievement is to become an ornament of some rich scum and who seek self-actualization and independence in a system that commodifies everything and turns people into things/commodities and things into personifications and power structures into "the natural/eternal order of things." Jim Craven --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:18:00 -0500 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Fellows, Jeffrey" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: the Titanic Sisyphus. Jeff Fellows -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: the Titanic Date: Monday, February 23, 1998 5:47PM In a message dated 98-02-23 15:57:51 EST, you write: Can anyone think of a better metaphor than the Titanic one? Well, Jim, since you asked, how about Dante's Inferno. An eternity of crises. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] *---* * "In the development of productive * * James Craven forces there comes a stage when * * Dept of Economics productive forces and means of inter- * * Clark College course are brought into being which * * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. under the existing relations only * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 cause mischief, and are no longer * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] productive but 'destructive' forces. * * (360) 992-2283 (Office)...individuals must appropriate the * * (360) 992-2863 (Fax) existing totality of productive forces* * not only to achieve self-activity,but,* * also, merely to safeguard their very * * existence." (Karl Marx) * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
Re: boucher, epi and coal
Replies to Perelman, Schneiderman, Hahnel, Meyer, Proyect Farmer Perelman said: Emissions trading is a crock. If you want to give polluction credits, why not give everybody an equal credit instead of rewarding people for historical patterns of pollution? This is not AT ALL the way permits would work. I made a limited statement (below) and Hahnel has dropped a thirty-pound treatise on my head. But in re: Perelman's 'crock' I should confess I think tradable permits are a good idea in principle. Max B. Sawicky wrote: If government gives away emissions permits, then clearly corporations do not benefit as a group, since one firm's sale is another's purchase. If the government sells them, corporations are net losers in the aggregate. Hahnel says: For every tradable pollution permit policy in which the government sells the permits there is an "equivalent" pollution tax policy that yields the exact same outcomes: same overall reduction in pollution, same individual reductions for each polluter, same overall cost of reduction to polluters as a whole, same individual cost of reduction to each polluter, same gain in government revenue (from permits sales in one case, from taxes paid in the other). EXCEPT... I agree there is a tax equivalent that yields the same aggregate result for pollution but I can't see how it is possible for a uniform tax to yield the same distribution of costs over firms, and therefore the same aggregate cost. Alternatively, there is a cost-equivalent tax in aggregate with a necessarily different pollution outcome. The reason is that permit trading can discriminate among firms and taxes can't. So I'm missing something or Robin is wrong. One must assume that the permit market is competitive and functions perfectly smoothly finding its theoretical equilibrium infintely quickly, etc. etc. -- the usual convenient and unrealistic assumptions, where no such assumptions are necessary for the pollution tax to be efficient. In the abstract this is correct but it imposes too great a practical burden on permits and neglects any comparable problem with taxes (e.g., evasion, avoidance, politically- based distortions). The above means there is always a pollution tax policy that is equal to or superior to any permit policy on purely technical grounds. As I said, I don't see it. That doesn't mean I am against the tax and only for permits. I'm for whatever we can get. When the government gives away permits to polluting corporations they implicitly award legal ownership of the environment to polluters rather than pollution victims. They make a summary judgement entirely in favor of polluters regarding the last remaining common property resource (and therefore still disputed property) on the planet. When the government gives away pollution permits to corporations it is like the government giving away not only the right of way land to the railroads in the 19th century, but all of the land within a thousand miles of either side of the track they lay. Except in this case we don't even get a railroad track! If they give away few enough permits and enforce their use effectively, you can get all the pollution reduction you want. The right to which you allude amounts to a redistribution of wealth. This raises the question, are permits a likely instrument for redistribution of wealth? I would say no. If permits cut pollution, that's good enough. I'm just a tree-huggin' fool. Pollution permit give-away programs have NO technical or efficiency advantages over pollution taxes, may be technically inferior (due to realistic probabilities of market failure), and are the worst imaginable policy on equity grounds. How do permits compare to a VAT, a 'green' VAT, or a carbon tax, all much more imaginable as policies advanced in the name of environmentalism? When governments do not collect pollution taxes (or sell permits), but instead give permits away for free to polluters -- model citizens that they have proven to be -- and therefore collect other taxes from other people to finance government programs, just who do you think they collect those taxes from? Last I heard the common working stiff not only held a job but paid more than his/er share in taxes as well! If pollution taxes currently amounted to more than a bucket of spit one would be more interested in the ramifications of switching from taxes to permits. Re Anders, I had said: Environmentalism in the large is about raising the costs of consumption that is most susceptible to taxation under current circumstances. and AS responded: Maybe DC is populated mostly with bone-headed liberal environmentalists whose version of "environmentalism" would fit that definition, so maybe that's mostly who you've met. But that's only one wing of the environmental movement. No, they're lovely folks. They've figured out that any eco-tax (really, the carbon tax is what's in
Re: boucher, epi and coal
Does the coal miner jobs problem suggest an approach that the Swede's developed in their macroeconomic policies? This approach is their combination of labor market and solidaristic wage policies that keep employment and inflation low by moving workers out of unproductive firms? The crucial precondition for workers move from a reactive defense of their jobs in polluting industries is to guarantee their employment and wages. -Paul Meyer There is much more flexibility in a highly developed country like Sweden. One of the big environmental/labor issues over the past decade has been around the decision to shut down the nuclear power reactors. After Chernobyl, the Swedish parliament voted to close them all down. The unions have campaigned to keep them open. I first came across this controversy on the Spoons Marxism lists where an anti-green Maoist defended keeping them open. It is entirely likely that the plants will be shut down and the workers eventually absorbed into the workforce. Sweden's unemployment benefits, while whittled away at in recent years, are light-years ahead of other countries. The biggest contradictions between corporate profits and the health and safety of society are being felt not in Western Europe or the USA, but in East Asia, Africa and Latin America. Since poverty runs so much deeper in these areas, "greenmail" is much more effective. The NY Times reported that the peasants of India tolerate filthy air and water because new industries present the opportunity for jobs and cash. This is the reason for the Bhopal disaster, as companies like Union Carbide can get away with lax environmental and safety standards. This gets to the heart of the failure of the modern environmentalist movement. There is an enormous tendency to regard these problems as corporate misbehavior that can be reformed. Some "Globalization" theorists argue that the solution is to simply ban industry from agrarian societies. What this fails to recognize is the underlying dynamics of the problem. Capital is penetrating India and China because labor is cheap and environmental regulations are lax. The falling rate of profit is driving such expansion, not ill-will. And as long as Sweden can remain clean, there will be scant pressure from its own citizenry to fight against abuses overseas. This is the topic of Tom Athanasiou's "Divided Planet." To tie these issues together requires a class analysis. The solution to these problems also challenges socialism to come up with more intelligent answers than have been given in past decades. It requires that socialism think in global terms, which it tends not to do. Oddly enough, it has been the "globalization" theorists who have taken this approach, while old-line Marxists are absorbed with the "final showdown" with their own national bourgeoisie, which, like a scene out of a Beckett or Ionesco play, never seems to arrive. Louis Proyect
Follow up on Kate Bronfenbrenner (fwd)
We have had an enormous outpouring of support for Dr. Bronfenbrenner. At this point, we don't need further endorsements. We will be going to the media today (Wednesday, February 23, 1998) with the petition and the hundreds of endorsements. We will try to provide updates as newsworthy events transpire. Thanks, Ellen Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696-
Re: boucher, epi and coal
One healthy antidote (among many) to the political problems involved in "red vs. green" is the work of Jorge Hardoy (Argentine planner, now deceased) and Co. in the journal Environment and Urbanization. Looking principally at the 3rd World, they focus their environmental concerns on living conditions in the exploding cities of the south. Thus, human beings -- the water they drink, food they eat, vulnerabilities they face -- were placed squarley in the center of the analysis. As one begins to grapple with that monster of a problem (mega-primate cities), the analysis necesarily becomes more complex and multidisciplinary: rural urban migration, land degradtaion in the hinterlands, etc., all have to be put on the table for discussion. While most writings in the journal suggest technocratic solutions (they are mostly urban planners, after all), the utility of such analysis for social movements should be obvious. It is understood by the comrades of the PT in Brazil, for example. Tom Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the Titanic
Sisyphus. Jeff Fellows -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: the Titanic Date: Monday, February 23, 1998 5:47PM In a message dated 98-02-23 15:57:51 EST, you write: Can anyone think of a better metaphor than the Titanic one? Well, Jim, since you asked, how about Dante's Inferno. An eternity of crises. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Developments in South Africa
ANC GUERRILLAS TURN TO CRIME By Alec Russell in Johannesburg In a nightmare for post-apartheid South Africa, former African National Congress guerrillas have become disillusioned with their political masters and turned to crime. [snip] From guerillas to criminals is a story well known to Nicaraguans. The flip side is the conversion of dictators into democrats. See, for example, the case of the former Argentine General Antonio Bussi, who is now governor of the northern province of Tucuman (today on the NYT website). All was smooth sailing with Bussi until they found his swiss bank accounts. Apparently the money came from liquidating the assets of his "dirty war" victims. This only came to light becuase Spanish courts are inquiring into the fate of some 600 citizens killed in Argentina during the "dirty war". All of this (and much more, such as was suggested by my notes from Chile) suggests the need for a human cost accounting system for processes of "democratic transition" and "structural adjustment" (often they go together). Tom Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: boucher, epi and coal
There is one serious political problem with pollution taxes -- one I believe is solvable. Much of the right wing of the environmental movement hopes to sell green taxes by substituting them for all MBS: Actually the latest rage is to substitute them for payroll taxes, which is obviously an improvement but is not without problems of its own. === 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. ===
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1998 There were 1,608 mass layoff actions by employees in December, involving 170,110 workers, BLS reports. The numbers were higher than that reported by BLS in November, when there were 1,143 layoff actions affecting 97,509 workers .(Daily Labor Report, page D-1). __The major CPI revision scheduled for release Feb. 24 updates the CPI's marketbasket of goods and services to more accurately reflect price changes for the wide range of goods and services purchased by U.S. consumers, according to BLS. When BLS assigns new weights to items, it is bringing the CPI more in line with how consumers spend their money .Quoted is an article in the Monthly Labor Review by John S. Greenlees, assistant commissioner for consumer prices, and Charles C. Mason, a BLS economist .(Daily Labor Report, page C-1). __The consumer price index - the government's key inflation gauge - has been overhauled for the first time in 11 years. The new CPI will be unveiled Tuesday, when BLS reports January prices. There have been vast changes in consumer spending habits in the past decade, says BLS economist Pat Jackman. "We were always picked on for not having cell phones on the CPI. Now they're in there," says Jackman, who supervises the CPI report. The overhaul: Adds a major category, education and communication, to the seven categories previously used .Uses new statistical techniques to better reflect changes in the quality of goods and services, especially personal computers. Shows that consumers are spending less of their income on food, beverages, and transportation and more on shelter and medical care .(USA Today, page 1B). Led by the construction industry, U.S. employers throughout the country are planning one of the most active worker recruiting periods on record during the second quarter of 1998, according to a Manpower, Inc., survey. Of the 16,000 businesses surveyed by the temporary help company, 30 percent said they would recruit additional staff in the second quarter, while 61 percent planned no changes. Five percent said they would reduce their staffs, while another 4 percent were uncertain about their future employment plans .(Daily Labor Report, page A-1; Wall Street Journal, page A2). "Through the year 2005, the Bureau of Labor Statistics expects employment of securities and financial sales representatives to grow much faster than average for all occupations," says an article in The Washington Post advertising section on the local job market (Feb. 22, page K9). "Factors spurring the expected growth include a continued healthy economy, rising personal incomes and greater inherited wealth - all of which mean more money will be available for investment." DUE OUT TOMORROW: Consumer Price Index - January 1998 Real Earnings: January 1998 application/ms-tnef
Re: boucher, epi and coal
Does the coal miner jobs problem suggest an approach that the Swede's developed in their macroeconomic policies? This approach is their combination of labor market and solidaristic wage policies that keep employment and inflation low by moving workers out of unproductive firms? The crucial precondition for workers move from a reactive defense of their jobs in polluting industries is to guarantee their employment and wages. -Paul Meyer
complexity
Someone mentioned Brian Arthur and his part in Mitchell Waldrop's book "Complexity". That book had a fairly interesting and novel (novel to me anyway) critique of the mathematical "culture" of Economics. The critique originates from a group of physicists called to the Santa Fe institute to do their interdisciplinary thang in a seminar with a group of economists. Both groups introduced themselves via a tour of the mathematical models used in each profession. Waldrop recounts that the physicists were somewhat taken aback by the economists. They seemed quite technically proficient but the economist's use of models seemed somewhat alien to them. (If anyone else read this critique and understands it better please contribute what you remember of it.) What I remember about the critique is that physicists seem to spend alot of effort trying to come up with models that fit phenomenon as they observed them but that the economists spent much more effort deriving their models from first principles. Another implication of this was that the physicists were much more willing junk the models in the face of new evidence. If that is true, I wonder if a case could be made that this is approach is much more prone to ideological "contamination" than the sort of modeling physicists do (the difference in subject matter is relevant, of course). Any thoughts??? -Paul Meyer
Darwin
Hi, does anyone have any favorite readings about Darwin in relation to political economy from which he derived analogies, homologies, and/or metaphors for the development of his theory of descent with modification through the mechanism of natural selection? There is of course a chapter review in Geoffrey Hodgson's Economics and Evolution, the bibliography is quite good as well. But if anyone has any further recommendations, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Rakesh "...the industrial revolution directed interest into a field of objective quality subject to rapid change; that of biology. It made Man look for change everywhere, and began the development of all the evolutionary sciences: not merely biology, but also geology, cosmogony and the like. This [Darwinian] picture of evolution was also given a characteristic distortion." --Christopher Caudwell, The Crisis of Physics, 1939 "Schumpeter's basic idea was that evolution is the result of qualitative novelties, which in economics have their roots in the continuous product of our minds: inventions. These in turn led to economic innovations, which according to Schumpeter were not limited to the technological domain. We owe to Schumpeter the essential...distinction between growth (mere accretion) and development (in economics or in biology). His splendid aphorism, "Add Successively as many mail coaches as you please,, you will never get a railway thereby," tells a lot about what evolution means... "...Schumpeter's theory...was independently thought up some thirty years later by a renowned biologist, R Goldschmidt (1940). Against the prevailing neo Darwinian view that speciation results from the accumulation of small, imperceptible modifications, Goldschmidt maintained that species derive from the emergence of 'successful' monsters. By analogy a railway engine is a successful monster in comparison to a mail coach. "To gauge the depth of Schumpeter's vision we should note that explanation of speciation by successful monsters has recently been revived by one of the greatest minds in contemporary biology, Stephen Jay Gould." --Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, 1990.
