Re: Green Permits and Taxes
Robin Hahnel wrote: So you want to auction off the permits. Great. That's better than giving them away for free since it makes the polluters pay and gains the victims some form of compensation in the form of more tax reveunes. And I like the idea of a minimum price equal to the marginal social cost of the pollutant. But why don't you want to let the original buyers resell permits if they wish to? And why don't you want to let polluters who didn't buy as many as they now want at the original auction buy them from polluters who bought more than they now decide they want/need? Admittedly, if all polluters had their acts figured out perfectly at the time of the original auction none would want to participate in a re-sell market, but perfect knowledge is hard to come by, and where's the harm in allowing resales -- otherwise known as making the permits "tradable?" Because there would be a temptation for a corp. to buy unnecessary permits, corner the market and make a profit. Maybe they should be allowed refunds-- provided someone is willing to buy the ration or permit for the same or more than the original purchaser paid. . I'm really trying to make it a green tax -- but a green tax that includes a ceiling on what pollution is allowed. I am trying to structure the thing to avoid the type of corporate giveaways you criticize. All I'm really trying to figure out is how to build a ceiling into green taxes. straw man snipped No -- singing, dancing, talking, scarecrow snipped If you mean: SINCE IN THIS WORLD NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE TRIED TO REDUCEPOLLUTION WE COULD NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO REDUCING IT BY AN AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE OPTIMAL, OUR GOAL SHOULD BE SIMPLY TO STRIVE FOR THE GREATEST EDUCTIONS WE CAN POSSIBLY ACHIEVE, I completely agree with you. Yup, that's what I mean. But Iagree because our power is so small and the polluters power is so great right now that we can't go wrong using this rule of action. No matter how much reduction we won, it wouldn't be as much as would be optimal. exactly. But if you mean that it is always better to reduce pollution, no matter how much we have already reduced -- if you mean zero is the best level of pollution, I disagree and suggest you don't mean this. You are right. I don't mean this No, it seems to me that you have to know how much pollution you want to allow BEFORE you begin to figure out the social cost of unit of pollution. And just how do you figure out how much pollution you want to allow? This is the question too few greens ever ask themselves. The reason is because as long as we are pretty powerless we don't need to know the answer. We just need to scratch and claw for as much reduction as we can get. But likewise, we just need to scratch and claw for the highest pollution taxes we can get. If we ever get powerful enough to get close to the optimal level of pollution reduction, we're going to need an answer to the question how much pollution do we want. I submit that you can't answer that question without estimating the marginal social benefits of pollution reduction FIRST. Since only then will you know how much pollution you want to tolerate. However, given that certain levels of certain pollutants have catastrophic effects, we will know what we do not want before we know what we do want. That is, we do not know what the right level of fossil fuel carbon is. (I can make a very good argument for it being greater than zero.) But most greens can give you a level it has to be reduced below to avoid greenhouse catastrophe. . If greens should happen to achieve a strong position of influence without being dominant, I suspect that is the degree of reduction they will be able to win. If greens gain so much influence they can reduce pollution to or near optimal then you are right -- marginal social costs and benefits of pollution become essential to deermine. What about that long term ? Even in a better society, I suspect that -- at least in the transition stages -- some equivalent of ceilings will have to supplement true social pricing. I think that what it comes down to is distrust. All right, in economic theory, you need the same information to determine true social cost of pollution and optimum level of pollution. In economic theory, if you price a pollutant at this true social cost, pollution will be reduced to the optimum level. In economic theory the previous sentence was redundant, saying the same thing twice; the definition of optimum level pollution is the amount of pollution produced when priced at true social cost. Given the basic human ability to screw up, I'd suspect that in real life major problems in this regard are possible regardless of economic theory. I cannot believe that it is impossible that a price determined to be optimum could not in some exceptional case reduce pollution so little that it approached catastrophic level I certainly cannot believe it impossible that in some cases such a
Check Out Issue #5 (fwd)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 3 18:06:50 1998 Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:55:37 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MCR Online) Subject: Check Out Issue #5 MEDIACULTURE REVIEW ONLINE! http://www.mediademocracy.org/MediaCultureReview MediaCulture Review, the award-winning quarterly zine published by Institute for Alternative Journalism, is now weekly in electronic form. This week's roundup includes: * Raiders of the Last Ark, by Monte Paulsen -- The center of the free world, as it turns out, is a putty-colored plastic box in a squat brick office park outside Washington, D.C. The box looks like the other 100 million personal computers that routinely surf the Internet. except for one thing: Without this box, the Internet wouldn't work. The off-the-shelf Sun workstation is maintained by Network Solutions Inc., under contract with the federal government. That contract expires in March. After that, the Ark of the Internet is up for grabs. http://www.mediademocracy.org/MediaCultureReview/VOL98/5/lastark.html * Slate Switch -- $200 billion Microsoft will make you pay for Slate's online information including the useful Today's Papers as of March 9th. Don Hazen critiques Today's Papers and shares Mike Kinsley's sad appeal for help. http://www.mediademocracy.org/MediaCultureReview/VOL98/5/switch.html * Filmmakers Fight Censorship with Giveaway, by Emily Neye -- Despite right-wing backlash, producer Helen Cohen and Academy Award-winning director Debra Chasnoff of "It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School" are undaunted in their mission to educate faculty and students. http://www.mediademocracy.org/MediaCultureReview/VOL98/5/thwartcensors.html * Media Mash -- This week: * Sharon Stone's goes against the trend and marries a journalist; * SF Examiner is banned in Loudoun County, Virginia. * a peek inside the head of NPR VP Jeffrey Dvorkin; * the first ever micropower radio conference. Plus, event listings for media mavens. http://www.mediademocracy.org/MediaCultureReview/VOL98/MediaMash/4.html * Media's Dark Age? -- From May 24 to May 28 of this year, Women for Mutual Security will host an international discussion on ownership and control of the media in Athens, Greece. While it is "an exposé of corporate globalization of news and information for media activists and journalists," organizers also hope to begin a "twenty-first century dialogue" on how activists and journalists can subvert the undemocratic control of public information. http://www.mediademocracy.org/MediaCultureReview/VOL98/5/darkage.html * ADD YOUR LINK TO MEDIACULTURE REVIEW http://www.mediademocracy.org/MediaCultureReview/mcrlinks.html Sorry! If this is an unwarranted intrusion into your space, quickly e-mail us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and we'll take you off the list. __ Don Hazen, MCR Online Executive Editor Nadya Tan, MCR Online Assistant Editor ---MediaCulture Review--- 77 Federal Street, 2nd floor San Francisco, CA 94107 phone: 415/284-1420 | fax: 415/284-1414
DEVELOPMENT: Global Struggle Declar (fwd)
/* Written 3:16 PM Feb 28, 1998 by igc:newsdesk in web:ips.english */ /* -- "DEVELOPMENT: Global Struggle Declar" -- */ Copyright 1998 InterPress Service, all rights reserved. Worldwide distribution via the APC networks. *** 25-Feb-98 *** Title: DEVELOPMENT: Global Struggle Declared Against Liberalisation By Gustavo Capdevila GENEVA, Feb 25 (IPS) - The first global movement opposed to the liberalisation of trade and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created Wednesday in Geneva by 303 delegates of civic groups from every continent. The new group's strength will be put to the test May 18 to 20 with worldwide protest demonstrations, scheduled to coincide with a WTO ministerial conference here in Geneva. A coordinating body, People's Global Action (PGA), will concentrate information on the demonstrations, which will be adapted to the needs and realities of each region. ''We have a common strategy, but will adopt different forms of protest,'' said Medha Patkar, the head of India's National Alliance of People's Movements. But the political manifesto of the PGA, approved at the close of the conference Wednesday, underlines that the protests against the WTO and neo-liberal economic model will consist of non-violent acts of civil disobedience. ''Such democratic action carries with it the essence of non- violent civil disobedience to the unjust system,'' says the document. The PGA conference accepted the peaceful character of the disobedience after some debate. But on the request of Latin American indigenous delegates, an article was added that reads ''however, we do not judge the use of other forms of action under certain circumstances.'' ''Even democratically elected governments have been implementing these policies of the globalisation of poverty without debate among their own peoples or their elected representatives,'' the document stresses, and ''the people are left with no choice but to destroy'' WTO-led trade agreements. ''We want to tell the governments that they are destroying humanity with these policies. We aspire to a more just world,'' said Argentina's Alejandro Demichelis, of the Confederation of Education Workers. Demichelis' union was one of the creators of the PGA, along with the Peasant Movement of the Philippines, Brazil's Landless Movement, the Sandinista Central Workers union in Nicaragua and Mexico's Zapatista National Liberation Front (EZLN), and many other groups. Rene Riesen, with France's Confederation of Farmers, maintained that developing countries were not the only ones disturbed by the expansion of the neo-liberal model. Agricultural and food products should be excluded from globalisation, as they cannot be put in the same category as other merchandise, he added. The PGA issued a call to people worldwide to cooperate in the action against ''anti-democratic development.'' ''We call for direct confrontation with transnational corporations harnessed to state power for short term profit,'' the document says, while underlining that direct democratic action against globalisation should be combined with the constructive building of alternative and sustainable lifestyles. Spain's Sergio Hernandez, with the Fair Play organisation, pointed out that all other attempts to organise movements against neo-liberalism at an international level this decade had failed. But he added that the example provided by the Zapatista movement, which burst on the scene in Mexico in 1994, contributed to the success of the PGA conference, which was organised with a broad-minded outlook along the lines of the EZLN call for ''a world in which all worlds fit.'' PGA leader Hernandez added that like the Zapatistas, the global movement ''is not interested in power.'' (END/IPS/TRA-SO/PC/MJ/SW/98) Origin: Montevideo/DEVELOPMENT/ [c] 1998, InterPress Third World News Agency (IPS) All rights reserved May not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service outside of the APC networks, without specific permission from IPS. This limitation includes distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media and broadcast. For information about cross- posting, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED].For information about print or broadcast reproduction please contact the IPS coordinator at [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Maxwell, Darwin, Walras?
As I read the following comparison between Maxwell's Demon and Darwin's Natural Selector, I wondered how Walras' auctioneer would compare. Any comments would be appreciated. MJS Hodges writes: "As an agency working causally to bias population outcomes away from where frequencies alone would otherwise have them, nature as a selective breeder, in Darwin, may remind us of the demon in Maxwell. However, the resemblance must not be allowed to mislead us as to contrasting rationales motivating the two theorists' essentially diferent proposals. Maxwell was concerned to dramatize how utterly improbable in nature is anything like the outcome secured by the demon; for under all natural conditions there will be no such quasi-purposive interference as the demon exerts. By contrast, Darwin was out to establish that a quasi-designing form of selective breeding is an inevitable consequence of the struggle for existence and superfecundity, tendencies so ubiquitous and reliance not be construed as interferences at all...One can say, then, that Darwin gave up having variation arise as 'necessary' adaptations, as necessary effects of conditions, in favor of having it arise 'accidently' or 'by chance,' when and only when he came to see that its fate was under the quasi-designing control of natural selection aalogous to the skilled practice of the breeder's quasi-designing art." " From "Natural Selection" in The Probabalistic Revolution, vol II. (MIT, 1990): 245-6. Now my question for economists: The other great 19th century "agent" whose work was done behind the scenes, a most interesting trope it seems, was Auguste Walras' auctioneer, correct? Now this auctioneer was imagined as having set market prices and quantities of all commodities before any trading such that markets clear, equilibrium attained and maximum utility realized . The extreme improbability of such such a determinate outcome however did not prevent economists from believing that market processes were best understood as if such an omnipotent auctioneer were really at work, correct? Any ideas as to how pursue this analogies would be most appreciated. Best, Rakesh
[Fwd: (Fwd) France Says NO! MAI
Dear friends, News from Paris France Date 26 02 1998 Thanks to international pressure and a very stong national opposition from all sectors - social - cultural - environmental - development - the french government stated yesterday at the Parliament that France is not going to engaged the country in further negociations on the MAI. The minister of Economy and Finances Dominique Strauss-Kahn stated yesterday: 'The (french) government has no intention to engage itself in whatever multilateral agreement which will, limit its action or the one of its Parliament, to define our social rules, our fiscal laws, or our environmental legislation, or that will enable any foreign companies to challenge its national legislation in the name of this agreement. The Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, was in the room and agreed to this and more. For those reading french, I know it's hard... We are scanning the press clipping and we are waiting for your numerous messages, I am sure, asking for more information. Together we can change the world Cheers to all and one more time congatulations. Etienne Vernet / Ecoropa For Thierry David / Observatoire de la Mondialisation . Bob Olsen notes that the email address for Etienne and Thierry may be [EMAIL PROTECTED] Otherwise try asking Peter Bleyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] to forward a message if you want to contact them in Paris.
RIGHTS-MEXICO: Impunity for Hundreds of Murderers
/* Written 3:28 PM Feb 27, 1998 by igc:newsdesk in web:ips.english */ /* -- "RIGHTS-MEXICO: Impunity for Hundred" -- */ Copyright 1998 InterPress Service, all rights reserved. Worldwide distribution via the APC networks. *** 24-Feb-98 *** Title: RIGHTS-MEXICO: Impunity for Hundreds of Murders of Opponents By Diego Cevallos MEXICO CITY, Feb 24 (IPS) - Impunity reigns over the murders of some 270 members of Mexico's centre-left opposition Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) who have been killed over the past three years. ''The PRD continues to suffer from a phenomenon that could be described as legal-political persecution and criminal threats,'' said a spokesman for the party's Secretariat of Human Rights, according to which a total of 570 PRD militants have been killed in the last nine years. ''Nothing has changed under the government of Ernesto Zedillo. The members of the PRD are still exposed to the threats and dangers of a political struggle waged by fire and sword,'' Isabel Molina, the president of the Ovando y Gil Foundation, which provides support for the victims' families, told IPS. The latest victim was Alejandro Reyes, the head of the Union of Democratic Taxidrivers in the southern state of Guerrero and a member of the PRD, who was shot and killed Monday. ''Reyes' murder undoubtedly had political shades,'' said Silverio Diaz, the union's spokesman. More than 300 members of the PRD were killed under the government of Carlos Salinas (1988-94), most of them leaders of grassroots organisations or activists from indigenous communities or poor neighbourhoods. ''In spite of a few detentions, the PRD considers 95 percent of the cases as unresolved until the persons responsible for ordering the murders are found and arrested,'' said Molina. The first assassinations of PRD members were reported in 1988, when the party was founded by former PRI member and present governor of Mexico City Cuauhtemoc Cardenas. Two of Cardenas' closest cronies, Javier Ovando and Ramon Gil, were killed that year. As occurred in 1994 with the murders of Luis Colosio, the presidential candidate of the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), and PRI secretary-general Jose Ruiz Massieu, the government launched a special probe into the deaths of Ovando and Gil and promised prompt answers. But none of the four cases have been solved. The spokesperson for the PRD's Secretariat of Human Rights said 570 victims in nine years ''is an enormous figure for a country that has not declared a state of siege, and which has a National Human Rights Commission and a government vision of respect for individual liberties and guarantees.'' According to the Ovando and Gil Foundation, PRD members are at highest risk in the Mexican states of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Chiapas and Michoacan, which have large indigenous peasant populations. The Mexican government has often blamed the murders on brawls between peasant farmers. In other cases, the victims had been previously accused of collaborating with guerrilla groups. PRD leader Manuel Lopez said ''the Zedillo administration must clear up all the murders, many of which were committed by members or sympathisers of the PRI.'' The murders are just one more expression of the tough political transition Mexico is experiencing, after 69 years of PRI governments, say local analysts. The PRD - the country's third political force, comprised of former communists, socialists, social democrats and former PRI members - and the conservative National Action Party govern several states today and have held a majority of seats in Congress since September 1997. Analysts predict that a non-PRI candidate - possibly Cardenas - will win the presidential elections of the year 2000. (END/IPS/TRA-SO/DC/AG/SW/98) Origin: Montevideo/RIGHTS-MEXICO/ [c] 1998, InterPress Third World News Agency (IPS) All rights reserved May not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service outside of the APC networks, without specific permission from IPS. This limitation includes distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media and broadcast. For information about cross- posting, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED].For information about print or broadcast reproduction please contact the IPS coordinator at [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Re: Maxwell, Darwin, Walras?
James Devine wrote:
It ends up being akin to Plato's golden myth (used to justify class
inequality in
the REPUBLIC).
In fairness to Plato, the first conscious communist, it should be pointed
out that the "class inequality" justified by the *gennaios pseudos*
consisted of persuading the *rulers* ("guardians" and "philosopher kings")
to accept a way of life in which they should not only own no money, but no
private property at all, and in which their material consumption would be
limited to the strict requirements of physical and mental health.
Shane Mage
"immortals mortals, mortals immortals, living their deaths, dying their lives"
Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 62
Re: Maxwell, Darwin, Walras?
Jim Devine wrote: Plato was a communist, but his communism was very much a conservative top-down operation. It is quite different from the bottoms-up democratic rule by the proletariat that Marx favored. (Cf. COMMENT: Only the top two classes in Plato's Republic live in a mode that resembles anything like communism. Plato had a disdain for democracy but I am not sure that he had a disdain for the common folk. He thought the ability to rule was restricted to a few people and that common folk would not be able to recognise the people who had this expertise. What amazes me about Plato's description of democracy is how accurately it often describes present phenomena. For example his myth of the people as a great beast used by democratic politicians to further their own aims. Taking the beast's temperature and measuring its moods so they can they can control it. Shades of contemporary spin doctors and political pollsters. Surely some democratic politicians view the public and treat it in exactly this way. The means of production were not socialised in the Republic. Private and productive property were left in the hands of the lowest class. The main control by the rulers was simply to see that people did not become too rich or too poor. Within the ruling class the means of reproduction seem to have been socialised and breeding controlled according to the best mathematical models as to when was the optimum time to conceive. Indeed the decline of the state is said to occur when these times are miscalculated. Probably by the Platonic equivalent of a neo-classical welfare economist ;-).Except in Marx's description of primitive communism in the Economic and PHilosophical manuscripts I don't think that communism is understood as socialising reproduction. Certainly not in the Platonic manner with the state organising marriage festivals at which partners are chosen in a lottery in which the state cheats everyone so that the best mate most with the best. As for the lowest class and those past childbearing Plato didn't give a shit what they did. Plato was not even a top-down communist. He just believed in a communal mode of life with no private property for the auxiliaries and rulers i.e. the top two classes. I used to have a communist friend at college who would always take the BIble into the pub. To convince his fellow Christian imbibers he used to haul it out and quote the passages about the disciples holding everything in common etc. Christ too was a commie so save your soul and join the Party. Cheers, Ken Hanly
Re: Green Permits and Taxes
Mark Jones wrote: Robin Hahnel wrote: Minimizing pollution, taken literally, means zero pollution, which means not moving and not farting. That hardly seems optimal. and What's wrong with capitalism is no matter how hard we try to achieve the optimal level of pollution reduction, we're doomed to fall WAY, WAY short. and I doubt you would want to make a polluter pay $10 million dollars per gram of pollution emitted if the damage of the gram of pollution was only $10 and the $10 million tax would prevent the polluter from being able to produce a medical vaccine that yields billions of dollars worth of benefits. That sort of sums up the A-Z of our political impotence. If we are so ineffective at changing how things are it might be better starting the discussion from where we want to get to and working backwards. What would a sustainable, equitable human lifeworld look like, one which maximised the benefits of science to the majority? If you know what you are trying to achieve then you have a better chance of working out how to get there. Meanwhile, 'optimising' pollution v. welfare actually only reaffirms an abstract right to pollute, when the real problem is that greenhouse emissions are killing the planet. I couldn't agree more. Since any reasonable person should conclude that capitalism will inevitably overexploit and overpollute the natural environment -- that is, far surpass the optimal level of exploitation and pollution, and fall way short of the optimal level of pollution reduction -- we need to figure out how to organize and manage our economic affairs in a qualitatively different manner. Nobody has argued more strenuously than I for this view. However, we will suffer under capitalism for some time, as will the environment. In this context asking which band aids will stop the most blood is also (without attatching relative importance) a question worth addressing. Pollution taxes, pollution permits (auctioned or given away for free), regulation (a.k.a. "command and controll" which now has been accepted as "politically incorrect" usage)? I would also add: besides which band aid will stop the most blood, we should ask which band aid will be most conducive to building a movement capable of bringing about the necessary economic system change.
Re: Green Permits and Taxes
Robin Hahnel wrote: Minimizing pollution, taken literally, means zero pollution, which means not moving and not farting. That hardly seems optimal. and What's wrong with capitalism is no matter how hard we try to achieve the optimal level of pollution reduction, we're doomed to fall WAY, WAY short. and I doubt you would want to make a polluter pay $10 million dollars per gram of pollution emitted if the damage of the gram of pollution was only $10 and the $10 million tax would prevent the polluter from being able to produce a medical vaccine that yields billions of dollars worth of benefits. That sort of sums up the A-Z of our political impotence. If we are so ineffective at changing how things are it might be better starting the discussion from where we want to get to and working backwards. What would a sustainable, equitable human lifeworld look like, one which maximised the benefits of science to the majority? If you know what you are trying to achieve then you have a better chance of working out how to get there. Meanwhile, 'optimising' pollution v. welfare actually only reaffirms an abstract right to pollute, when the real problem is that greenhouse emissions are killing the planet. Mark
Harper Collins and China
From: Daniel Cohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: HarperCollins and China Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 09:48:39 -0500 (EST) In the last couple of days there have been a number of reports from reputable media sources in the United Kingdom (including the BBC and the Times) that HarperCollins was ordered by its ultimate owner, Rupert Murdoch, not to honour its contract with Chris Patten (former Governor of Hong Kong) for the publication of his forthcoming memoirs East West. It has been alleged that Murdoch ordered the book killed because he was worried that it was too critical of China, and as a result, China might retaliate against his corporate assets in that country and by blocking his future plans to expand his Asian satelite broadcasting empire. In memos published in the press it has become clear that the order was given directly by Murdoch as head of NEWSCORP, that the Chair of News America Publishing passed it on and HarperCollins UK head Eddie Bell only complied reluctantly conceeding "KRM(kieth Rupert Murdoch) has outlined to me the negative aspects of publication which I fully understand)". My, first instinct on hearing all of this was "so?" Freedom of the press belongs to those who own them and if Murdoch does not have the brains to publish an instant best seller someone else will. And in fact the day the story broke Macmillan announced that they'ld struck a deal with Patten and will now publish the book. However, the more I think about this the more I am concerned that this is not just a fight between an author and a publisher but much more. NewsCorp is now on record as saying it will sacrifice its integrety as a publisher and news-source in order to protect the revenue that it might earn by re-broadcasting dubbed re-runs of Baywatch and Melrose Place in authoritarian coutries such as China. Second Newscorp's empire includes news and academic publishing resources that are integral to the academic process. On the News side they countrol the London Times, Fox News and variety of lesser papers and political magazines including the Weekly Standard (a conservative opinion journal). HarperCollins academic imprints include, Basic and Torch Book. We know about this affair because Chris Patten is to big to be discredited. He is a former member of Mrs. Thatcher's cabinet and won worldwide aclaim for the manner in which he managed the return of Hong Kong to Chinese rule. At first, Murdoch tried to claim that the book was cancelled because it was not up to snuff. However, Newscorp's spin doctors have backed off that claim as it just won't wash. Especially after the editor in charge of the book (Stuart Profit) quit in protest over the decision. What happens when a group of academics who write a text on the Pacific rim get called up by HarperCollins and are told "sorry we don't like your chapter on Indonesia, its too, you know..."? Do they re-write the text to make President Suharto not sound like a corrupt dictator, responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousand of people in East-Timor? Drop Indonesia from the text? Going elsewhere, is not likely to be an option for many of us if Newscorp is prepared to try to discredit us as they initially tried to do with Patten. I think that we now have a concrete example of something academics throughout the liberal capitalist democracies have secretely feared for a while, that large multi-national corporate publishers will sacrifice integrity to either further the interests of other portions of their corporate empires or those of the political cronies who they support. I suppose the question is what should be done? and perhaps more depressingly, what can be done? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I'ld be interested in hearing what authors who have worked with HarperCollins think about this. Although I suppose given this episode, many of them might just want to stay mum on the whole thing.
Re: Chinese Issue Commemorative Edition of Manifesto
See my comments below. On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Michael Eisenscher wrote: Marx? Engels? China Turns the Radicals Chic By Steven Mufson Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, March 2, 1998; Page A13 BEIJINGEntrepreneurs of the world, step right up! Get them while they last! China is issuing a special limited edition of the "Communist Manifesto" to mark the anniversary of the tract written 150 years ago by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Written as revolution was spreading across Europe in 1848, the manifesto has now been turned into a marketing opportunity. Never mind the masses. China is issuing 5,000 commemorative copies of the work and 500 copies of a collectors' edition, the state-run New China News Agency said last week. Wow! That's five and a half copies for each million inhabitants of China! This doesn't sound like a marketing opportunity. It sounds more like a memento that will be distributed to selected party members and their friends. Some years ago, I was told by a colleague that the U.S. Information Agency once published a Spanish-language book containing various national constitutions so that U.S. diplomats could give them as gifts to their foreign contacts. However, the colleague thought that he could better advance U.S. interests by giving a bottle of whiskey! Steven Zahniser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Enter the Euro-dragon
In a message dated 98-03-02 19:37:22 EST, you write: very central and very crucial, and indeed has been used by British opponents (and others as well) is the relatively undemocratic nature of the EU as a political entity. This is a very important issue. For those pen-l'ers who don't particularly care about the fate of social democracy in its classic European guise, this won't matter to you particularly. However, for the rest of you folks, there is a correlation in Western Europe between how democratic the electoral systems are and the overall success of the Left (in terms of tenure in government). My suspicision is that this correlation is due to a causal relationship. If so, imposing a layer of relatively undemocratic trans-national government over Europe will almost certainly speed the decomposition of the social-democratic left.
Re: Green Permits and Taxes
Robin Hahnel wrote: So you want to auction off the permits. Great. That's better than giving them away for free since it makes the polluters pay and gains the victims some form of compensation in the form of more tax reveunes. is there is only one way to answer either of these questions. One Comment: Only if the tax revenues are actually used to benefit those who suffer from the pollution. What guarantee is there of that? Why would not those who suffer the pollution be given ownership of the permits and then they would be compensated directly? If optimal means polluting as long as the social benefits that accompany the pollution are greater than the social costs of pollution, but not polluting once the social costs outweigh the social benefits, then I think that is exactly what the objective of rational citizens -- and environmentalists should be. If optimal degree of pollution reduction means cutting back on pollution as long as the social costs of cutting back are smaller than the social benefits that come from the reductions, but not continuing to cut back on pollution once the social costs of reduction are greater than the social benefits that the reductions bring,then I think that is exactly what we should strive for. Comment: The whole concept of optimizing in terms of costs and benefits ignores questions of justice and rights. Wouldn't orthodox economic analysis produce the World Bank memo view of optimum pollution levels-- that there is too much in the developed world and too little in many third world countries. Even if one had a less biased mode of measuring costs and benefits than that of welfare economics the problems of rights and justice remain. If a neighbouring plant's pollution is seriously hazardous to my health then I don't want to be compensated with a gas mask and annual payments awarded according to some person's estimate of the cost of my discomfort ---and traditional welfare economics doesn't even require this much just that I COULD be compensated not that I am. I want the damn plant closed not taxed or given a permit. Coase has to be one of the most absolutely clueless writers on the issue of rights but quite typical. In efficiency terms it matters not one hoot whether the polluter is given the right to pollute or the victim the right not to be polluted. Just give either the right and efficient trades result in a free market. Consider a situation where a union bargains for the reduction of a carcinogen in the workplace to a certain level that is quite expensive for the company to achieve. A cost-benefit analysis might very well show that the total social costs of such a policy outweigh the benefits to the workers. Are we to say that such a contract should be null and void, that it is against rational public policy? If you used cost-benefit analysis or tried to measure the social costs as against the social benefits of saving certain endangered species it is not at all clear that saving the endangered species would be rational. I would think that the social costs of keeping someone with advanced alzheimer's alive might be greater than the social benefits. Of course according to traditional welfare economics it would seem that there is no way spending funds on the poor and friendless and dying is Pareto efficient. I have just rejoined so perhaps I have missed relevant parts of the discussion. Cheers, Ken Hanly
Re: Maxwell, Darwin, Walras?
Jim Devine wrote:
I wrote:
It ends up being akin to Plato's golden myth (used to justify class
inequality in
the REPUBLIC).
Shane Mage responds:
In fairness to Plato, the first conscious communist, it should be pointed
out that the "class inequality" justified by the *gennaios pseudos*
consisted of persuading the *rulers* ("guardians" and "philosopher kings")
to accept a way of life in which they should not only own no money, but no
private property at all, and in which their material consumption would be
limited to the strict requirements of physical and mental health.
Shane is right (and I don't have my copy here to check if he's totally
right or just right about Platos's emphasis). However, given Plato's
general disdain for the common folk, I think that the myth also applies to
convince them that the system he proposes is natural.
If Plato was so disdainful of common folk, he would scarcely have so
extolled Socrates the stonemason, who spoke of finding real knowledge only
among artisans and craftsmen (demiourgoi)--albeit only in what pertained to
their crafts. Nor, in particular, would he have imaged the creator of the
universe as a manual worker, a *demiourgos*.
Plato's main audience was the rich young men of the town, who we might label
conservative,
In Plato's literarily productive years (390-350 BCE) Athens was a shadow of
what it had been in the days of Pericles, Socrates, and Alkibiades.
Plato's audience was Panhellenic, as is obvious both from the drammatis
personnae of the greatest dialogues and from what is known of the Academy's
"fellows" [and girls] and of their scholarly and political activities.
while most observers see the Republic as an idealized
(cleaned-up) version of Sparta.
Perhaps, if by "most observers" you mean tendentious smart-alecks of the
I.F.Stone/Bertrand Russell/Karl Popper stripe. No-one in his right mind,
least of all a product of the Athenian enlightenment, would ever take
post-Leuctra Sparta as a model of anything at all. Anyone who simply reads
the *politeia* (misleadingly translated as "Republic") on its own terms,
let alone with a philosophically critical mind and an appreciation of
Socratic irony, will quickly realize that its purpose is quite other.
Plato was a communist, but his communism
was very much a conservative top-down operation.
True, as true as the fact that to declare the total equality of men and
women was viewed as a conservative stance in the nacient world.
It is quite different from
the bottoms-up democratic rule by the proletariat that Marx favored. (Cf.
Hal Draper's little essay, "The Two Souls of Socialism").
No doubt about that.
Shane Mage
"immortals mortals, mortals immortals, living their deaths, dying their lives"
Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 62
The New Transatlantic Marketplace; Chiapas Peace Initiative;US Army Role in Colombia Grows
EU-US trade zone launched Asian crisis spurs plan for transatlantic common
market pounds 60 billion
benefits of lifting barriers
The Guardian
Wed, Mar 04 1998
AMBITIOUS proposals that could revolutionise trade relations between the
United States and the European Union and
provide a huge economic boost on both sides of the Atlantic will be launched
by the European Commission today.
The New Transatlantic Marketplace, which aims to scrap remaining tariffs on
goods, harmonise regulations and liberalise
services, will ease fears that the single market will turn into a "fortress
Europe".
However, EU officials acknowledge that the market-opening measures will step
up pressure on Japan and other key
trading countries to liberalise.
The proposal, which has received a preliminary welcome in Washington after
long discussions with the Clinton
administration and with both sides in the US Congress, is being marketed by
the EU trade commissioner, Sir Leon
Brittan, as a way to "enhance the broader political relationship between the
US and the European Union".
Although the scheme contains no explicit reference to the single currency,
it looks to a future dominated by the dollar and
the euro - the currencies of the two economic systems that between them
account for two-thirds of world trade and more
than half the planet's gross domestic product.
"The strong message we bring back from the US is that this has a good
chance, both in Congress and in the
administration, because of the common values and general level of
development and civilisation we Europeans share with
the US," one senior European official involved in the negotiations said
yesterday.
After years of fruitless discussions about a transatlantic free trade area,
the marketplace proposal is being launched
because the Asian financial crisis has revealed the limitations of the
Clinton administration's infatuation with the Pacific
Rim as its new commercial partner.
It also follows the defeat of President Bill Clinton's plan to extend the
North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) to
Chile and Argentina, after congressional fears of low-wage competition and
the dilution of US environmental standards.
"The issues of wage levels, labour rights and environmental standards which
nag US relations with other countries simply
do not crop up with Europe," the EU official added.
The plan's eight-part agenda for the plan is highly ambitious, with the EU
recognising that freedom of services will require
some liberalisation of visa and work permit regimes, so providers of
services can work freely in both the US and the EU.
The key provisions are:
A free trade area in services.
A commitment to end all tariffs on goods by 2010.
Further liberalisation, aimed at a free trade area, of government
procurement, intellectual property and investment.
Scrapping technical and non-tariff barriers to trade through mutual
recognition of technical and safety standards and
consumer safeguards.
"We see this as having a similar economic growth effect to the Uruguay Round
{of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (Gatt)} - an addition of 1 per cent of GDP for both the EU and the
US," an EU official said yesterday, citing internal
surveys. This would mean, after five years of the new common marketplace, an
extra pounds 60 billion in GDP for both the
US and the EU.
"It should enhance the broader agenda of multilateral trade liberalisation
within the WTO {World Trade Organisation}, to
which we are committed," says the draft proposal that Sir Leon will present
to the European Commission today.
"It should not lead to the creation of new trade obstacles to third
countries or weaken their support for multilateral
liberalisation."
The plan excludes the most contentious issues of transatlantic trade -
agricultural goods and audiovisual services - on
which earlier proposals to forge a US-EU free trade area broke down.
"There is no sense in having negotiations about the impossible.We have
agreed that we should tackle the stuff that is hard,
but achievable," an EU spokesman said.
Meanwhile, Sir Leon's former Cabinet ally on Europe, Kenneth Clarke, warned
the Tory leader William Hague against
"shattering 50 years of reasonable Conservative unity" on Europe, and still
"getting it all wrong".
In an equally upbeat account of Europe's trading future, Mr Clarke differed
only in regretting that monetary union should
be "the key issue of European policy".
He said: "I have always criticised the rigid EMU timetable laid down in the
Maastricht treaty."
(Copyright 1998)
_via IntellX_ Copyright 1998, The Guardian.
===
EU Commission wants unprecedented EU-US trade liberalization
Agence France-Presse
Wed, Mar 04 1998
BRUSSELS, March 4 (AFP) - The European Commission wants unprecedented
liberalization of EU-US trade by the year
2010, a commission spokesman announced on Wednesday.
He said such a deal would provide
Re: Maxwell, Darwin, Walras?
At 12:21 PM 3/4/98 -0500, Rakesh wrote: ... my question for economists: The other great 19th century "agent" whose work was done behind the scenes, a most interesting trope it seems, was Auguste Walras' auctioneer, correct? Now this auctioneer was imagined as having set market prices and quantities of all commodities before any trading such that markets clear, equilibrium attained and maximum utility realized . The god-like Auctioneer doesn't set quantities, only prices. Individuals set quantities, but they're not allowed to actually trade (using which police force, I wonder?) until the quantities demanded equal the quantities supplied. Also, the result need not be "Pareto optimal" (if that's what you mean by "maximum utility") if not all of the requisite assumptions (e.g., the absense of external costs benefits) are in place. The extreme improbability of such such a determinate outcome however did not prevent economists from believing that market processes were best understood as if such an omnipotent auctioneer were really at work, correct? Any ideas as to how pursue this analogies would be most appreciated. The analogy between the Walrasian Auctioneer and Maxwell's demon is good. Neither could ever exist. But economists engage in "useful lies" -- e.g., assuming that the Auctioneer exists -- in order to get determinate results. They assume the economy acts _as if_ there were an Invisible Hand. Of course, _which_ assumptions they make reflects their political perspective, which embarrassing facts they feel are important to sweep under the rug. It ends up being akin to Plato's golden myth (used to justify class inequality in the REPUBLIC). I think a Darwinian perspective on economic competition (even in the hands of a conservative like Armen Alchian) makes more sense than the Walrasian perspective. I don't see how someone like John Roemer could get suckered by the latter. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
progress in economic research (cont.)
From the ERN Microeconomics Working Paper abstracts: "Citizens, Autocrats, and Plotters: An Agency Theory of Coups d'Etat" BY: ALEXANDER GALETOVIC Universidad de Chile RICARDO SANHUEZA Universidad de Chile SSRN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT DELIVERY: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=60831 Paper ID: WP CEA #11 Date: July 1997 Contact: Alexander Galetovic E-mail: MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Universidad de Chile, Departamento de Ingenieria, Industrial Repblica #701, Santiago Chile Phone:+56/2/678 4065 Fax: +56/2/689 7895 Co-Auth: MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ERN Ref: MICRO:WPS98-120 We present an agency model of coup attempts in autocracies. The autocrat's objectives conflict with those of the citizenry. Under the assumption that the autocrat's policy choices cannot be observed by the citizenry, but are correlated with the short-run performance of the economy we find that: (a) the threat of a coup disciplines the autocrat; to some extent it aligns his objectives with those of the citizenry; (b) coups are more likely when there is a recession; (c) increasing the average level of per-capita income has an ambiguous effect on the probability of a coup attempt. We find that the implications of the model are consistent with empirical evidence. In a panel of 89 non-communist LDCs one recession increases the probability of a coup attempt by 47% on average. JEL Classification: D72
Re: Maxwell, Darwin, Walras?
Date sent: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:29:40 -0800 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Maxwell, Darwin, Walras? At 12:21 PM 3/4/98 -0500, Rakesh wrote: ... my question for economists: The other great 19th century "agent" whose work was done behind the scenes, a most interesting trope it seems, was Auguste Walras' auctioneer, correct? Now this auctioneer was imagined as having set market prices and quantities of all commodities before any trading such that markets clear, equilibrium attained and maximum utility realized . The god-like Auctioneer doesn't set quantities, only prices. Individuals set quantities, but they're not allowed to actually trade (using which police force, I wonder?) until the quantities demanded equal the quantities supplied. Also, the result need not be "Pareto optimal" (if that's what you mean by "maximum utility") if not all of the requisite assumptions (e.g., the absense of external costs benefits) are in place. The extreme improbability of such such a determinate outcome however did not prevent economists from believing that market processes were best understood as if such an omnipotent auctioneer were really at work, correct? Any ideas as to how pursue this analogies would be most appreciated. The analogy between the Walrasian Auctioneer and Maxwell's demon is good. Neither could ever exist. But economists engage in "useful lies" -- e.g., assuming that the Auctioneer exists -- in order to get determinate results. They assume the economy acts _as if_ there were an Invisible Hand. Of course, _which_ assumptions they make reflects their political perspective, which embarrassing facts they feel are important to sweep under the rug. It ends up being akin to Plato's golden myth (used to justify class inequality in the REPUBLIC). I think a Darwinian perspective on economic competition (even in the hands of a conservative like Armen Alchian) makes more sense than the Walrasian perspective. I don't see how someone like John Roemer could get suckered by the latter. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed. Response: This is beautifully written. The so-called "invisible hand" of capitalism operates like the hand of a proctologist when it has a rubber glove on it (metaphor I use in class). On the issue of theoreticians like Roemer, I sincerely believe he represents a classic illustration of congnitive dissonance at work. We are taught, play the neoclassical game until you finish grad school; play the neoclassical game until you get your teaching appointment; play the neoclassical game to build your CV and get published in the "permissible" journals on the "permissible" topics until you get tenure; play the neoclassical game until you get promoted to high enough standing to have some "influence" in the "profession". After all that neoclassical game playing, coming out of the closet and showing your true "radical" colors involves either admitting unprincipled whoring and opportunism (especially when considering the sacrifices paid in blood by real radicals), giving up the "radical" pretense, or, one more possibility, trying to reconcile your "radicalism" with aspects of the neoclassical paradigm or attempting to apply supposedly "value free" aspects of the neoclassical paradigm to "radical" concerns--using neoclassical models and categories to supposedly turn neoclassical stuff on its head or purport to show that even the neoclassical approach, when slightly modified and stripped of clearly bogus/bullshit assumptions can be used as an instrument of critique of capitalism and its dynamics. The latter approach, of the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too is, in my opinion, the most unprincipled opportunism and empty way out of the congitive dissonance contradictions. Even in formalistic terms however, some simply endogenizing of the so- called "exogenous" and some mechanical "histeresis" blows the general equilibrium shit out of the water. For example, in simple partial equilibrium Marshellian terms: /---dQd delta autonomous-dSupply---dShortages---dPrice \--Pe--Qe shift factordDemanddSurpluses\dQs/ Since expectations are assumed as one of the "autonomous shift factors", and since changes in shortages/surpluses and price can change expectations, yielding feedback loops from shortages/surpluses and price changes back to "autonomous shift factor", even in pure Walrasian "auction terms" or partial equilibria, the notion of a tendency to ONE or AN equilibrium state (partial) is destroyed and the notion of interdependent equilibria yielding a general equilibrium solution is total fantasy--but a dangerous, unprincipled and obfuscating mystifying,
The March issue of Labour Left Briefing (fwd)
Hi The March 98 issue of LLB is now on-line. Below is a list of the articles in this issue and their URL's: *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news1.html Don't bomb Iraq Will McMahon, Hackney North and Stoke Newington CLP, argues that key motives for the latest US attack on Iraq are to send a message to other world powers and test new technologies. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news2.html Peace not bombs Parliament's unconditional backing for a war against Iraq was an astonishing piece of political history we may soon come to regret, argues Alan Simpson MP. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news3.html Benn on Gulf War Tony Benn's parliament speech against war in the Gulf. [This is reproduced in full - a edited version appeared in the paper issue] *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news4.html Mitchell's flexible principles Liam Mac Uaid, West Ham CLP, argues that there are a few weeks respite for a Time to Think Campaign. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news5.html Sinn Fein: "shut up!" Brian Campbell, editor of Sinn Fein's An Phoblacht/Republican News, looks at SF's expulsion from the peace talks. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news6.html The antics roadshow: the value of welfare reform Robert Deans, North East Cambs CLP, rejects notions that we cannot afford the welfare state. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news7.html Action on pensions needed Terry Heath, secretary of the South West TUC Pensioners Forum, argues that Labour must link pensions to earnings. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news8.html Benefit cuts make us sick Kate Adams, Incapacity Action. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news9.html Waiting lists up John Lister, London Health Emergency, looks at the crisis in the NHS. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news10.html Brown fiddles while "tigers" burn Brian Burkitt, Pudsey CLP and University of Bradford, presents an alternative to Gordon Brown's neo-Thatcherite economic agenda. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news11.html Defend municipal housing Tony Dale on Labour councils headlong rush to embrace local housing companies. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news12.html New Deal for old money John Perry examines the reality of Labour's "New Deal". *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news13.html Free to speak out Ken Coates MEP replies to criticism in last month's LLB. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/news14.html When Blair's bubble bursts John Nicholson, convenor of the Network of Socialist Alliances in England, sees things altogether differently from LLB *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/lp1.html New Labour into Power -- what price democracy? New Labour proclaims its desire to democratise and decentralise politics. Leonora Lloyd of the London Labour Party executive, suggests that the opposite is happening in the London Labour Party. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/lp2.html Why I'm standing for the NEC Councillor Liz Davies, Islington North CLP, calls for a united and effective campaign for the NEC. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/lp3.html Return of the daleks Mark Seddon, editor of Tribune, calls for a "Real Labour" challenge for NEC places. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/lp4.html The class struggle Tobie Glenny, a teacher in Islington, looks at Labour's school policies. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/lp5.html Reproductive rights -- a year of change Leonora Lloyd reports. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/lp6.html PLP Policy Forum elections *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/tu1.html Liverpool dockers: the music of the future Liz Knight, London Support Group for the Liverpool Dockers, reports. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/tu2.html LLB's tribute to the dockers *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/tu3.html Union leaders on go-slow John McIlroy, Withington CLP and author of Trade Unions in Britain Today, gives his seasonal round up of the state of play in the unions. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/tu4.html Britain -- UN law breaker John Hendy QC examines Britain's repressive anti-union laws and reports on new initiatives to campaign for changes. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/tu5.html Membership control needed Steve Battlemuch, CPSA BA Nottingham, reports on how the courts have stopped a union merger that the left in both unions opposed. *** http://www.llb.labournet.org.uk/1998/march/tu6.html UNISON officials
Re: Green Permits and Taxes
Ken Hanly wrote: Why would not those who suffer the pollution be given ownership of the permits and then they would be compensated directly? Do you give each citizen the same number of permits? If so, this will come out the same as giving each citizen his/er proportionate share of the green pollution taxes I would collect. If you are planning on giving some people more permits than others -- on the grounds that some are more damaged than others (those living closer to the plant, the elderly, the asthmatic, the chemically sensitive, the aesthetically sensitive, etc.) -- how are you going to go about deciding who gets how many? But I agree with your point that collecting taxes from polluters does not guarantee that those who are damaged get payment that exactly compensates them for their degree of individual damage. Unfortunately that's just hard to arrange. But notice, if you could figure out how many permits to give to different people, I could award people the exact same size green pollution tax dividend. If optimal means polluting as long as the social benefits that accompany the pollution are greater than the social costs of pollution, but not polluting once the social costs outweigh the social benefits, then I think that is exactly what the objective of rational citizens -- and environmentalists should be. If optimal degree of pollution reduction means cutting back on pollution as long as the social costs of cutting back are smaller than the social benefits that come from the reductions, but not continuing to cut back on pollution once the social costs of reduction are greater than the social benefits that the reductions bring,then I think that is exactly what we should strive for. Comment: The whole concept of optimizing in terms of costs and benefits ignores questions of justice and rights. I agree with this entirely, and have said already that I do not limit the criteria I think we should use to efficiency alone, but consider equity as well. Of course there is environmental justice to consider, and I'd be in favor of prioritizing it over the criterion of efficiency. But in the above, I was debating with Gar Lipow about what was or was not the most reasonable conceptualization of efficiency. Wouldn't orthodox economic analysis produce the World Bank memo view of optimum pollution levels-- that there is too much in the developed world and too little in many third world countries. Yes, the famous Larry Summers memo, right? I agree entirely with your rejection of decision making based exclusively on the efficiency criterion when it flies in the face of justice. When the costs are born by those who already bear too much of the costs, and the benefits are enjoyed by those who already enjoy too much of the benefits of world economic activity, the results are unacceptable on grounds if further aggravating economic injustice -- even if the aggregate benefits outweigh the aggregate costs. So we should say "nyet." If a neighbouring plant's pollution is seriously hazardous to my health then I don't want to be compensated with a gas mask and annual payments awarded according to some person's estimate of the cost of my discomfort ---and traditional welfare economics doesn't even require this much just that I COULD be compensated not that I am. I want the damn plant closed not taxed or given a permit. Agreed. But a better solution might be not letting the plant move into your neighborhood, or not letting you move near the plant. There is a policy tool called zoning. If musical chair geography can't solve the problem, then you are presenting a case where the social cost of the pollution is so high that no conceivable benefits could justify the costs. Coase has to be one of the most absolutely clueless writers on the issue of rights but quite typical. In efficiency terms it matters not one hoot whether the polluter is given the right to pollute or the victim the right not to be polluted. Just give either the right and efficient trades result in a free market. I could give you a 4 part critique of the usual interpretation of the Coase theorem. For starters, there is no market since in his theorem there is a single polluter and a single pollution victim. If there are more than one of either his theorem does not hold -- and Coase said so. Consider a situation where a union bargains for the reduction of a carcinogen in the workplace to a certain level that is quite expensive for the company to achieve. A cost-benefit analysis might very well show that the total social costs of such a policy outweigh the benefits to the workers. Are we to say that such a contract should be null and void, that it is against rational public policy? If you used cost-benefit analysis or tried to measure the social costs as against the social benefits of saving certain endangered species it is not at all clear that saving the endangered species would be rational. I
