Re: Pat Buchanan attacks Reagan and Thatcher's legacy
In a message dated 98-04-07 23:02:42 EDT, nathan newman writes: I'm less excited than interested in it as a piece of evidence on the conservative divisions that are growing and paralyzing much of the rightwing agenda. I also happen to think that Buchanan is one of the more honest conservatives, however lothesome his beliefs. He has become no less conservative, just evolved into a different species than the liberatarian globalists that came to dominate the Republicans under Reagan. I wonder how much of this latest version of Buchananism is related to the problems of Reaganism and/or thatcherism, and how much to the tremendous approval the Democrats have been receiving for an expanding economy. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pat Buchanan attacks Reagan and Thatcher's legacy
michael wrote: Pat Buchanan might not be a fascist, but I think that we have to give him credit for fashioning the language of hate that has become the mainstay of modern politics. He deserves to share that credit with Kevin Phillips, who has become something of a darling of the liberals these days. I believe that Phillips first came to national attention in Garry Wills' book, Nixon Agonistes, where he explained that the key to doing politics was understanding who hates whom. Phillips was the engineer of Nixon's southern stragegy, to which Gingrich The Contract With America are the heirs, even as Phillips now criticizes them. Thomas Byrne Edsall, reviewing Phillips' Politics of Rich and Poor, said that Phillips is like an architect who, having designed a house, hates it when he sees it built. Doug
re:Soviet objectives
For your information, it is Dr. Duchesne. Cheers, ajit sinha Nobody addresses themselves in this fashion on PEN-L. I have a masters degree in philosophy. I wouldn't expect anybody to call me Master Proyect, now would I? To use titles like this would be a concession to the hierarchicalistic power structures that the capitalist system imposes like an evil template--sort of like underwear that is two sizes too small--on our phenomenological and heuristic essences. For clarification of the role of titles in class society, I recommend Zizek's article in the Journal of Social Mediations and Forensic Investigations, Fall 1986. Louis Proyect
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
At 07:01 AM 4/8/98 -0700, you wrote: GOOD NEWS: THE WELFARE GAINS MADE IN THE LAST SIX YEARS - Nathan Newman Even as many of us organize against the punitive effects of welfare "deform" and other social attacks, we should not ignore the successes and gains we have made in the last decade. Too much focus on losses can lead not to action but to disempowerment, so this post will lay out some good news on our successes embodied in the federal budget. This is obscene spin-doctoring on behalf of the reactionary Clinton. The problem we are facing is cutbacks in state aid to needy families. It is state funding not federal funding that goes into the AFDC program, which has been overthrown. Any increase in federal funding is more than offset by state cuts. The reason that these state cuts have been made is because the Democratic White House functions as an extension of the Reaganite attack on the safety net. Clinton offered no effective oppositon to the assault on AFDC for the same reason that he pushed so hard for NAFTA. He is a tool of big business. Louis Proyect
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
AFDC has been renamed. It is now Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), or some such phrasing. I understand that federal block grant payments to states for TANF are larger than the former federal AFDC funding. However, I believe that the actual distribution of money payments to families and individuals is lower under TANF than AFDC. Is there anyone on the list who can confirm my understanding? Jeff -- From: Louis Proyect To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 10:33AM At 07:01 AM 4/8/98 -0700, you wrote: GOOD NEWS: THE WELFARE GAINS MADE IN THE LAST SIX YEARS - Nathan Newman Even as many of us organize against the punitive effects of welfare "deform" and other social attacks, we should not ignore the successes and gains we have made in the last decade. Too much focus on losses can lead not to action but to disempowerment, so this post will lay out some good news on our successes embodied in the federal budget. This is obscene spin-doctoring on behalf of the reactionary Clinton. The problem we are facing is cutbacks in state aid to needy families. It is state funding not federal funding that goes into the AFDC program, which has been overthrown. Any increase in federal funding is more than offset by state cuts. The reason that these state cuts have been made is because the Democratic White House functions as an extension of the Reaganite attack on the safety net. Clinton offered no effective oppositon to the assault on AFDC for the same reason that he pushed so hard for NAFTA. He is a tool of big business. Louis Proyect
Re: Global Intelligence: Japan
Barkley writes: And is it not true that the growth rate was higher in 1996 than in 1995 and still higher in 1997, in short, it is accelerating? As someone who embraces a Schumpeterian theory of long waves, Barkley, you shouldn't be concerned with real GDP numbers. More apt would be productivity measures, preferably labor productivity rather than bogus "total factor productivity" stats. Of course, here there is argument too: have the recent surges in labor productivity growth been merely a normal short-cyclical uptick or the sign that the long-term trend has returned to being similar to the "good old days" (GOD) of the 1950s 1960s? Here of course, we get into the debate about "why hasn't the communication/information technical revolution paid off very well?" that the mainstream economists are chewing over. But pretend (ooops, I mean "assume") that there _is_ a supply-side renaissance going on. Maybe we can learn from the experience of previous supply-side shifts. Back around 1919, one can find that US labor productivity stats show a kink, an upward ratchet of the labor productivity growth rate. That kind of "kink" fits with ideas of long waves or other theories of stages of capitalist development. The problem is that 10 years later the supply surge encountered a demand debacle. As the French "Regulationists" say, the accumulation regime didn't have a mode of regulation that would allow stable growth. Or to paraphrase James Tobin, god gave us two eyes, one for supply and one for demand. Many Schumpeterians close one of those eyes, ignoring the demand side. On the demand side, GDP numbers play a role, though we shouldn't be looking as simply US statistics. Just as back in 1929, the US economy's health is highly dependent on the health of the rest of the world. in pen-l solidarity and without gratuitous use of academic titles, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "Dear, you increase the dopamine in my accumbens." -- words of love for the 1990s.
Re: Settlement: $500 to Every Kid Born between 1985 and 1997
This sounds fishy to me. I don't doubt the best intentions for all concerned, but I wonder if anyone has verified this accouncement. It could be a device to obtain names and ss#'s for fraudulent purposes. MBS === Michael Eisenscher wrote: [Apologies for duplicates as a consequence of cross-posting. Pass this on to friends.] From: "Ms. Aikya Param" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Money for US Children Born '85-'97 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 10:52:30 -0700 Please forward to anyone who has children or grandchildren born between 1985 and 1997. Qikya $500.00 U.S. SAVINGS BONDS FOR EVERY CHILD BORN BETWEEN 1985-1997. In a lawsuit settled this fall, Gerber Food Corporation has been ordered to give every child born between 1985-1997(under the age of 12) a $500 US Savings Bond for falsely advertising "All Natural" baby food products which were found to contain preservatives. Reuters News Service reported that Gerber Baby Food must provide the savings bonds, but is not required to advertise the settlement or attempt to contact product users. Bonds may be obtained by sending a copy of the child's birth certificate and social security card to: GERBER FOOD SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION, INFANT LITIGATION PO BOX 1602 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 53480 All the Very Best, Caspar Davis Victoria, B.C., Canada Only when the last tree has died And the last river been poisoned And the last fish been caught Will we realize that we cannot eat money. - The Cree Aikya Param, Publisher, Women and Money Economic Justice and Empowerment Report -- Max B. Sawicky 202-775-8810 (voice) Economic Policy Institute 202-775-0819 (fax) 1660 L Street, NW [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
... the following chart shows (in billions of dollars) how defense spending has fallen even as spending on housing, food assistance, and general income support (welfare, Earned Income Tax Credit, etc.) has risen between 1992 and 1998: Category 1992 1998Change - - - Defense 298,350 264,112 -34,238 Housing assistance 18,904 28,752 +9,848 Food and nutrition assistance32,622 36,137 +3,515 Public Assistance Related 43,353 72,497 +29,144 (Numbers from Office of Management Budget) I assume that these numbers are inflation-adjusted (while the second column represents projections or estimates as 1998 isn't over yet), but shouldn't we also divide each of the last three rows by something like "the number of poor people"? After all, with "entitlements," the size of the budget increases with demand for the services, while the meaning of spending can only be revealed in the context of knowledge of the size of the problem. Also, as Louis points out, we should be adding federal, state, and local budgets for these matters. Also, does "Defense" include the State Department, the Energy Department, the CIA, the NSA, Veteran's benefits, etc., agencies that should be counted as part of the war effort? Even if the numbers that include such hidden military spending fall, it shouldn't surprise us. War spending fell after WW2 also. 1989 might be thought of as the end of WW3. (Indicating that President Velcro Zipper should not be given credit.) There have been minor expansions of direct welfare payments (AFDC/TANF and SSI) but a massive expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for the working poor. The EITC delivers as much as $3500 per year for working families with low incomes, crucial assistance for minimum wage workers and those able to find work only part-time. Notably, EITC now delivers more cash to poor families each year than AFDC ever has historically. to what extent does the rise in the EITC cancel out the rise of state local sales taxes and other regressive taxes? One reason it is important for activists to understand this success is that conservatives have noted it and have continually tried to undermine the Earned Income Tax Credit. As one of the most valuable gains in public assistance over the last decade, we need to be aware of its importance as much as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps or SSI. It's interesting that the cons insisted on greater IRS monitoring of EITC recipients, fearful of a new form of "welfare fraud." This caused a big backlash against the IRS, which the cons then used to bash the IRS. Demagoguery seems to be what the first letter in "D.C." stands for. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
With the Clinton budgets, one has to mind the shells that are empty, not just the one with the pea. The decline in defense and the increase in the EITC are significant, as Nathan says. A better view of the other stuff, or the whole picture, is obtained by considering the trend in domestic spending as a share of GDP, or to be precise, total outlays less defense and net interest payments. This peaks in 1980, takes a long but not enormous dip over the 1980's (e.g., less than 2% of GDP), and is restored by that great man George Bush to pre-Reagan levels. (One must understand that to Nixon and Ford we owe the greatest growth in this variable.) In contrast, apres Bush such spending slides down and is projected to continue so in the present golden age of budget surpluses and tobacco settlements. The spending here does not include EITC, which I took note of above. One can see from Nathan's numbers that the better part of the public assistance increase was due to the EITC and SSI, the latter focused on the elderly and reflecting health care cost pressures, to some extent (2/3rds of SSI $$ is for indigent old folks in nursing homes). The point about the GOP attack on the EITC is well-taken, though we do have a breather this year. Nathan Newman wrote: GOOD NEWS: THE WELFARE GAINS MADE IN THE LAST SIX YEARS . . . Max B. Sawicky 202-775-8810 (voice) Economic Policy Institute 202-775-0819 (fax) 1660 L Street, NW [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036
Re: Pat Buchanan attacks Reagan and Thatcher's legacy
MScoleman wrote: I also happen to think that Buchanan is one of the more honest conservatives, however lothesome his beliefs. He has become no less conservative, just evolved into a different species than the liberatarian globalists that came to dominate the Republicans under Reagan. Why honest? Why not ambitious? He is appealing to a crowd of social conservatives who have been hurt by right wing policies. B. can attack globalization and thereby reinforce distrust at home of blacks, asian, and any other possible scapegoat groups. He can win the support of industries that are hurt by trade (Milikin, the S. Carolina textile man) and thus have enough chips to earn a seat at the table of power. What exactly has Buchanan done do earn him a position as a national figure. Honest Pat? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
Max B. Sawicky wrote: The spending here does not include EITC, which I took note of above. One can see from Nathan's numbers that the better part of the public assistance increase was due to the EITC and SSI, the latter focused on the elderly and reflecting health care cost pressures, to some extent (2/3rds of SSI $$ is for indigent old folks in nursing homes). SSI is also apparently a refuge for people kicked off welfare and "home relief"/General Assistance. In New York City, the number of people on SSI has increased almost as much as the numbers on AFDC HR have declined. Doug
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Category 1992 1998Change - - - Defense 298,350 264,112 -34,238 Housing assistance 18,904 28,752 +9,848 Food and nutrition assistance32,622 36,137 +3,515 Public Assistance Related 43,353 72,497 +29,144 (Numbers from Office of Management Budget) -I assume that these numbers are inflation-adjusted (while the second column -represents projections or estimates as 1998 isn't over yet), but shouldn't -we also divide each of the last three rows by something like "the number of -poor people"? The numbers are not inflation-adjusted so the drop in defense spending was actually larger in real terms (as were cuts in a host of international affairs spending) and the real increases in social spending were smaller. But the inflation rate in the 1960s is comparable to the 1990s, so the percentage comparison basically holds. As to comparing to the poverty rate, that would be a useful comparison, although this spending has increased even as poverty rates have fallen with the business cycle. Of course, this shows the danger of measuring it against poverty rates as well, since one of the worst aspects of the 1996 Welfare Bill is that its block grant approach means that spending right now is actually higher than it would have been under the old AFDC formula, but in case of recession will end up being lower. Raw numbers in billions of dollars spent is not perfect as a measure but it is a useful piece of information, which is why I concentrated on it in this post. -Also, as Louis points out, we should be adding federal, state, and local -budgets for these matters. That is a useful additional piece of information, but if we compared states response to their new freedom, it would not support Louis's ideology that their is no difference between Democratic and Republican parties. In California, we almost got passed a bill that was, in many ways, BETTER than the old AFDC system; unfortunately, our Republican governor used his veto power to force through a worse bill. BTW one of the best fighters in our legislature on the welfare issue, State Senator Barbara Lee, was just elected to the US Congress as the successor to Ron Dellums from the Oakland-Berkeley district. ---Nathan Newman
Re: Investment in E Europe v. Asia
Dennis: Incidentally, I hear Motorola is planning to invest umpteen zillions in Cracow, Poland, in the near future; a $600 million joint venture with Siemens in Desden is already up and running. It looks like Round One of the global East Asia vs. EU slugfest over who gets to inherit the mantle of the Pax Americana has gone to the Eurobourgeoisie. I read recently that Motorola has a $700 million plant in N China. I think that they are investing with two hands. Joseph Medley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yestaerday I had a long chat with the Motorola Director, Indian operations in Bangalore. They are going to be setting up another center in Hyderabad which is cheaper, infrastructure better, and the state government very aggressive. BTW Motorola's Indian operations is the only one of a handful operations in the world with a CMM level 5 achievement (something like ISO 9000 in the software industry, developed by CMU). Of course firms without the CMM rating of 5 does not mean they are not good at what they do. Anthony D'Costa
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
-Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even as many of us organize against the punitive effects of welfare "deform" and other social attacks, we should not ignore the successes and gains we have made in the last decade. Too much focus on losses can lead not to action but to disempowerment, so this post will lay out some good news on our successes embodied in the federal budget. Louis Proyect wrote: -This is obscene spin-doctoring on behalf of the reactionary Clinton. The -problem we are facing is cutbacks in state aid to needy families. It is -state funding not federal funding that goes into the AFDC program, which -has been overthrown. It is true that states set the level of benefits, but the federal government commits half the funds and even under TANF, there are rules for states to maintain a large percentage of their financial commitment to aid. Welfare "deform" was an obscene bill and Clinton will rightly roast in hell for signing it. But let's be clear that AFDC was hardly a peachy keen program for a lot of people. States like Alabama and Mississipi had maximum family benefits of less than $200 per month. Even before the 1996 bill, the real value of monthly checks in places like California had fallen by half when adjusted for inflation compared to their heyday in the early 1970s. The 1996 bill will make this much worse for a lot of people but state governments have always been free to pay welfare recipients shit under AFDC. But you can also put on your ideological blinders and ignore the gains, real economic gains for real families, from the massive expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC does not help the non-working poor, so it is no substitute for AFDC/TANF or SSI, but it is a crucial program for a segment of the poor, the working poor, who have traditionally been badly treated under the welfare system. It is a benefit that increases by 40% the buying power of working families' earned income. If we passed a 40% increase in the minimum wage, that would be seen as a breakthrough and the EITC does that, plus helping out part-time workers making more than the minimum wage. And frankly, you can disagree with my analysis, but your holier-than-thou attitude becomes an excuse to not critically engage with people you disagree with. I'll make no apologies for my analysis of welfare; I've been one of the main organizers of one of the largest, if not the largest local mobilizations in the country against the welfare cuts, called People for Bread Work and Justice, where over 100 organizations have come together to fight national, state and local cutbacks in welfare. I was arrested and jailed last year at a protest at the County building where we (successfully) forced the county to reverse its plan to impose a 3-month limit on General Assistance. We've had marches denouncing Clinton and Gingrich for the 1996 bill and will have a mass march, rally and festival on May 2 tied to the attacks on the social safety net. I also happen to think the 1993 Budget and Tax bills where some of the most important social and economic gains we made in a generation. Clinton himself may be an opportunistic inconsistent bastard in signing both the 1993 and 1996 bills, but I have no problem praising one and condemning the other. --Nathan Newman
Re: The Indians have an aversion to anything Spanish
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 22:02:13 -0400 Louis Proyect said: (From a journal kept by Archbishop Pedro Cortes y Larraz in colonial Guatemala, 1769. Found in "The Guatemala Reader", edited by Jonathan Fried, Marvin Gettleman, Deborah Levenson and Nancy Peckenham, Grove Press, 1983) I believe the book is actually titled: "Guatemala in Rebellion: Unfinished History." It contains some excellent material. Alan
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
Max Sawicky: This peaks in 1980, takes a long but not enormous dip over the 1980's (e.g., less than 2% of GDP), and is restored by that great man George Bush to pre-Reagan levels. I always suspected Bush was more of a Keynesian than is Clinton. John Gulick John Gulick Ph. D. Candidate Sociology Graduate Program University of California-Santa Cruz (415) 643-8568 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list of AEA exec. committee members to protest unilateral AEA cuts (long)
To register your protest against the unilateral action of the American Economics Association (AEA) to cut the number of heterodox sessions in the January economics meetings, you can write/fax/email/call any or ALL of the members of the AEA executive committee below. You can contact Al Campbell to give him a copy of your letter/fax/or email at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yours, Susan Fleck w:(202) 606-5654 x415 h:(301) 270-1486 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** My personal opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer and my postings can not be attributed to my employer. AEA executive committee members: 1) President: Robert W. Fogel University of Chicago/Center for Popular Economics 1101 E. 58th St. Chicago, IL 60637 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (773) 702-7709 (f) (773) 702-2901 2) President Elect D. Gale Johnson Dept. of Economics Univ. of Chicago 1126 E. 59th St. Chicago, IL 60637 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (773) 702-8251 (f) (773) 702-8490 3) Vice President Robert J. Barro Littauer Center Dept. of Economics Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138-3001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (f) (617) 496-8629 4) Vice President June E. O'Neill 420 Riverside Dr., Apt. 8th New York, NY 10025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (202) 226-2700 (f) (202) 225-7509 5) Secretary John J. Siegfried Dept. of Economics Vanderbilt Univ. Nashville, TN 37235 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (615) 322-2429 (f) (615) 343-8495 6) Treasurer Elton Hinshaw Box 6162, Sta B Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 37235 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (615) 322-2595 (f) (615) 343-7590 7) Editor of the AER Orley C. Ashenfelter 30 Mercer St. Princeton, NJ 08540 (609) 452-4040 (f) (609) 258-2907 8) Editor of the Journal of Econ Literature John McMillan U of Cal. - San Diego Ir/Ps 0519 La Jola, CA 92093 0519 (619) 534-5967 (f) (619) 534-3939 9) Editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives Alan B. Krueger Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School Princeton, NJ 08544 (609) 258-4046 (f) (609) 258-2907 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10) Exec Com Member Ronald G. Ehrenberg Vice Pres. for Academic Programs Planning and Budgeting Cornell Univ. 435 Day Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-2801 (607) 255-3062 (f) (607) 255-4990 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11) Exec Com Member Barbara L. Wolfe Dept. of Economics Univ. of Wisconsin 1180 Obervatory Dr. Madison, WI 53706 1320 (608) 263-2989 (f) (608) 262-2033 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12) Exec Com Member Rachel McCulloch Bradeis Univ. Dept. of Economics MS 021 Waltham, MA 02254 (781) 736-2245 (f) (781) 736-2263 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 13) Exec Com Member Paul M. Romer 160 Lucero Way Portola Valley CA 94028-7428 (415) 723-8442 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 14) Exec Com Member Angus S. Deaton Princeton Univ. 221 Bendheim Hall Princeton, NJ 08544 (609) 258-5967 (f) (609) 258-5974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 15) Exec com Member Lawrence J. Kotlikoff Dept. of Economics Boston Univ. 270 Bay State Rd. Boston, MA 02215 16) Ex Officio Member Ann O. Krueger Dept. of Economics Stanford Univ. Landau Bldg. Stanford, CA 94035-6072 (415) 723-0188 (f) (415) 725-5702 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 17) Ex Officio Member Arnold C. Harberger 405 Hilgard Ave. 8283 Bunche Hall UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90095-1477 (310) 825-7520 (f) (310) 825-9528 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathan Is Kosher, Etc.
Lest there be any doubt, as everybody piles on Nathan, I'd like to say that for whatever it's worth in my book he's on the side of the angels. I'd be surprised to learn that state spending on TANF/AFDC had decreased. It may have slowed down in growth. I don't know for certain. The bigger problems will come later, as I said in another post. Of course it makes a difference who's in charge, though sometimes we do get the perverse phenomenon of the leader indulging his ability to screw his own followers, as Reagan did for eight years on social issues, as Bush did with his spending increases, and as Bill has done to welfare recipients, among others. (as in other matters, Bill takes self-indulgence to new heights.) It's also true, as Louis pointed out via K. Pollitt, that the liberal movement folded up on this one. It proposed no clear alternative. Why is not so easy to answer confidently. My own pet theory is that by accepting the broad premises of deficit reduction and government shrinkage, liberals were unable to propose any substitute for AFDC or TANF that would actually help welfare recipients, since such plans would cost too much. The most logical sources of opposition would have been NOW and CDF, but they were too little and too late. The civil rights groups are struggling with reorganization and resource limitations. Maybe the bourgeois feminists were too bourgeois. Maybe CDF wanted to protect its relationship with the White House. "Stand for children" was a modern equivalent of what we used to call a "peace crawl," though I think the crawls had more effect than 'Stand.' Another point is that the GOP had many proposals at the time in many areas, so there were many fires to put out. Shit happened. MBS
Re: Global Intelligence: Japan
Jim, Well, I don't want to redo our previous discussion of this where nearly all these points were gone over. I don't have any serious disagreement with anything you have said. I do note that (unless there is a message lurking I haven't seen yet) that Doug did not disagree with any of the rest of my generalizations about the global economy, just my US GDP stats. I do thihk that a lot of unmeasured stuff is going on, e.g. the spread of the internet. These things are not in the official GDP data for reasons that are pretty well known (new commodities and all that). I also agree that in some real sense, however measured, it is productivity that matters. Thus the 1980s were a fake. The US stock market loved the decade because Reagan had cracked labor for the capitalists and so defended profits. But that did not say anything about the real state of productivity in the economy. Maybe it is just "faith," but I do think that we are going through a Schumpeterian qualitative technological transformation, and I see these as the key to long wave upswings. Do they generally lead to their own demise, often through demand-side blowouts? Indeed, and 1929 is a very good example. But this suggests that the downswing is probably a ways off. But then, besides all my weirdo chaos/catastrophe stuff, I also buy into Keynesian uncertainty. Anything can happen. We could have a Great Depression tomorrow. Some on this list have told scenarios erupting out of East Asia that could lead to it. I don't rule it out, but I wouldn't "bet the farm" on it either. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:09:49 -0700 James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barkley writes: And is it not true that the growth rate was higher in 1996 than in 1995 and still higher in 1997, in short, it is accelerating? As someone who embraces a Schumpeterian theory of long waves, Barkley, you shouldn't be concerned with real GDP numbers. More apt would be productivity measures, preferably labor productivity rather than bogus "total factor productivity" stats. Of course, here there is argument too: have the recent surges in labor productivity growth been merely a normal short-cyclical uptick or the sign that the long-term trend has returned to being similar to the "good old days" (GOD) of the 1950s 1960s? Here of course, we get into the debate about "why hasn't the communication/information technical revolution paid off very well?" that the mainstream economists are chewing over. But pretend (ooops, I mean "assume") that there _is_ a supply-side renaissance going on. Maybe we can learn from the experience of previous supply-side shifts. Back around 1919, one can find that US labor productivity stats show a kink, an upward ratchet of the labor productivity growth rate. That kind of "kink" fits with ideas of long waves or other theories of stages of capitalist development. The problem is that 10 years later the supply surge encountered a demand debacle. As the French "Regulationists" say, the accumulation regime didn't have a mode of regulation that would allow stable growth. Or to paraphrase James Tobin, god gave us two eyes, one for supply and one for demand. Many Schumpeterians close one of those eyes, ignoring the demand side. On the demand side, GDP numbers play a role, though we shouldn't be looking as simply US statistics. Just as back in 1929, the US economy's health is highly dependent on the health of the rest of the world. in pen-l solidarity and without gratuitous use of academic titles, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "Dear, you increase the dopamine in my accumbens." -- words of love for the 1990s. -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: list of AEA exec. committee members to protest unilateral AEA cut s (long)
Thanks to Susan Fleck for providing these addresses. Just for the record, I have not received a reply to the message that I sent to John Siegfried that I posted a copy of on this list. Barkley Rosser (Herr Professor Doktor, :-)) On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:17:26 -0400 Fleck_S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To register your protest against the unilateral action of the American Economics Association (AEA) to cut the number of heterodox sessions in the January economics meetings, you can write/fax/email/call any or ALL of the members of the AEA executive committee below. You can contact Al Campbell to give him a copy of your letter/fax/or email at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yours, Susan Fleck w:(202) 606-5654 x415 h:(301) 270-1486 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** My personal opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer and my postings can not be attributed to my employer. AEA executive committee members: 1) President: Robert W. Fogel University of Chicago/Center for Popular Economics 1101 E. 58th St. Chicago, IL 60637 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (773) 702-7709 (f) (773) 702-2901 2) President Elect D. Gale Johnson Dept. of Economics Univ. of Chicago 1126 E. 59th St. Chicago, IL 60637 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (773) 702-8251 (f) (773) 702-8490 3) Vice President Robert J. Barro Littauer Center Dept. of Economics Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138-3001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (f) (617) 496-8629 4) Vice President June E. O'Neill 420 Riverside Dr., Apt. 8th New York, NY 10025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (202) 226-2700 (f) (202) 225-7509 5) Secretary John J. Siegfried Dept. of Economics Vanderbilt Univ. Nashville, TN 37235 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (615) 322-2429 (f) (615) 343-8495 6) Treasurer Elton Hinshaw Box 6162, Sta B Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 37235 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (615) 322-2595 (f) (615) 343-7590 7) Editor of the AER Orley C. Ashenfelter 30 Mercer St. Princeton, NJ 08540 (609) 452-4040 (f) (609) 258-2907 8) Editor of the Journal of Econ Literature John McMillan U of Cal. - San Diego Ir/Ps 0519 La Jola, CA 92093 0519 (619) 534-5967 (f) (619) 534-3939 9) Editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives Alan B. Krueger Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School Princeton, NJ 08544 (609) 258-4046 (f) (609) 258-2907 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10) Exec Com Member Ronald G. Ehrenberg Vice Pres. for Academic Programs Planning and Budgeting Cornell Univ. 435 Day Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-2801 (607) 255-3062 (f) (607) 255-4990 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11) Exec Com Member Barbara L. Wolfe Dept. of Economics Univ. of Wisconsin 1180 Obervatory Dr. Madison, WI 53706 1320 (608) 263-2989 (f) (608) 262-2033 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12) Exec Com Member Rachel McCulloch Bradeis Univ. Dept. of Economics MS 021 Waltham, MA 02254 (781) 736-2245 (f) (781) 736-2263 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 13) Exec Com Member Paul M. Romer 160 Lucero Way Portola Valley CA 94028-7428 (415) 723-8442 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 14) Exec Com Member Angus S. Deaton Princeton Univ. 221 Bendheim Hall Princeton, NJ 08544 (609) 258-5967 (f) (609) 258-5974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 15) Exec com Member Lawrence J. Kotlikoff Dept. of Economics Boston Univ. 270 Bay State Rd. Boston, MA 02215 16) Ex Officio Member Ann O. Krueger Dept. of Economics Stanford Univ. Landau Bldg. Stanford, CA 94035-6072 (415) 723-0188 (f) (415) 725-5702 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 17) Ex Officio Member Arnold C. Harberger 405 Hilgard Ave. 8283 Bunche Hall UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90095-1477 (310) 825-7520 (f) (310) 825-9528 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
They can afford to increase welfare -- I potentially see it as another slush fund a/la the social security trust fund. They increase the monies available, but get rid of the eligible population, so the money is there for the use of the politicians. cute. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pat Buchanan attacks Reagan and Thatcher's legacy
In a message dated 98-04-08 12:39:55 EDT, michael perelman writes: MScoleman [DID NOT WRITE THIS -- SOMEONE ELSE DID] wrote: I also happen to think that Buchanan is one of the more honest conservatives, however lothesome his beliefs. He has become no less conservative, just evolved into a different species than the liberatarian globalists that came to dominate the Republicans under Reagan. michael, you misquote me dreadfully! This was reprinted in my message as a quote from someone else -- i forget who. My comment to this was something like: I think the buchanan repudiation of thatcherism/reaganism has more to do with jumping on the bandwagon of credit being given the democrats for the current economic boom. I emphatically do NOT think buchanan is honest, and i think most conservatives are roughly the same -- appologists for the ruling class, spin doctors to keep the masses in line. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Teaching position]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --C7D4C1390AAE2CA4137B4526 Mongiovi Gary wrote: Please feel free to circulate the following job announcement. Thanks. Finance: The Economics Finance Department of St John's University has an opening at the Assistant Professor rank in the field of Finance, effective September 1, 1998. A PhD in the field of Finance, or in Economics with a concentration in Finance, is required. The position will involve the teaching of introductory and specialized courses in Finance at the undergraduate and MBA levels. Candidates are expected to have excellent teaching and strong research skills. Please submit a resume and the names of three references to: Professor G. Mongiovi, Chair, Economics Finance Department, St John's University, Jamaica, New York 11439; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] St John's is an equal opportunity employer; minority and women candidates are encouraged to apply. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] --C7D4C1390AAE2CA4137B4526 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c) ID# 0-0U10L2S100) (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO205e ID# 576-41822U23000L23000S0) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 14:45:58 -0400 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mongiovi Gary) To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Teaching position "'newschool.econ'" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please feel free to circulate the following job announcement. Thanks. Finance: The Economics Finance Department of St John's University has an opening at the Assistant Professor rank in the field of Finance, effective September 1, 1998. A PhD in the field of Finance, or in Economics with a concentration in Finance, is required. The position will involve the teaching of introductory and specialized courses in Finance at the undergraduate and MBA levels. Candidates are expected to have excellent teaching and strong research skills. Please submit a resume and the names of three references to: Professor G. Mongiovi, Chair, Economics Finance Department, St John's University, Jamaica, New York 11439; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] St John's is an equal opportunity employer; minority and women candidates are encouraged to apply. --C7D4C1390AAE2CA4137B4526--
Re: Yuk!!
At 03:27 PM 4/8/98 -0400, you wrote: gee, what do they pay adjuncts? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] In social sciences? About $1,500 - $2,000 a semester (assuming you tech one class only) or about $15-$20/hr (assuming 13 meetings@3hrs, 1 hr preparation for each hr of teaching, and about 20-22 hrs for grading tests and assignments). Wojtek Sokolowski
Re: list of AEA exec. committee members to protest unilateral AEA cut s (long)
Actually what is striking is not the Ivy, but the heavy weighting of the University of Chicago, which puts a very different light on this. We are talking very blatant ideological suppression here. And the only "Ivy" figure is Robert Barro, about to go to Columbia for $300,000, who may well be the single most right-wing member of an economics faculty in any Ivy League university. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 16:55:03 -0400 Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gee, what an Ivy-league dominated field! WS -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re:Soviet objectives
At 05:15 PM 4/8/98 -0500, you wrote: Ricardo quotes Wojtek as follows: WS: That depends on how one views the REAL objective of the October Revolution. If that REAL objective was the establishment of a socialist society worthy its name, then I fully concur with Ricardo - the x-USSR was a gigantic failure. If, on the other hand, that REAL objective was catching up with the advanced capitalist powers of Western Europe and Japan, ideological proclamations notwithstanding -- a view I tend to espouse -- then the Stalinist policies should be viewed as a moderate (because of the considerable human cost) success. What makes something a "REAL objective"? Only, I submit, the explicit formulation of that objective by the agents of historical action, NOT the "ruse of reason." Only if we assume that the motives of the leaders = motives of the state/system. Gerschenkron, working to re-formulate the marxist conceptss (but staying, IMHO, totally within the Marxist concpetual framework) views those objectives as being determined by (i) the organization of production (esp. the banking system and industrial labor), and (ii) organizational mimicry (emulating successful models developed elsewhere). Fram that standpoint, it matters little waht the glorious leaders say about their motives (cf. Marx Engels, _The German Ideology_ , New York: International Publishers, 1995 , p. 46-47 "The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and wihtout any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people's imgaination, but as they _really_ [emphasis original] are; ie. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions indpendent of their will.) From that point of view, the "real" motives can be inferred as (i) a desire to catch up with the Germans and the Japanese who defeated Russia in 1905 and 1917 respectively, and (ii) implementation of a 'succesful' model of industrialization i.e. the Bismarckian corporatist welfare state cum cartels with a slight modification, the state rather than banks controlling the cartels (as the Russians banks were literally a joke - "nye propadnyet, no nye powoocheesh" or "[your money] won't get lost, but you won't get it back either." Regards WS
Re: list of AEA exec. committee members to protest unilateral AEA cuts (long)
At 05:19 PM 4/8/98 -0400, Barkley Rosser wrote: Actually what is striking is not the Ivy, but the heavy weighting of the University of Chicago, which puts a very different light on this. We are talking very blatant ideological suppression here. That too. But what I had specifically in mind was the 'over-representation' of prominent schools (Harvard, Stanford, Cornell, Princeton) comparing to, say, the ASA that seems to be more 'democratic' (i.e. featuring more officers affiliated with State U's.). Not that I am big fan of the ASA that seems to be toothless... Regards, WS
US Fogn Pol and Abortion
Maggie wrote: Dear Pen-lers; I need a few references. If anyone can help, reply to me direct at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. I know that the Republicans have recently tried to attach anti-abortion riders to UN funding and IMF bills. Does anyone have a newspaper clipping with a dated reference -- preferably something like the journal or the times or any new york paper? I sent Maggie the articles; for others interested, here's some citations: FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1997. U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT WITNESS HON. MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Clinton Seeks Big Hike in Unpopular Foreign Affairs Spending By Miles Pomper LEGI-SLATE News Service Monday, Feb. 2, 1998 House GOP Splits Over Spending Plans for Surplus By Helen Dewar and Guy Gugliotta Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, March 13, 1998; Page A07 Exporting the Abortion Debate Washington Post, Friday, February 27, 1998; Page A24 Tom
Re: Good news: Welfare gains
-Original Message- From: Dennis R Redmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 4:29 PM Subject: Re: Good news: Welfare gains There really is no difference between the two factions of our one-party-state, which have (sub)merged into that living horror, the Party of Wall Street. So Clinton has ponied up a few pennies for welfare, so what? An extra $15 billion in EIC benefits is nice, but real wages for the poor have continued to plummet, meaning that there are more poor people who can take the exemption. Now, wages have dropped, but the increase in the EIC is worth something like a 25% increase in wages for the lowest paid workers. Combined with the minimum wage increase pushed through by Kennedy et al, the Dems have actually not done that badly by low-wage workers in the last six years. And remember, three-quarters of Dems voted against NAFTA and four-fifths voted against "fast track." If the Dems are so completely the party of Wall Street, how come the vast majority voted against Wall Street's top priority bills? There is obviously corporate influence all over the Democrats which counterbalances the power of unions and other grassroots folks in the party, but to see the party in simplistic all business influence is to ignore the struggle and successes of our folks in exerting our power. Which was the point of my post in the first place. --Nathan
Re: Good news: Welfare gains
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Nathan Newman wrote: If the Dems are so completely the party of Wall Street, how come the vast majority voted against Wall Street's top priority bills? NAFTA was passed by a Democratic Prez and Congress. The other bills stalled because ordinary working folk got pissed off and made it clear there'd be electoral hell to pay if they passed. Plus, ultra-conservatives were worried about foreign competition, which pretty much sank the whole thing. But don't count MAI out: if the elites really wanted to press the point, the Dems would knuckle under in the precise number of milliseconds it would take their staff to figure out how much campaign money Wall Street shoveled out to them in 1997. We live in a limited oligarchy, not a fascist dictatorship, so the elites occasionally cut the Great Unwashed some symbolic slack. But fast track was mostly a symbolic debate; on bread-and-butter issues like reducing capital gains taxes from 28% to 20%, or the recent carve-up of the airwaves by the FCC under the telecom deregulation, the Republocrats/Demublicans have shown themselves to be cut from the same dismal cloth. There is obviously corporate influence all over the Democrats which counterbalances the power of unions and other grassroots folks in the party, but to see the party in simplistic all business influence is to ignore the struggle and successes of our folks in exerting our power. I don't see the class struggle as one-sided, by any means, nor am I one of those dogmatic Marxists who espies class betrayal under every rock and stone. But who exactly *are* the grassroots folks in the Democratic Party? What positions of great power or influence do they hold? What can you possibly see in a Party which has degenerated from the days of FDR and the Great Society to little more than the executive branch of the rentiers' personal branch of Government, the Federal Reserve? (If you still don't believe me, take out a subscription to Cockburn and St. Clair's "CounterPunch" and read up on the copious sleaze of the Clinton Administration, from Bruce Babbit's land scams to Gore's environmental sellouts at Kyoto and elsewhere). Incidentally, regarding the EIC, I qualified for this exemption this year and saved all of $76 on my Federal taxes. But I also had to take out $7500 of student loans at crushing interest rates to finance my grad education. We working poor did get a tiny break here, but most of us continue to pile on the personal debt and file record numbers of bankruptcy claims, and our lives are not getting any easier, even if some of us can temporarily afford regular cable TV. -- Dennis
Re: Yuk!!
In social sciences? About $1,500 - $2,000 a semester (assuming you tech one class only) or about $15-$20/hr (assuming 13 meetings@3hrs, 1 hr preparation for each hr of teaching, and about 20-22 hrs for grading tests and assignments). Wojtek Sokolowski Whoa! I pay my lecturers $40/hour here! Granted, it's a North-South afrimative action principle at work, and a grossly inflated tuition (paid in the US) that allows it. In any case, if ya'll really get hungry, you could brush up on the Bolivian economy and come on down... Tom
Re: Help!
Dear Pen-lers; I need a few references. If anyone can help, reply to me direct at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. I know that the Republicans have recently tried to attach anti-abortion riders to UN funding and IMF bills. Does anyone have a newspaper clipping with a dated reference -- preferably something like the journal or the times or any new york paper? 2. Wisconsin recently announced that they have no more welfare recipients, and all their former welfare people are either working or being "trained." Anyone have references for that? Or does anyone have recent references for any "training" of welfare recipients in New York or anywhere else for that matter? 3. What is the ratio of working parents with children to licensed day care spots? Either in New York, or nationwide or in any large urban area? reference. thanks, maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re:Soviet objectives
Wojtek writes: At 05:15 PM 4/8/98 -0500, you wrote: Ricardo quotes Wojtek as follows: WS: That depends on how one views the REAL objective of the October Revolution. If that REAL objective was the establishment of a socialist society worthy its name, then I fully concur with Ricardo - the x-USSR was a gigantic failure. If, on the other hand, that REAL objective was catching up with the advanced capitalist powers of Western Europe and Japan, ideological proclamations notwithstanding -- a view I tend to espouse -- then the Stalinist policies should be viewed as a moderate (because of the considerable human cost) success. What makes something a "REAL objective"? Only, I submit, the explicit formulation of that objective by the agents of historical action, NOT the "ruse of reason." Only if we assume that the motives of the leaders = motives of the state/system. I disagree profoundly with this personification of "the state" and "the system." Motives and objectives can exist only as the motives and objectives of *people*, the real agents of social life. When Hegel spoke of the "ruse of reason," and Marx recast this concept in terms of historical objectivity (as in the quotation below) they were referring to the fact that historical outcomes frequently do not correspond at all to the motives of their agents, but that these motives were historically necessary factors in the process that led to the *undesired* outcome. Moreover, the "leaders" are not the only, or indeed the most important, agents. The masses have their own motives and objectives, which should always hold pride of place. In no sense was the true objective of the Soviets' revolution its overthrow by Stalinist counterrevolution. Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 P.S. I apolpogize for my inadvertent misspelling of Guchkov as "Gorchkov." SM Gerschenkron, working to re-formulate the marxist conceptss (but staying, IMHO, totally within the Marxist concpetual framework) views those objectives as being determined by (i) the organization of production (esp. the banking system and industrial labor), and (ii) organizational mimicry (emulating successful models developed elsewhere). Fram that standpoint, it matters little waht the glorious leaders say about their motives (cf. Marx Engels, _The German Ideology_ , New York: International Publishers, 1995 , p. 46-47 "The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and wihtout any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people's imgaination, but as they _really_ [emphasis original] are; ie. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions indpendent of their will.) From that point of view, the "real" motives can be inferred as (i) a desire to catch up with the Germans and the Japanese who defeated Russia in 1905 and 1917 respectively, and (ii) implementation of a 'succesful' model of industrialization i.e. the Bismarckian corporatist welfare state cum cartels with a slight modification, the state rather than banks controlling the cartels (as the Russians banks were literally a joke - "nye propadnyet, no nye powoocheesh" or "[your money] won't get lost, but you won't get it back either." Regards WS
re:Soviet objectives
Ricardo quotes Wojtek as follows: WS: That depends on how one views the REAL objective of the October Revolution. If that REAL objective was the establishment of a socialist society worthy its name, then I fully concur with Ricardo - the x-USSR was a gigantic failure. If, on the other hand, that REAL objective was catching up with the advanced capitalist powers of Western Europe and Japan, ideological proclamations notwithstanding -- a view I tend to espouse -- then the Stalinist policies should be viewed as a moderate (because of the considerable human cost) success. What makes something a "REAL objective"? Only, I submit, the explicit formulation of that objective by the agents of historical action, NOT the "ruse of reason." And who, in the Russian Empire of 1917 considered the attainment of parity with the advanced capitalist countries, a nationalistic fetish, his objective? Gorchkov and Miliukov, presumably. But what Bolshevik (indeed, what Menshevik)? None explicitly. And who secretly? Only an undiscovered Okhranik who had successfully penetrated the Bolshevik leadership. From the standard of such a criminal, "the Stalinist policies should be viewed," NOT "as a moderate" but asan unqualified "success." Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
Re: list of AEA exec. committee members to protest unilateral AEA cuts (long)
Gee, what an Ivy-league dominated field! WS
Re: Yuk!!
gee, what do they pay adjuncts? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bush and Ron Dellums (Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
Nathan Newman wrote: . . . (I would also note that much of the increase in domestic spending under Bush was due to cyclical spending increases due to the early 90s recession in combination with the explosion in medical inflation in those years.) The increase could well have had political roots in the business cycle, but it has mostly held up since then as a share of GDP. The decline under Clinton (and Gingrich) since 1992 is slight, gradual, and smaller than the increase under Bush (w/Dellums assistance, if you will). To me this suggests non-cyclical factors, rather than automatic changes in spending due to program provisions caused by the business cycle. At same time, and in the same terms (share of GDP), Federal taxes are as high as they've ever been. Clinton used the new revenue and defense cuts for deficit reduction. There are a few bright spots, but they are small in the grand scheme of fiscal retrenchment. Cheers, Max
Re: Global Intelligence: Japan
Doug, Of course you're right. How could I have made such insufferably idiotic statments? Barkley Rosser On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 22:58:07 -0400 Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: And is it not true that the growth rate was higher in 1996 than in 1995 and still higher in 1997, in short, it is accelerating? How short-termist. If you look at a chart of actual/trend GDP you'd see that that acceleration has merely brought the actual back to trend, with no breakout remotely visible. If you go back a few years, to the early 1980s as a base, there's no evidence of acceleration. This expansion hasn't seen anything like the 4% of 1983 or 7% of 1984. Doug -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Professional Job Opening (fwd)
Michael forwarded the message below: Thanks, Michael, but I've just sent my CV to Columbia. Gene Forwarded message: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Apr 07 23:08:22 1998 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-ListName: Political Economy Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Warnings-To: Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 16:34:03 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: John Howard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Professional Job Opening MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Participants in the list are encouraged to pass this on, apply themselves, or nominate friends, enemies or colleagues. Economics: Georgia Southern University, Department of Finance and Economics seeks a tenure track full-time Assistant Professor of Economics to teach undergraduate and graduate courses in Economics and to advise undergraduate Economics majors. The candidate will also conduct research and perform service activities in Economics. Master's degree required. Ph.D. in Economics preferred. Prior teaching experience preferred. The appointment begins August 1, 1998. Send letter of application and a current r=E9sum= =E9 by May 1, 1998, to: Dr. John Howard Brown, Georgia Southern University, P.O.Box 8151, Statesboro, GA 30460-8151 (912)681- 0896 FAX: (912)871-1835. Georgia Southern University is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Institution. Georgia is an Open Records State. Individuals who need reasonable accommodations to participate in the search process should contact the search chair. Barbara Focht Georgia Southern University Dept. of Finance and Economics P.O. Box 8151 Statesboro, GA 30460 (912) 681-5161 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D John Howard Brown, Ph.d | All men are mortal. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Aristotle is a man. snail mail: | Therefor Aristotle is mortal. Department of Finance and Economics | P.O. Box 8151| A TRUE BUT USELESS Georgia Southern University | SYLLOGISM! Statesboro, GA 30460 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush and Ron Dellums (Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] A better view of the other stuff, or the whole picture, is obtained by considering the trend in domestic spending as a share of GDP, or to be precise, total outlays less defense and net interest payments. This peaks in 1980, takes a long but not enormous dip over the 1980's (e.g., less than 2% of GDP), and is restored by that great man George Bush to pre-Reagan levels. (One must understand that to Nixon and Ford we owe the greatest growth in this variable.) I would note that the 1990 budget bill under Bush was, indeed, an important corrective to the worst cuts under Reagan, but with Ron Dellums retirement, I thought it was worthwhile to praise Dellums for his crucial role in that bill. After Bush and the Congressional leadership had agreed on a bill with too many tax benefits for the wealthy, Ron Dellums led progressive Democrats in opposing the compromise bill (supported by some renegade Republicans who refused to approve any tax increase). By leading the defeat of the compromise bill, Dellums helped force through a much better bill that modestly increased taxes on the wealthy while restoring some spending. (I would also note that much of the increase in domestic spending under Bush was due to cyclical spending increases due to the early 90s recession in combination with the explosion in medical inflation in those years.) --Nathan Newman
Unilateral cuts on ASSA imposed by AEA exec. committee, URPE factsheet and action requestedcharset=iso-8859-1
LONG POST This post is for anyone concerned about the American Economic Association's unilateral cuts imposed on sessions organized by heterodox economics groups for January 1999 and beyond. The AEA's top-down, non-democratic action threatens the intellectual community of heterodox economics and needs to be challenged. Summary of the FACT SHEET below: The Union for Radical Political Economics finds - the cuts are unnecessary -the cuts were arrived at in a totally undemocratic manner -the cuts are grossly inequitable URPE at ASSA coordinator Al Campbell, with support of the URPE Steering Committee, wrote a response to John Siegfried to ask for access to the data and to request that no sessions be cut. Your voice is needed, too. The URPE steering committee asks every individual concerned about this to write/fax/email/call the members of the AEA Executive Committee. The AEA Executive Committee nembers' names and contact information will follow in another e-mail. Susan Fleck for the URPE Steering Committee Susan Fleck w:(202) 606-5654 x415 h:(301) 270-1486 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** My personal opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer and my postings can not be attributed to my employer. FACT SHEET ON THE CUTS IMPOSED ON THE UNION FOR RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS, prepared by Al Campbell, URPE at ASSA coordinator, University of Utah 1) John Siegfried, who has the title of "ASSA Administrator," (and who is the new Secretary of the AEA) wrote a letter to URPE dated January 22, 1998, in which he notified URPE that the number of session that URPE will be allowed to organize at future ASSA meetings is being cut from 32 to 18 next year and 9 all subsequent years. URPE has had 32 sessions without change since 1969. 2) Although the project to effect the cuts went on for at least two years (what Siegfried called the primary data was collected in San Francisco in January 1996), URPE was not consulted or even informed of this lengthy process or the intended cuts. The whole process was completely undemocratic, in regards to the "allied" member organizations of the Allied Social Sciences Association. 3) The letter indicated that the "primary (but not exclusive)" basis for the new allocation was the results of surveys of registrants taken at the 1996 meetings in San Francisco. Registrants were asked at the bottom of the registration form to indicate each of the organizations to which they belonged. URPE showed 118 registrants. It should be noted in respect to this declared primary statistic, there are several bases for extensive bias. One is that URPE is a largely East Coast organization: our attendance would be much smaller at San Francisco, New Orleans, or even Chicago meetings (those of the last 3 years) than say the New York or Boston meetings coming up. A second basis for bias is that people do not necessarily fill out this part of their registration form: some from oversight, some from seeing no reason to, and some from a concern that identifying oneself as a member of URPE to any mainstream organization like the AEA could negatively impact their career opportunities and development in the future. Had we been involved in the process we could have provided a list of URPE member who were in attendance (at least those that were willing to be so identified to the AEA), which the ASSA could have checked against their attendance list. But again, we were not consulted or even notified of this several year long project. 4) Mr Siegfried's letter was not crystal clear on the reason for the overall cuts. It suggested two reasons. First, he argued "The proliferation of sessions dilutes the quality of the program as well as the average attendance at individual sessions. Some are so low as to be embarrassing for the organizers." It is not Mr. Siegfried's role, or the role of the ASSA or AEA, to decide what is "embarrassing" for us- we are actually capable of deciding that without his insights. The issue of quality is very tricky to evaluate, and again we think we are better able to decide on quality for our sessions than Mr Siegfried or the ASSA/AEA. There is a widespread opinion of economists, not only outside of academia but also in other fields like sociology and political science, that they do statistically intricate work that has little relevance to issues in the real world. There is a serious question of how many people in the AEA carefully read the AER, and it certainly is seldom read carefully (other than to pull out quotes to support pre conceived positions) by academics outside economics or people outside academia. We understand that the AEA does not find the bulk of the work done by people operating outside the neoclassical paradigm to be what Mr Siegfried would call "quality" work, but most economists operating outside the neoclassical paradigm do not
New Publication: _What Comes Next? Proposals for a DifferentSociety_
The National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives announces the publication of "What Comes Next? Proposals For a Different Society", a 190 page annotated bibliography which assembles and critically assesses over 75 recently proposed alternatives to the current political-economic regime. Authored by NCESA research associate Thad Williamson, the book discusses contemporary American liberalism and the response to "globalization"; proposals for market socialism, participatory planning, and semi-planned economies; ecological visions; utopian fiction writers; as well as proposals to reform or reconstruct society from political theorists, theologians, feminist thinkers, and independent writers. The book will serve as a valuable guide and introduction to current discussions of long-term political and economic alternatives, and is suitable for classroom use. "What Comes Next?" is available at $15 a copy (plus $3 for postage); to order write to Alex Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]; or write to: The National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives 2000 P Street, NW Suite 330 Washington, DC 20010 Review copies are available upon request; discounted rates for bulk orders are also available. Alex Campbell Assistant to the President, National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives 2317 Ashmead Place, NW Washington, DC 20009 202 986 1373 (voice)/ 202 986 7938 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Global Intelligence: Japan
Is there anything but faith involved in the theory of long waves? I look at the data people present and it sure looks as if one could interpret them differently or according to a different theory. The best data for long waves concerns price movements, not quantities such as real GDP, by the way. I look at the theories and they're pretty shaky and sometimes contradict each other. This is largely true. I recall excellent article by Rosenberg and Frischtak on this issue. However, one way of looking at the long wave thesis is via technological change (radical innovations), narrowed down to specific industries. It may not be the 50 year cycles but long enough to merit the term. Of course this also has its pitfalls, that is how to conceptualize tech change (which are incremental and radical) etc. Cheers, Anthony D'Costa
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
Fellows, Jeffrey wrote: AFDC has been renamed. It is now Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), or some such phrasing. I understand that federal block grant payments to states for TANF are larger than the former federal AFDC funding. However, I believe that the actual distribution of money payments to families and individuals is lower under TANF than AFDC. Is there anyone on the list who can confirm my understanding? This year's TANF grant is bigger than prior years' AFDC grants, but because it is a block grant it will grow increasingly inadequate as the size of the potential clientele grows and when the economy enters recession. I don't know if benefit levels are higher or lower now, since they are under the purview of the states under TANF. The Urban Institute has a mega project to study all this and an elaborate web site. At any rate, benefit level changes must be considered in light of changes in eligibility, and particularly state policies to push people off the rolls through the use of sanctions and diversions into penny-ante programs of one sort or another (e.g., 'job clubs'). The real crunch in TANF will be when the economy turns sour, when the time limits begin to take greater effect, when Federal mandates for work quotas become more binding on states, and as the social costs of deliberate caseload reduction become more manifest. The TANF clientele is being pushed into the labor market. The silver lining is that this affords an opportunity for them to be organized as workers, rather than for welfare rights. The former means application of fair labor standards, rights to organize, minimum wage, etc.; the inadequacy of low-wage incomes for financing family living expenses might successfully be pursued if add-ons to wages such as health care, day care, etc. are demanded for people as currently employed (or looking for work) workers, rather than welfare recipients. The AFL has made some noises about this but not done much so far. I'm also told that some unions have signed up people in the new work programs but have failed to do anything for them. MBS
[DEMSOC-L] Careers
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 14:26:08 + From: Peter Kosenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [DEMSOC-L] Careers Sender: The Democratic Socialism List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Peter Kosenko, Editor Re: "Careers" and the like for Drei Some personal rambling, and a little note of reality. I am a couple months behind on my rent here in SoCal, despite having struggled to find Internet work for about a year as a substitute for the demeaning work that I did as a university press freelance book editor and an art gallery manager (both of which allowed me to "scrape by"). Both jobs "evaporated" last year. I was about to scream, "Screw working for the professoriate. They are a bunch of worthless prima donnas." I happen to have a nice temp computer web job at the moment for a month that allows me to catch up, but I have no clue whether my landlord's manager is going to take the explanations and "excuses." So I may be joining the ranks of the homeless soon. But I just wrote a letter of apology and sent out the check to try to forstall the disaster. I keep telling myself that I should go back to the nice part-time "temp" secretarial jobs that I got after I left grad school, but they were a complete job ghetto as well, and I loved the contempt that the "human resources" recruiters developed for me when I took work from an agency that was not their own (because I needed it) rather than stick around waiting for their calls for two weeks. So if you don't hear from me in the near future, you will know what happened. I had to pack up my things, dump all my books in the dumpster in the alley and head for the midwest, where I will try to find honorable work plowing corn or something. I'm not being facetious. I actually think that people who grow our food are honorable--possibly even more so--than the professoriate. I have nothing against plowing corn. Big mistake. In February I "wasted time" building a web design site ( http://ndc.netwood.net/ )for no money as a "means" of trying to grab some work. I should have been out there trying to find more "temp work." But like Drei, I would like to find a job that is a "real job" rather than a "part-time temp no benefits" gig that goes nowhere after a month and doesn't even allow me to pay the remainder of my grad student defaulted loan. "College credit" these days seems to mean taking out a loan from Citibank that you will never be able to pay back when you join the "workforce" so that the professoriate can get paid. An aside: Last night I had a long conversation with Bill Bolt, a post-polio wheel-chair disabled man with an advanced degree who is living in poverty and writing articles about the disabled for a variety of journals (like how difficult it is to find work and how the disabled bureaucracy gives the circumlocution runaround to anyone who is has to rely on the government for benefits), and making peanuts on the side at it. It did not surprise me at all when he told me that he makes a hundred dollars an article--IF they accept it. I know that experience from having done it for the "art press." He is a socialist of sorts, but a "politically incorrect" one who has a lot to say about the hypocrisy of Los Angeles Hollywood "Westside Limmo Liberals" and the "Jewish" movie mafia, and I agree with him. At least I know that am not completely crazy after that conversation. So, I would definitely recommend that anyone stay away from "free-lance writing" or "art" as "careers." If you want to make a career in "journalism," make sure that you have a pretty face or a conservative talk-radio "attitude," an IQ of about 100, and a high tolerance for churning out bullshit, like the idea that people with "low cholesterol" are more violent (a little tid-bit from TV news out here that was passed to me yesterday by a woman Vietnanese computer programmer). If you want to make sure that you are impoverished, go to work for one of those fancy contemporary art museums run by your county's elite that somehow seem to be able to hire professional staff at "intern" wages. If I weren't sane, I might try to live up to the joke that people make about me--that I am the Unabomber and that the Feds just "got the wrong guy." But as far as I can tell, he was right about one thing, and Drei's mail about a week or so ago suggested it. An "college education" these days is a guarantee of nothing, unless it is in economics and computing. I might even recommend that people boycott the whole game of "graduate education" and get back to doing something more reasonable, like changing the world for the better. Peter Kosenko |===| | Peter Kosenko, EditorEmail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | 1448-1/2 12th St.URL: http://www.netwood.net/~kosenko | | Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 451-7208|
re:Soviet objectives
Date sent: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 15:14:59 -0400 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Wojtek Sokolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:re:Soviet objectives Well, who knows what really was on their minds -- we can forever speculate on that. As I recall (I think from Braverman), Lenin was also mesmerized by the works of Frederic Winslow Taylor - the quintessential capitalist. So who knows which work had a greater influence on his thinking? The Soviet bureaucracy turned highly cynical about socialist ideals only later in the 60s and 70s - to that extent I can agree with some of what you say. But anyone who knows something about Lenin knows that he was deeply, totally, consciously, intentionally committed to socialist ideals. Lenin was never "mesmerized" by anyone except Marx. His attraction to Taylor was in line with Engels's earlier argument against the anarchists who thought that one could do away with the "authoritarianism" inherent in modern industry. (Which is to say that the anarchists were right in saying that scientific socialism can never overcome the "despotic" alienation of machine industry. We now know - after the Bolshevik Revolution - that Bakunin won his debate with Marx (See "After the Revolution: Marx Debates Bakunin" in Tucker, The Marx-Engels Reader). ricardo
Yuk!!
I thought I had exceeded my self-imposed quota on messages to pen-l and so would not be sending any more messages today, but today's NY TIMES reports that Columbia University is going to pay the likes of Robert Barro "nearly $300,000" for spreading his economic slime. This, BTW, is a leading indicator of coming economic depression. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
GOOD NEWS: THE WELFARE GAINS MADE IN THE LAST SIX YEARS - Nathan Newman Even as many of us organize against the punitive effects of welfare "deform" and other social attacks, we should not ignore the successes and gains we have made in the last decade. Too much focus on losses can lead not to action but to disempowerment, so this post will lay out some good news on our successes embodied in the federal budget. The blunt truth is that most of those gains derive from the 1993 budget act and were stalled (but not erased) by the Gingrich takeover of Congress. But the following chart shows (in billions of dollars) how defense spending has fallen even as spending on housing, food assistance, and general income support (welfare, Earned Income Tax Credit, etc.) has risen between 1992 and 1998: Category 1992 1998Change - - - Defense 298,350 264,112 -34,238 Housing assistance 18,904 28,752 +9,848 Food and nutrition assistance32,622 36,137 +3,515 Public Assistance Related 43,353 72,497 +29,144 (Numbers from Office of Management Budget) The increase in housing assistance, after the tremendous cuts in the Reagan years, is encouraging, while the effects of the attacks on welfare show up in the miniscule increase in food assistance which has not even kept up with inflation. However, given the welfare "deform" bill, the quite substantial expansion of public assistance spending might seem surprising. In fact, this 67% increase in public assistance spending during Clinton's Presidency is actually quite similar to the 73% increase in public assistance that occurred from 1960 to 1969 during the Great Society years. The following table breaking down public assistance into its components outlines the reason for this increase: 1992 1998 Supplemental security income (SSI) program 17,239 26,113 Family support payments to States and TANF 15,103 18,178 Earned income tax credit 7,345 22,295 Payments to States for daycare assistance 2,813 Veterans non-service connected pensions 3,666 3,084 Other public assistance 14 There have been minor expansions of direct welfare payments (AFDC/TANF and SSI) but a massive expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for the working poor. The EITC delivers as much as $3500 per year for working families with low incomes, crucial assistance for minimum wage workers and those able to find work only part-time. Notably, EITC now delivers more cash to poor families each year than AFDC ever has historically. One reason it is important for activists to understand this success is that conservatives have noted it and have continually tried to undermine the Earned Income Tax Credit. As one of the most valuable gains in public assistance over the last decade, we need to be aware of its importance as much as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps or SSI. While all these amounts are obviously inadequate for the poverty and need in our society, we should recognize that despite the power and money of capitalist interests, our work has continued to make a difference in alleviating the inhumanity of the system.
Re: Pat Buchanan attacks Reagan and Thatcher's legacy
At 03:19 PM 4/7/98 -0700, Jim Devine wrote: valis writes: Get excited if you (pl.) must, but I wouldn't believe Buchanan if he stated the color of his eyes. This loathsome lizard, who has spent his entire life turning sentences around, is simply testing the fickle winds for another crack at the presidency, where he'd do...what? I don't think anyone on pen-l believes Buchanan. He's just picking up on something the left has said for a long time, i.e., that unbridled capitalism is bad for kinder-küche-kirche, the ideals of social conservatism. There, I've done something that I trashed Wojtek for doing awhile back, i.e., comparing a contemporary politician to the Nazis (with the KKK slogan). But in Buchanan's case, it sorta fits. His father was the type who had strong sympathies for the Nazis. This seems to have helped produce B's own fascoid politics, complete with a strong streak of opportunistic populism. Having touched the subject... let us not forget that the Nazis won popular support on their incredible political opportunism, telling every political interests group form landowners to workers exactly what they want to hear, promising security and prosperity to everyone. Interestingly, their Jew- and Bolshevik-bashing drivel took a back seat around 1930 when they were gaining power and support -- as they were preaching security and prosperity to the middle classes. Contradictions? Perhaps. But as the Nazis said it themselves, who is going to judge the victor - and his contradictions? So I would second valis -- that despicable troll must be up to something. Beware of crypto-fascists courting the working class. Regards, Wojtek
GOP defectors (was Pat Buchanan attacks, etc.)
Quoth Doug, after Michael Perelman: Pat Buchanan might not be a fascist, but I think that we have to give him credit for fashioning the language of hate that has become the mainstay of modern politics. He deserves to share that credit with Kevin Phillips, who has become something of a darling of the liberals these days. I believe that Phillips first came to national attention in Garry Wills' book, Nixon Agonistes, where he explained that the key to doing politics was understanding who hates whom. Phillips was the engineer of Nixon's southern strategy, to which Gingrich The Contract With America are the heirs, even as Phillips now criticizes them. Thomas Byrne Edsall, reviewing Phillips' Politics of Rich and Poor, said that Phillips is like an architect who, having designed a house, hates it when he sees it built. One of the more honorable deserters of the conservative ship is Michael Lind; honorable in that he never - I don't recall - joined in the real hog wallow of political invective while aboard. Does anyone think that inviting him to the list is a good idea? valis "It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas." -- Ronald Reagan, in the Fresno Bee (October 10, 1965)
BLS Daily Reportboundary=---- =_NextPart_000_01BD62EF.00797E10
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
-- =_NextPart_000_01BD62EF.00797E10
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1998
"Wage-and- salary workers employed at home grew to 3.6 million in 1997
from 1.9 million in 1991, the Labor Department said" ("Work Week"
feature, page A1, Wall Street Journal).
The boom is fine -- if you own stock; the millions who don't are only
falling further behind, says the Washington Post (page A1) While
Americans are piling into the market in record numbers, the most recent
data suggest that six of every 10 households still do not own stocks --
and thus have reaped no direct benefit from the current boom in share
prices. That troubles many analysts, who warn that the bull market on
Wall Street is aggravating other disturbing economic trends and pushing
wealth and income disparities
-- =_NextPart_000_01BD62EF.00797E10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PSA7cD1CTFM7bD1EQ1BDU01BSUwxLTk4MDQwODEzMTIxMVotNDU1NQAAHgA4QAENUklD
SEFSRFNPTl9EAB4AOUABDQAAAFJJQ0hBUkRTT05fRABAAAcw8Gcw8e9ivQFAAAgw
EH55AO9ivQEeAD0AAQEAHgAdDgERQkxTIERhaWx5IFJlcG9ydAAe
YWlsMS5wc2IuYmxzLmdvdj4ACwApAAALACMAAAMABhDRawR4AwAHEGACAAADABAQ
AAMAERAEHgAIEAEAAABlQkxTREFJTFlSRVBPUlQsVFVFU0RBWSxBUFJJTDcsMTk5OCJX
QUdFLUFORC1TQUxBUllXT1JLRVJTRU1QTE9ZRURBVEhPTUVHUkVXVE8zNk1JTExJT05JTjE5OTdG
ODdCQTVAZGNwY3NtYWlsMS5wc2IuYmxzLmdvdj4APno=
-- =_NextPart_000_01BD62EF.00797E10--
re:Soviet objectives
At 14:35 7/04/98 -0400, you wrote: I know there is lots more to Marx than the Soviet experience; that's why me and Louis Proyect are comrades. ricardo Mr. Duchesne, please do not try to get any cheap laughs on PEN-L at my expense. Louis Proyect For your information, it is Dr. Duchesne. Cheers, ajit sinha
