[PEN-L:3012] Re: re Enived wave, et al
> Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 04:21:00 -0600 (CST) > From: valis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:2990] re Enived wave, et al > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jim D, rebutting someone, in part: > > >... Day and Walter are more concerned with the much longer wave > > >(300 years) theory of "la duree" due to Fernand Braudel,... > > > > This reminds me of the 3000 year Enived cycle, of which the Braudel cycle > > is but a small fraction. We are currently 500 years into "phase B" of the > > Enived Wave, which implies that we have 1000 more years of decline in front > > of us. > > Quite a revelation for this peon. Does the presumed Dr Enived hold > the title, or are there wave theories that push to the very portal > of geological time? The 26 million year mass extinction cycle is a candidate. > Of what practical application? > valis Watch the skies. I'd like to call this the Hguonodcm cycle but others have got there first. Besides its unpronouncable. By the way, it seems to me perfectly possible to construct an isopleasure curve trading off meat and motion and consequently the slope of your budget constraint would determine whether it was (mostly) the meat or the motion. Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:3016] Re: Re: Re: Race and possession
Ken Hanly writes: >Jevons was a solid logician and wrote a classic text on logic. He was not stupid or given to flights of fancy.< Unfortunately, it's quite possible to be very logical and stupid at the same time, if you start with the wrong premises. Neoclassical economics is very logical, by the way. I don't know about Jevons, but logicians sometimes fall for the fallacy that logical thinking -- a version of philosophical rationalism -- is the be-all and end-all of understanding the world. But the empirical world -- especially the societal world in which economic forces operate -- is too messy and too heterogeneous, to fit into neat logical categories in many or most cases. Some economists (such as those at the IMF) have decided to deal with the messiness and heterogeneity of the empirical world by _forcing_ it (forcing people) to fit within their preconceived logical categories. You can see the result. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
[PEN-L:3015] Re: Long waves
Doug Henwood wrote, >Whether times are good or bad, capitalists are useless and destructive. Not very dialectical of you, Doug. regards, Tom Walker
[PEN-L:3014] Re: Re: Re: Long waves
Charles Brown wrote: >Thank you, Doug. The advice to workers would be "don't believe them if >they say they don't have the money for big raises" perhaps ? Yes. >But when you say "we'll see", it does not seem to me that that gives a >lead to workers to seize agency, become self-determining. I would think >something like, " but the wage increases will only be had through fierce >struggle by class conscious workers. " Otherwise, we definitely won't see >it. Hey, I'm all for workers seizing agency regardless of the state of profit. Whether times are good or bad, capitalists are useless and destructive. Doug
[PEN-L:3009] Re: Re: Long waves
Thank you, Doug. The advice to workers would be "don't believe them if they say they don't have the money for big raises" perhaps ? But when you say "we'll see", it does not seem to me that that gives a lead to workers to seize agency, become self-determining. I would think something like, " but the wage increases will only be had through fierce struggle by class conscious workers. " Otherwise, we definitely won't see it. Charles >>> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/05 6:35 PM >>> Charles Brown wrote: >What is the political significance of long waves ? At the crest or the >trough or in between , capitalism still needs to go. How does knowing >there are long waves help to bring that about ? >What is Shaikh's practice ? I don't know how much Anwar plans to speak for himself on this, but he told me that an upwave would mean there was plenty of profit cushion around for workers to make and win demands. It also might mean that the strong and very broad increases in real wages in the U.S. over the last 2-3 years aren't a blip, but the prelude to more. We'll see, won't we? Doug
[PEN-L:3011] The economic difference between Indian tribes and colonizers
(From "Primitive Communism and Its Transformations", by Eleanor Burke Leacock, Christine Ward Galley. This is an essay in Volume One of "Civilization in Crisis," edited by Christine Ward Galley. This and a companion volume are dedicated to the memory of the late Stanley Diamond, chair of the anthropology department at the New School. Diamond, author of "In Search of the Primitive: a critique of civilization," was devoted to extirpating all social Darwinist traces from anthropology.) THE COMPELLING REALITY of primitive societies is that they almost never transform themselves autonomously into class societies. Indeed, the classical "nuclear civilizations," where classes and state institutions emerged autochthonously out of kinship relations, are few. But, as Stanley Diamond has pointed out, states emerge out of repression at home and conquest abroad. It is no surprise, therefore, that the remaining examples of primitive communal societies--those Eleanor Leacock has called "egalitarian" relative to any known class society--are beleaguered by threats from the more unstable, but more powerful, state societies that surround and sometimes encapsulate or subordinate them. Most of these peoples have already been impressed into dominant political economies, whether through direct colonialism, capital penetration in the form of development projects, concessions to outsiders for resource extraction, missionary proselytizing, or commodity production and exchange. Dissolution of the kinship ties, production for use, and communal ties that characterize such societies most often has been imposed by state societies. Two processes--tribute extraction and commodity production--mark the most prevalent transformations of economic priorities. Both involve labor or goods not entirely in the control of the direct producers. Indeed, the existence of both tribute and commodity production implies class formation. Certain groups are permanently removed from direct participation in productive work, property outside the control of the kin-defined community exists, and customary rights to use resources and exercise labor claims can be denied. TRIBUTE PRODUCTION AND CLASS IN STATE FORMATION In the precapitalist world, state formation supported the persistence of class relations most often through tribute extraction, that is, taxes in labor or products. The polities created through class and state formation out of kin-based communities were discussed by Marx as the Asiatic mode of production. Generally, taxes were imposed as a form of rent, where the state claimed lands used by kin-based communities. In tribute-based states, peasants and artisans had to provide some portion of their crops or specific items to state agents in order to retain use-rights to resources claimed as state property. Tax-rents and labor drafts were imposed to support a non-producing but politically dominant class. In some cases, the bulk of extraction was accomplished through labor drafts, used to capture peripheral peoples, who were then used as state-associated workers or slaves; rebellious communities could also meet this fate. In tribute-based states, commodity production--that is, making goods specifically for a market--can emerge, but it is subordinate to tribute and persistent subsistence production: many of the exchanges between peasant communities remain organized through customary links of kinship and fictive kinship. Where a commodity sphere develops, it tends to be limited at first to foreign exchange-- often long-distance trade, although much long-distance trade remains oriented toward elite consumption patterns and demonstrations of prominence, rather than profit and reinvestment. Commodity production may develop also through semiautonomous mercantile activities on the fringes of the state. In tribute-taking settings, local communities may be designated as tax units, and the local division of labor used to organize corvée projects or tribute production. Depending on the power of civil agencies to impose crop or craft specializations, and the degree of extraction vis-a-vis subsistence activities, local institutions and practices can survive, albeit subordinated to civil demands. Class formation within a kin community can occur where kin-group heads are assigned as state agents (tax collectors, overseers, etc.) or ally themselves, through marriage or provision of concubines, to the dominant class. Alternatively, the political division of labor may draw designated categories of local persons, with differential rewards: warriors, for instance, may be allotted lands for service, given slaves, or appointed to tax-farming positions. Existing or imposed occupational specializations may be differently valued in civil priorities, with consequent wealth inequities appearing locally. Class formation is accelerated where tax burdens are levied on households rather than kin communities, but this occurs only in a consolidated and powerful state structure COM
[PEN-L:3006] Re: selling Manhattan
>>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/05 5:48 PM >>> Charles, I think that we need to be clear about exactly at what point there was a "taking" here, illegal, unethical, inappropriately capitalistic, insufficiently "meeting of th minds" or whatever. I would contend that it was not when the Dutch gave some Lenapes or whomever some glass beads, but when they enforced that the Lenapes could not use certain parts of the land that they were somehow under the impression that they could still use after having received the glass beads. ___ Charles: This seems ok to me. __ I would contend that we still do not know what was meant in the minds of the receivers of the glass beads when they did that. Charles: I would contend we DO know that they didn't have the same thing in mind as the Dutch. That's enough to "void the transaction" theoretically. Practically is another matter. __- Perhaps it was that they would "share" the land, even though you and others accept that somehow there were recognized areas that certain groups had some kind of agreed upon primary rights to usufruct. Charles: I didn't say it exactly that way. The important thing is that the overall system (and there was an overall system, a culture) was not the same as the European one. Or was an organized relationship to production and "the land", the Earth that was quite different than the Dutch and European, such that the Indians had no reasonable expectations ( as the contract professors say) that the Dutch were going to do all that they did. _ Did the receivers of the glass beads in doing so recognize that the Dutch had somehow some kind of primary right of usufruct that superseded their own, or did they believe that this allowed the Dutch to share with them the land? ___ Charles: Probably closer to the latter if that at all. This was a very new relationship from the Indian end too. But they certainly didn't have a custom that you give me some beads and then you take over and dominate this area of the Earth that has been the home of our ancestors and our people from time in memorium. ___ In any case, I would say that, especially that the Dutch themselves thought that they were "purchasing" the land, that they are in a much superior legal and moral position than the other Europeans who simply seized land or the tribes who, prior to the invasion of the Europeans, displaced other tribes by force from territory that the displaced tribe had previously inhabited. I do not know whether or not this was how the Lenape took Manhatten originally or if there were earlier inhabitants. But anybody who thinks that this did not happen prior to the arrival of the Europeans, and a whole lot, is simply naive. ___ Charles: No they aren't. Anyone who just believes those stories about how the "savages" took land from each other in the way the Europeans do is the naive one, believing European propaganda used as an excuse to take the land themselves. Even evidence of war among the original Americans does not prove that they "took land" from each other. Taking land is a European concept in ths context. You are projecting European land theft concepts onto the original Americans. Captalist/feudal expropriation is not panhuman. Charles Brown Barkley Rosser On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:16:21 -0500 Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/05 4:51 PM >>> > Barkley comments: > Not so simple. You say that "it's between them," but > then if a European shows up the latest holder somehow has a > mystical right that their ignorance of what the Europeans > are about grants them in perpetuity. > __ > > Charles: Again, I don't grant your premise that the "latest holder" got the land by >violence. But even assuming that, the European wrongful taking does not become valid. >If I steal Louis' land, you can't assert my wrongful act as a basis for validating >your subsequent wrongful taking from me. You can't assert Louis' right as making your >taking legal. > ___ > > Barkley: > Why does this not > apply to former Indian tribal holders of the land, if you > don't like the term "territory" for a defined piece of land? > __ > > Charles: The Dutch can't validate their wrongful taking through a prior wrongful >taking by those from whom they take. > > But please note, I am going along with these reasoning chains, > arguendo. I have problems with some of your factual and "legal" or cultural logic >premises. > ___ > Barkley: > I note as a simple example, that the Chippewa drove > the Sioux out of Northern Wisconsin after they defeated > them in a battle in 1666 in Solon Spring. Of course the > Chippewa were fleeing from European invaders, but there > were plenty of such displacements prior to the European > arrival that we just don't know t
[PEN-L:3004] Re: The trouble with long waves
The mathematics of long waves of capitalism strikes me like the geometry of the stripes on a tiger's back. Very pretty, but what we need to know is a mathematics of the tiger's teeth, claws and vulnerable points. Charles Brown >>> Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/06 12:14 PM >>> The problem with "long waves" is that it encourages us to think in terms of capitalism having some kind of self-regulating mechanism, namely the ability to foster "technological revolutions" ad infinitum, which is based on an extrapolation from capitalism's history into the future. Just because capitalism utilized certain technological breakthroughs (steam power, electricity, etc.) in combination with colonial plunder to fuel enormous economic upturns in centuries past, there is no reason to assume that this is intrinsic to the system. While I have only heard Shaikh in person and have not had the dubious pleasure of wading through his assorted manuscripts, I am much more familiar with Mandel's arguments. "Late Capitalism" posits the notion that the computer revolution of the 1960s --a second "technological revolution" as he dubs it-- might set off a new long wave. Mandel insisted that the powerful economic expansion concomitant with this new long wave does not mean that capitalism "works". He states that "the worst form of waste, inherent in late capitalism, lies in the MISUSE of existing material and human forces of production; instead of being used for the development of free men and women, they are increasingly employed in the production of harmless and useless things." While this critique might have had some descriptive power in 1972, when the book was published, it seems rather dated now. Not only are we facing a problem of "misuse", we are also facing a global economic crisis which seems intractable in nature. Lenin's analysis of imperialism as a stagnant economic system that retards development seems more relevant than ever. I recall that when Mandel visited in the United States in the early 70s, the question on many people's minds was whether socialist revolution was possible without the sort of shocks to the system that occurred in the 1930s. Mandel and the American Trotskyist movement accepted the possibility that a new "long wave" might already be in place. We consoled ourselves with the knowledge that economic expansion might not necessarily guarantee class peace, as the relatively affluent French working-class demonstrated in 1968. The belief in capitalism's ability to innovate infinitely is not based on evidence, but on faith. The picture that is emerging today is one of crisis that no "technological revolution" on the horizon can resolve. Furthermore, world capitalism is facing a number of impasses based on energy shortages and environmental blowback that would seem to block a new "long wave". Allow me to quote from my own favorite thinker of late, who certainly will never be nominated for a Bad Writing contest. Harry Shutt states the following in the concluding pages of "The Trouble with Capitalism," (Zed Books, 1998): "Confronted with the obstinate refusal of growth to revive, a significant number of economists and others have been inclined to flirt with quasi-metaphysical theories which supposedly give grounds for expecting a spontaneous recovery in the global economy irrespective of the revealed current tendency of market forces. According to such theories economic growth is governed by very long cycles (of fifty years or more), which their advocates claim can explain the ups and downs of the world economy at least since the Industrial Revolution, and that these unfold more or less independently of any 'man-made' events or influences such as world wars, political changes or innovations in technology. To anyone who recognises economics to be a social science -- and hence inherently subject to the unpredictable actions and reactions of ever-changing human society --such attempts to subject it to a series of rigid laws of motion can scarcely seem worthy of a moment's consideration. That some respectable academics have allowed themselves to take such theories seriously is thus only of interest as an indicator of how far some will go to avoid addressing the harsh realities of systemic failure." Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:3005] Re: Re: Race and possession
My understanding is that he thought that they were correlated with depressions. The causal factors were weather conditions associated with sunspots that affected agricultural production in a manner that produced depressions. Jevons was a solid logician and wrote a classic text on logic. He was not stupid or given to flights of fancy. Cheers, Ken Hanly Sam Pawlett wrote: > Wasn't Jevons the guy who argued that sunspots helped explain recessions? > > SP > > Tom Walker wrote: > > > "It is evident that questions of this kind depend greatly upon the character > > of the race . . . A man of lower race, a negro for instance, enjoys > > possession less, and loathes labour more; his exertions, therefore, soon stop." > > > > -- W. Stanley Jevons, "Theory of Labour", _The Theory of Political Economy_ > > > > The point of citing this quote is not to make fun of poor Stanley Jevons' > > unselfconscious 19th century racism but to emphasize the extent to which any > > theoretical formulation proposed at any time may be permeated with racism, > > sexism, class-prejudice and whathaveyou -- expressions of downright > > ignorance and stupidity. Textbooks are notorious for bowdlerizing these > > contextual markers in the interests of making the "basic ideas" palatable to > > modern students who might find some of the trappings offensive. In fact, the > > "basic idea" that preceeds Jevons' outrageous comment is itself rather > > intriguing: that workers choose their own hours of work based on the shape > > of their preferences for consumption and leisure. > > > > I guess that answers that. > > > > regards, > > > > Tom Walker
[PEN-L:3003] Mandel mot du jour
Mandel was no "Tofflerite". He was a revolutionary socialist. All I am saying is that most of his substantial economic theory was geared to understanding the post-WWII expansion and putting it into some kind of perspective, so as to allow Marxist activists to swim against the stream. He was saying that prosperity and economic expansion in themselves do not mean that capitalism is working. There are other contradictions, such as the waste he pointed out in the advanced countries, as well as the sheer immiseration in 3rd world countries. At 11:25 AM 2/6/99 -0600, you wrote: > >"Belief in the omnipotence of technology is the specific form > of bourgeois ideology in late capitalism. This ideology proclaims > the ability of the existing social order gradually to eliminate > all chance of crises, to find a technical solution to all its > contradictions, to integrate rebellious social classes and to > avoid political explosions." > > -- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism (1972) > Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:3013] [Fwd: SUPPORT STRIKING MEXICAN MINEWORKERS!]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --7FFB8F8BED87C8442261559D --7FFB8F8BED87C8442261559D Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:56:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:56:12 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Western Hemisphere Conference <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (by way of Arnoldo Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) Subject: SUPPORT STRIKING MEXICAN MINEWORKERS! Forwarded by the Comite Emiliano Zapata:: SUPPORT STRIKING MEXICAN MINEWORKERS! [PLEASE RE-POST and circulate widely. Excuse us if this is a duplicate copy. A version of the appeal in Spanish follows the English version. Por favor vean abajo, al final del Llamamiento en ingles, la version en espanol de este Llamamiento en apoyo a los mineros en huelga en Cananea (Sonora, Mexico). [ALSO if you live in Northern California and would like to be on our local WHC e-mail list (to learn about events such as the March 13 AFTA-NAFTA conference, organized together with the United Steelworkers of America), please send us a note and we will add you to our list.] Dear Sisters and Brothers: We received a few days ago a copy of an appeal in support of the striking mineworkers in Cananea, Sonora (Mexico). The appeal and cover letter were sent to us by Gemma Lopez Limon, a researcher on child labor at the University of Mexicali (Baja California) who was a delegate and panelist at the Western Hemisphere Workers¹ Conference Against NAFTA and Privatizations, which took place in San Francisco in November 1997. Sister Lopez Limon has urged our WHC Continuations Committee to forward this appeal to the international labor movement. She points out that the situation the mineworkers face is growing more difficult by the day and that they need to know they are being supported by the labor movement the world over. The Cananea mineworkers have fanned out across Northern Mexico seeking solidarity for their struggle. In Mexicali a broad-based labor committee has been set up. The appeal below was issued by this committee. Sister Lopez Limon recalls in her cover letter that the Mineworkers of Cananea held a conference against NAFTA in 1994 to which workers and trade union officials in various industries from throughout the northern region attended. At the time they warned that the privatization onslaught would be deepened if NAFTA were not overturned. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened, as you will read in this appeal. We call on all supporters of labor and democratic rights to endorse this appeal and to distribute copies of this statement widely among your coworkers and within your trade union bodies or organizations. If you can, please send your letters or statement of support for the mineworkers directly to Mexican President Zedillo or Sonora State Governor Armando Lopez Nogales [see below]. Please send copies of your statements to the WHC Continuations Committee, c/o San Francisco Labor Council (AFL-CIO), 1188 Franklin St. #203, San Francisco, CA 94109 or fax (415) 440-9297. If you prefer, you can add your name to this sign-on letter. You can do this by e-mailing your endorsement directly to Gemma Lopez Limon, "Ricardo Flores Magon" Human Rights Committee, Mexicali (Mexico). Her e-mail address is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Your statements will be forwarded to the Mexican authorities. Please include your organization and title, if possible and tell us if these are to be listed for identification purposes only. Also, please send a copy of your e-mail endorsement to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. You can also send your statement of support to Manuel Ernesto Romero Reyes, General Secretary, Section 65 of the Mineworkers Union of the Mexican Republic (Cananea) to (fax) 011-663-66-73- 92. Thank your in advance for your support to this important struggle. In Solidarity, Alan Benjamin, for the WHC Continuations Committee * Appeal in Support of the Striking Mineworkers in Cananea, Sonora (Mexico) Dr. Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon President of Mexico Fax: 011-525-516-5762 Lic. Armando Lopez Nogales Governor of the State of Sonora Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico Fax: 011-562-17-41-26 Dear Sirs: Cananea, Sonora, remains alive in the memories of the Mexican people. The historic strike of the Cananea mineworkers in 1906, which was brutally repressed by the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz, heralded the outburst of the Mexican Revolution of 1910. It was the tenacious struggle of the mineworkers and their families that resulted in the nationalization of the Cananea copper mines -- the largest in Mexico and third largest in the world. In 1989, Cananea was invaded by the Mexican Army: Five thousand soldiers occupied the town to prevent any resistance from the mineworkers to the impending closure of the mines, based on the fraudulent claim of bankruptcy. The mines are vital to the community; 90% of the people depend on the mines for thei
[PEN-L:3001] The trouble with long waves<199902060600.WAA04188@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
The problem with "long waves" is that it encourages us to think in terms of capitalism having some kind of self-regulating mechanism, namely the ability to foster "technological revolutions" ad infinitum, which is based on an extrapolation from capitalism's history into the future. Just because capitalism utilized certain technological breakthroughs (steam power, electricity, etc.) in combination with colonial plunder to fuel enormous economic upturns in centuries past, there is no reason to assume that this is intrinsic to the system. While I have only heard Shaikh in person and have not had the dubious pleasure of wading through his assorted manuscripts, I am much more familiar with Mandel's arguments. "Late Capitalism" posits the notion that the computer revolution of the 1960s --a second "technological revolution" as he dubs it-- might set off a new long wave. Mandel insisted that the powerful economic expansion concomitant with this new long wave does not mean that capitalism "works". He states that "the worst form of waste, inherent in late capitalism, lies in the MISUSE of existing material and human forces of production; instead of being used for the development of free men and women, they are increasingly employed in the production of harmless and useless things." While this critique might have had some descriptive power in 1972, when the book was published, it seems rather dated now. Not only are we facing a problem of "misuse", we are also facing a global economic crisis which seems intractable in nature. Lenin's analysis of imperialism as a stagnant economic system that retards development seems more relevant than ever. I recall that when Mandel visited in the United States in the early 70s, the question on many people's minds was whether socialist revolution was possible without the sort of shocks to the system that occurred in the 1930s. Mandel and the American Trotskyist movement accepted the possibility that a new "long wave" might already be in place. We consoled ourselves with the knowledge that economic expansion might not necessarily guarantee class peace, as the relatively affluent French working-class demonstrated in 1968. The belief in capitalism's ability to innovate infinitely is not based on evidence, but on faith. The picture that is emerging today is one of crisis that no "technological revolution" on the horizon can resolve. Furthermore, world capitalism is facing a number of impasses based on energy shortages and environmental blowback that would seem to block a new "long wave". Allow me to quote from my own favorite thinker of late, who certainly will never be nominated for a Bad Writing contest. Harry Shutt states the following in the concluding pages of "The Trouble with Capitalism," (Zed Books, 1998): "Confronted with the obstinate refusal of growth to revive, a significant number of economists and others have been inclined to flirt with quasi-metaphysical theories which supposedly give grounds for expecting a spontaneous recovery in the global economy irrespective of the revealed current tendency of market forces. According to such theories economic growth is governed by very long cycles (of fifty years or more), which their advocates claim can explain the ups and downs of the world economy at least since the Industrial Revolution, and that these unfold more or less independently of any 'man-made' events or influences such as world wars, political changes or innovations in technology. To anyone who recognises economics to be a social science -- and hence inherently subject to the unpredictable actions and reactions of ever-changing human society --such attempts to subject it to a series of rigid laws of motion can scarcely seem worthy of a moment's consideration. That some respectable academics have allowed themselves to take such theories seriously is thus only of interest as an indicator of how far some will go to avoid addressing the harsh realities of systemic failure." Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:2999] Even Business Week
Business WeekEditorial February 15, 1999 A Better Use of Surpluses President Clinton will be remembered for many things, but in the economic arena, fiscal responsibility will top the list. When he took office in 1993, the federal budget deficit came in at $225 billion, just off its high of $290 billion in the previous year. The Congressional Budget Office was projecting deficits as far as the eye could see, with spending expected to exceed revenues by more than $400 billion in 1999. Yet the fiscal 1999 surplus should total about $107 billion, according to CBO, which figures that the annual surpluses will keep growing, reaching $381 billion by 2009. And the estimates could be low, since the CBO assumes inflation-adjusted growth of about 2 percent annually over the next two years and 2.3 percent thereafter. If growth is faster, the surpluses could be fatter. It's been a major accomplishment indeed to reach this state. Now, Clinton and his successor need to ensure that this budget and future ones promote economic growth. A single-minded focus on paying down the national debt isn't necessarily the right formula for the next decade. The deficit reversed on Clinton's watch for three key reasons: higher tax rates were adopted, statutory caps on spending were enacted, and economic growth picked up while inflation and interest rates fell. In the 1980s, as deficit spending rose, the financial markets drove interest rates higher, which in turn raised the government's borrowing costs and further inflated the deficit. Recently, the process has been working in reverse: As spending was reined in and the deficit began to shrink, interest rates tumbled and borrowing costs fell. High-cost debt was replaced on the government's books by lower-cost debt, and that virtuous circle will continue as old debt is retired. Now the debate is what to do with these surplus dollars. The Republicans want a tax cut right away, so Americans can get an immediate boost in earnings; the President, meanwhile, would have the federal government set aside about 80 percent of the annual surpluses to cover problems in Social Security and Medicare financing down the road. Both approaches leave something to be desired. To be sure, over the long run U.S. growth would benefit from a cut in marginal personal and corporate tax rates. However, as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently pointed out, a tax cut at this time runs the danger of overheating the economy. Once growth returns to a more sustainable pace, and across-the-board cut in marginal rates deserves priority. And putting the better part of the surplus in a lockbox to help finance social Security and Medicare in the future seems draconian --as does Clinton's suggestion that the government reduce national debt to levels that prevailed in 1917. It may make for good public relations but it doesn't necessarily make for good policy. It's certainly prudent for President Clinton to worry about the solvency of the government's entitlement programs. But Clinton's budget and surplus plans give a decided edge to the elderly and don't focus enough on the young. To help the economy build on its strengths, Washington should promote investment in human capital. Numerous economic studies have demonstrated that investment in people delivers much higher returns than investment in physical capital. While there'' still debate about which investments work best, everything from Head Start program and early childhood education to adult training and retraining should get more attention than they do in Clinton's budget. Then too, research and development deserve a boost. Here, the budget contains some modest initiatives. What's needed is a serious stimulant to basic research, which has been lagging in recent years. Without continued gains in education and training and new innovations and scientific findings - the raw materials of growth in the New Economy - the technological dynamic will stall. No question, belt-tightening has been good for the U.S. economy. Now the trick is to figure out how to parcel out the rewards of self-discipline in the most productive way possible for the economy.
[PEN-L:3000] Re: Anwar Shaikh
Louis Proyect wrote: >I also agree that Shaikh >hasn't done a good job of making his case. Remember his spiel with >Doug at Brecht Forum in Oct'97? Really odd... Yeah? What about it? Doug
[PEN-L:2998] RE: Re: Re: New Economists' Petition
> > It is sad to see so many from the mainstream of liberal > Keynesianism abandonding > all hope of accomplishing anything. Paying down the debt was a > traditional > Republican plank [honored in the breach by radical tax reforms.] > . . . Call me naive but I am struck by the blatant political calculation underlying this statement -- unless all of the signatories have utterly changed their views in the past two months. This from the same sort of people who look down their nose at grunts like me as hacks, ideologues, and mere advocates. mbs
[PEN-L:3008] Re: New Economists' Petition
>Brad De Long wrote: > >>But is that the alternative to debt reduction that we are faced with this >>year? Tax cuts for the rich are even less to my taste... > >So given a world in which politics is reduced to choose between tax cuts >for the rich and debt paydowns, you embrace the lesser evil rather than >challenging the idiocy of such a forced choice itself. I guess that's how >hegemony works, isn't it? > >Doug We are faced with the "idiocy of such a forced choice" between "tax cuts for the rich and debt paydowns" because the majority leader of the Senate is named Lott and not Daschle, because the majority leader of the House is named Armey and not Bonior. The most effective way to challenge this state of affairs is to elect senators and representatives who will vote for Daschle and Bonior when the Senate and House organize themselves in January 2001. Saying that debt paydown is not the first-best option is fine. But in so saying, please don't do anything to make people think that the Rubin-Sperling budget proposals are worse than tax cuts for the rich. If you fail to preserve the distinctions between things that are bad and things that are not very good, you aren't "challenging the idiocy of such a forced choice"--you are working for the greater evil. Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:3010] Re: Even Business Week
Max Sawicky quoted: >Business WeekEditorial February 15, 1999 > >A Better Use of Surpluses > >President Clinton will be remembered for many things, but in the economic >arena, fiscal responsibility will top the list... > >It's certainly prudent for President Clinton to worry about the solvency of >the government's entitlement programs. But Clinton's budget and surplus >plans give a decided edge to the elderly and don't focus enough on the >young. To help the economy build on its strengths, Washington should >promote investment in human capital. Numerous economic studies have >demonstrated that investment in people delivers much higher returns than >investment in physical capital. While there's still debate about which >investments work best, everything from Head Start program and early >childhood education to adult training and retraining should get more >attention than they do in Clinton's budget. > >Then too, research and development deserve a boost. Here, the budget >contains some modest initiatives. What's needed is a serious stimulant to >basic research, which has been lagging in recent years. Without continued >gains in education and training and new innovations and scientific >findings - the raw materials of growth in the New Economy - the >technological dynamic will stall. No question, belt-tightening has been >good for the U.S. economy. Now the trick is to figure out how to parcel out >the rewards of self-discipline in the most productive way possible for the >economy. Yes. Very nice to see. But to paraphrase Joseph Stalin, how many votes in the Senate finance committee does _Business Week_ have? Brad DeLong Blatantly calculating politically, and hoping that some day he'll rise to the level of a "mere" advocate...
[PEN-L:2996] America and the world
[FTFebruary 6 1999 ] But will the runaway locomotive come off the rails? The American railroad engine is running at full power, but the old "locomotive" theory of global economic growth can scarcely work if the international carriages have become detached. Anyway, on its own and dangerously unbalanced, will the runaway engine come off the rails? Many developing countries are desperate for economic growth to raise their living standards. For decades, this seemed to be achievable. In the 1980s, GDP growth averaged 8 per cent a year in south-east Asia compared with 2.8 per cent for the US. Strategies were worked out for surplus capital to flow from the rich countries to the "emerging markets" where returns would be higher. As much as 20 per cent of British or US pension funds, it was argued by the bulls, should be invested for the longterm in the emerging markets of Asia, Latin America and east Europe (although Africa was always beyond the pale). Fortunately, your pension plan never got nearly that enthusiastic. Late in the 1990s, though, something has gone horribly wrong. US growth has accelerated to 4 per cent, but south-east Asia and east Europe went into recession in 1998 and the Brazilian crisis appears likely to plunge Latin American as a whole into the same mess this year. Nobody knows what is really happening in China, although parts of Asia are now starting to recover from the worst. International investors have been repatriating their money from almost all the emerging markets. Global economic growth may be no more than 1.6 per cent in 1999, making this the weakest year since the recession of 1982. The US blames Japan and, increasingly, continental Europe, which has suddenly decelerated, for this mess. It cannot understand why the sleeper coaches are refusing to couple up. Japan is simply imploding; its economy appears to have shrunk by 3 per cent last year, and the latest sharp rise in yen bond yields, with the associated strength of the yen against the dollar, might well trigger a further round of economic contraction later in 1999. Meanwhile, the euro-zone is obsessed with its internal politics. This week, the European Central Bank refused to reduce short-term interest rates even though the German economy appears to have hit a brick wall, core euro-zone inflation is less than 1 per cent, and the average unemployment rate in the region is 10.8 per cent and rising. The Bank of England took a much more urgent line and, on Thursday, docked an unexpectedly large half a percentage point off its repo rate although, at 5½ per cent, this remains high in global terms. The disturbing worldwide trends must have played an important part in the thinking here. We may be pleased at the cut but perhaps we should be alarmed, too. The London stock market celebrated but soon had second thoughts. To the Americans, the solutions are glaringly obvious. The Japanese must "monetise" their huge fiscal deficit - jargon for saying they must inflate away the excess of paper claims compared with the real wealth in the economy. The Europeans must inject flexibility (or you might say insecurity) into their labour markets as well as loosening their fiscal and monetary policies. The trouble is, these other cultures are not easily going to rip up the structures of their societies in order to comply with an alien American vision. The fast-ageing Japanese population is obsessed with security, and scarcely at all with growth. Inflation is a young society's game, but the Japanese finance minister is 79 years old. In continental Europe, where ageing also plays a part, there is a pre-occupation with solidarity, or social and political cohesion - of which the euro, for all its contradictions, is a powerful manifestation. American policy recommendations can easily be seen as self-serving. They are designed to reduce the Japanese and European trade surpluses and rescue the dollar from its impending tumble. Temporarily, a wonderful bubble has been sustaining the US economy and, indeed, preserving the American president. Demand has been boosted by a Wall Street-based wealth effect (although one should point out that a not unconnected "poverty effect" is now engulfing much of the third world). The US is becoming a massive debtor, however, and the overseas creditors, largely in Europe and Japan, will have the final say in the end about how long the spree goes on. This week, fears of overheating affected the market, and the Federal Reserve might pluck up enough courage to raise rates next month, although it ducked Wednesday's opportunity. We may wonder, however, whether there was something seriously wrong with the original development model. Exciting new technology was unleashed into a rapidly globalising world economy. In many emerging economies, imported know-how and imported capital were employed to potent effect. For years, Asian investment ran at twice the US level as a proportion of GDP. Excess supply and de
[PEN-L:3002] Mandel mot du jour
"Belief in the omnipotence of technology is the specific form of bourgeois ideology in late capitalism. This ideology proclaims the ability of the existing social order gradually to eliminate all chance of crises, to find a technical solution to all its contradictions, to integrate rebellious social classes and to avoid political explosions." -- Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism (1972)
[PEN-L:2995] Re: Re: Re: New Economists' Petition
Brad De Long wrote: >But is that the alternative to debt reduction that we are faced with this >year? Tax cuts for the rich are even less to my taste... So given a world in which politics is reduced to choose between tax cuts for the rich and debt paydowns, you embrace the lesser evil rather than challenging the idiocy of such a forced choice itself. I guess that's how hegemony works, isn't it? Doug
[PEN-L:2997] Re: America and the world
> [FTFebruary 6 1999 ]
>
> But will the runaway locomotive come off the
> rails?
>
> The American railroad engine
> is running at full power, but the old "locomotive"
.
> At any rate, if the global slump arrives, the
> Americans will have their excuses ready. It will
> all have been the fault of those who refused to
> jump on the gravy train, even though they were
> sent tickets.
Yeah, well, there's some embellishment of
the obvious here. On the BBC Wall Street jocks
have been frankly confessing every night that
this boom is just a mammoth Ponzi Pyramid{tm}.
Americans will learn that some places called
nations actually are, and that if they have
already experienced the glories of unalloyed
fascism they may behave differently this time
around.
Hopefully Dennis will phone in some ironic
insights from the Eurodesk before long.
Out I go into the oxygen!
valis
expat-in-training
[PEN-L:2994] CREDIT CRUNCH post: a cleaned-up version
The Financial Post February 5, 1999 CREDIT CRUNCH COULD CRUSH U.S. ECONOMY ___ Paying with plastic ___ 'Everybody is buying on credit. It's all going to crash' ___ By Peter Morton WASHINGTON Like a cop that only sees the dark side of life, David Gelinas firmly believes the United States is heading for an economic Armageddon. "'This whole idea about the strong economy is false," says Mr. Gelinas from his office near Manchester, N.H. "Sales are up, but everybody is buying on credit. It's all going to crash." Mr. Gelinas is director of the Family Debt Arbitration & Counselling Service Inc., a not-for-profit organization designed to help people get out of debt. And, like the dozens of other counselling services around the country, he's far busier than he would like to be. "It looks like it's all getting worse," he says. After taking a break over Christmas, U.S. consumers are on a spending spree again. Retail sales in the country were strong in January, fuelled by clearance sales by major department stores. "January, 1999, sales for the major retailers were above expectations with value-oriented retailers posting extremely strong increases, " said Jeffrey Feiner, a Lehman brothers retail industry analyst. In a report, Mr. Feiner said its store sales index rose 8.7% in January compared to 5.9% in December, and 5% in January, 1998. Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, and Sears, Roebuck and Co., the country's second-largest retailer, all rose sharply during the month. And they pay with plastic. Americans love their credit cards. Some 6,000 firms offer revolving credit, while Visa and Mastercard, the favourites, are widely available through 50 major banks. The "average" American has 7.5 credit cards and the per capita debt - which includes all Americans - is now about $7,000 (all figures in U.S. dollars). Total consumer debt in the United States stood at just over $1.3-trillion in December, up 3% from November. And November's debt was 11% higher than October. That is approximately double what it was in 1991. And about $556-billion of that is revolving credit: consumer credit cards that charge not only about 16%, but are increasingly tacking on late fees and other credit fees, says Mr. Gelinas. "So suddenly a relatively modest debt of say $500 grows to about $800 in just a few short months." At the same time, the U.S. savings rate its continuing its precipitous slide to the point now where Americans have negative savings: they are spending more than they are earning. Surprisingly, the sharp decline in savings, from 6% in 1992 to less than zero today has not set off any alarm bells in Washington. That is because there has been a fundamental shift in the way Americans save. While savings have dropped, household wealth has shot up dramatically, mainly because of Wall Street. "Arguably, the average household does not perceive that its saving has fallen off since 1992," Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, told a congressional committee last month. "In fact, the net worth of the average household has increased by nearly 50% since the end of 1992, well in excess of the gains of the previous six years," he said. "Households have been accumulating resources for retirement or for a rainy day, despite very low measured saving rates." Still, there are some ominous clouds on the economic horizon. The number of personal bankruptcies, filed under Chapter 7, are on the rise. They hit 1.2 million last year and are expected to reach 1.3 million this year. Total write-offs hover around $40 billion. Banks are increasingly reporting larger loan-loss provisions for consumer debt while, at the same time, cutting back their funding to the not-for-profit counselling agencies which try to find ways of renegotiating consumer debt rather seeing a client go into bankruptcy, said Mr. Gelinas. Meanwhile, Congress is getting ready to pass legislation that will make it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy, he says. Toss in the growing suspicion among economists that U.S. interest rates will be hiked this spring to try to cool an overheated economy, and you have a recipe for consumer disaster, says Mr. Gelinas. "This country is going to be in quite a tizzy," he predicts. ==
[PEN-L:2993] Fw: CLINTON ALLIES KEEP POVERTY OFF THE NATIONAL AGENDA (fwd)
In connection with Michael's excellent posting, it is interesting to note that Time magazine (Feb. 8 1999) in an article devoted to the growing numbers of homeless wrote: ""A few minutes into his inaugural Address, on Jan 20, 1989, George Bush- a Republican president often derided for his inattention to domestic problems -looked out at the crowd and declared, 'My friends, we have work to do" the first task; helping 'the homeless lost and roaming." Time then made the point that 10 years later in his seventh State of the Union address, Clinton ,a Democrtic President often praised for his acuity on social issues, in the course of 77 min. and 99 proposals ,never even mentioned the problem, Frank -- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:2984] CLINTON ALLIES KEEP POVERTY OFF THE NATIONAL AGENDA (fwd) > Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 8:50 PM > > > CLINTON ALLIES KEEP POVERTY OFF THE NATIONAL AGENDA > > By Norman Solomon / Creators Syndicate > > During the past year, many liberal pundits have condemned > efforts to oust Bill Clinton from the White House. After > countless denunciations of Kenneth Starr and congressional > Republicans, we certainly know what those pundits are against. > But what are they for? > The reality is grim. With few exceptions, liberals in the > mass media -- and in Congress -- are comfortable with the > existing economic order. And they refuse to challenge a status > quo that means dire neglect for millions of Americans. > Today, in the United States, one out of five babies is born > below the poverty line. So, at this time of bountiful surplus, > why not declare war on poverty? > To mainstream journalists and powerful politicians in > Washington, such questions are irrelevant. Savvy commentators > don't even bother to rationalize the national surrender to > poverty. And they don't object to the fact that President > Clinton's new budget keeps the white flag waving -- proudly. > We hear plenty of selective declarations that the era of > "big government" is over. Applauded by major news outlets, the > president is Mr. Frugal for the poor and Santa Claus for the > military. His latest boost of Pentagon spending will finance > multibillion-dollar gift items like attack submarines, fighter > planes and an aircraft carrier. > Days ago, when Clinton unveiled his budget, one of the few > prominent Democrats to complain was Paul Wellstone. Citing "a > great number of critical domestic programs that desperately > require real budgetary commitment," the Minnesota senator decried > "the broad and growing chasm that divides the wealthy and > prosperous from the majority of Americans." > Wellstone's comments elicited media yawns and shrugs. The > New York Times reported: "It was a sign of the Democratic Party's > move to center on fiscal issues that his critique was an isolated > one and that the official party line of the day was that > Democrats stood for a smaller, smarter government." > The virtual collapse of substantive dissent within the > national Democratic Party runs parallel to the baseline among > elite liberal pundits. They join with the rest of the > punditocracy in chanting that "the economy" is doing great and > America is enjoying marvelous "prosperity." > Meanwhile, pundits across the media's narrow conservative- > to-liberal spectrum rarely mention that the Clinton > administration has gone out of its way to avoid putting the > subject of poverty on the nation's political agenda. When the > topic comes up, the avoidance is routinely explained as a matter > of political realism. > According to the pundits who tout each other's sparkling > conventional wisdom, the American public would reject any push > for a federal anti-poverty crusade. That is supposed to be > political reality. End of discussion. > But consider some polling data released by the Pew Research > Center last month: > When American adults were asked about their preferences for > action by President Clinton and Congress, 24 percent gave "top > priority" to the idea of "cutting the capital gains tax." Fifty- > two percent gave "top priority" to "reducing federal income taxes > for the middle class." > But what happened when Americans were asked to rank the > importance of the White House and Congress "dealing with the > problems of poor and needy people"? Fifty-seven percent ranked it > as a "top priority" -- even though such concerns have gotten very > little attention from journalists covering politics. > What's more, the public response has been remarkably > consistent over previous years: In 1997 and 1998, the "top > priority" category for "dealing with the problems of poor and > needy people" was at the identical 57 percent mark. > Is this question a fluke? Hardly. A year ago, the Pew > Research Center released the results of a different poll that > covered similar ground in m
[PEN-L:3007] Re: Re: Bounced from Anwar Shaikh
Yes Jery you are right, Doug Henwod is an evil exploiter of cheap, young laborers and Lou Proyet is a nefarious racist pig...Neither makes an even remotely valuable contribution to this list indeed. Steve On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Gerald Levy wrote: > An intelligent discussion would begin by reading the references that > Anwar Shaikh (NB: _not_ "Sheik") gives rather than spinning one's > wheels in ignorance. > > Or is it too much to ask that one become familiar with a person's work > before passing judgment on it? > > Jerry > > PS1: As this same person has on *several occasions* referred to "Anwar > Sheik", one has to believe that this is not an accidental error in > spelling. One could argue instead that this "humor" has racist overtones. > > PS2 (to Michael and PEN, in reference to PS1): am I not allowed to object > to racist statements on PEN-L? > >
[PEN-L:2992] Anwar Shaikh
Levy wrote: >An intelligent discussion would begin by reading the references that >Anwar Shaikh (NB: _not_ "Sheik") gives rather than spinning one's >wheels in ignorance. No, we were having an intelligent discussion, as evidenced by this offlist post I received. You are attempting to degrade it by raising provocative charges about "racism" because I accidentally misspelled Anwar's last name. I am not interested in making fun of his national origin, but his scholasticism. Michael Perelman, do your duty, for god's sake. === Off-list, yes Louis, that's a good way to describe the long-wave in geopolitical context. In fact some short-wave effects were studied along these lines by Kees van der Pijl in his brilliant class analysis of the Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class (verso, 1984). But the waves -- call them accumulation cycles -- do show up not just in colonizing countries I also agree that Shaikh hasn't done a good job of making his case. Remember his spiel with Doug at Brecht Forum in Oct'97? Really odd... === Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:2991] Re: Bounced from Anwar Shaikh
An intelligent discussion would begin by reading the references that Anwar Shaikh (NB: _not_ "Sheik") gives rather than spinning one's wheels in ignorance. Or is it too much to ask that one become familiar with a person's work before passing judgment on it? Jerry PS1: As this same person has on *several occasions* referred to "Anwar Sheik", one has to believe that this is not an accidental error in spelling. One could argue instead that this "humor" has racist overtones. PS2 (to Michael and PEN, in reference to PS1): am I not allowed to object to racist statements on PEN-L?
[PEN-L:2990] re Enived wave, et al
Jim D, rebutting someone, in part: > >... Day and Walter are more concerned with the much longer wave > >(300 years) theory of "la duree" due to Fernand Braudel,... > > This reminds me of the 3000 year Enived cycle, of which the Braudel cycle > is but a small fraction. We are currently 500 years into "phase B" of the > Enived Wave, which implies that we have 1000 more years of decline in front > of us. Quite a revelation for this peon. Does the presumed Dr Enived hold the title, or are there wave theories that push to the very portal of geological time? Of what practical application? valis
