Re: Keynes and Relativity
Here's a more readable version of J. Galbraith's message:
Original message
---
-( Forwarded letter follows )---
Subject: Re: Keynes and Relativity
Thanks to Steve Keen and Sam LanFranco for an interesting pair of comments.
To reply, it seems to me that there are two quite distinct questions. One is,
"is the theory of relativity an appropriate metaphor for Keynes's economics?"
The other is, "Did Keynes think so, and if so, why?" My essay is mainly
directedto the second question, because it voices a proposition that is much
easier to establish and defend. In my view, the literary evidence, extending
from the use of words in the title, to the use of the simile of classical
economists as euclidean geometers, to the title of Keynes's lectures in the
fall of 1933 ("Monetary production economics") at a time when he was working
out the core of the GT, would be suggestive even if one did not have the
directevidence of Keynes's short caption on David Low's drawing of Einstein,
published just one week before Low's famous sketch of Keynes (in the
armchair). As a matter of research method, I went looking for the references
inKeynes's work to Einstein after my attention was drawn (by Skidelsky and
Hsieh&Ye) to the parallels in the title and the "euclidean geometer"
reference. Finding them in the form I did constituted for me very persuasive
evidence that I was not letting my own imagination get out of hand.
The next step in the article involved attempting to describe what the parallel
would have meant to Keynes. Here, I have to work with Keynes's own words,
whichdraw a parallel between the Riemann/Einstein attack on the axiom of
parallels and Keynes's own attack on the supply curve of labor, and hence on
the concept of the "labor market" as the separable locus wherein the volume of
employment isdetermined. Since the principle of effective demand flows
directly from this attack, it seems to me pretty straightforward to assert
that, for Keynes, the antireductionism of Einstein's approach was an essential
part of the parallel. Nor, given the centrality of monetary and liquidity
concepts to Keynes's thinking, is it much of a stretch to see the parallel
between Einstein's attack on the space-time dichotomy and Keynes's attack on
the classical view that "money is a veil."
Now, is all this the best way to view Keynes's contribution to economics? That
seems to be the question raised by both comments. In my view, it contributes
very usefully to an understanding of Keynes's intellectual framework, and
lends quite a bit of support to the interpretation of Keynesian unemployment
as an equilibrium phenomenon in a monetary world -- eg to the worldview
propounded extensively by Paul Davidson on pkt these last few days. It
constitutes a challenge to those who claim the label "Keynesian" for
disequilibrium theories rooted in market failure or coordination breakdowns.
But I think Keynes would agree,and I certainly do, that the use of physics
frameworks can only be pushed so far in economics. Keynes did not "model" his
GT on Einstein's in any slavish sense. Rather, he evidently hoped that the
parallel would lend an element of authority to his challenge to the scientific
pretensions of the classical economics (as he characterized his opponents) and
perhaps also a grace note to his exposition. I believe that we understand
Keynes better when we take note of this, and also that it is remarkable that
sofew references to the allusion exist in print.
On a minor note, I quite agree that any fair representation of Keynes's view
of investment must emphasize the interaction between the marginal efficiency
ofcapital (expected profitability of future investments -- a monetary concept)
and the money rate of interest. Keynes certainly stressed the subjectivity and
variability of the former. But since this is clearly a social construct, it
reinforces the "relativistic" cast of Keynes's thinking.
James Galbraith
forwarded by:
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacad. INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
Re: RE: Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?
send me some Kleenex. "Max B. Sawicky" wrote: > > My favorite line from Cox was that one sign > we are richer now is that we have bottled > water rather than tap water. Something to > bring tears to Perelman's eyes. > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?
Hey, I didn't write that, it's from the NY Times article I sent to the list...Steve On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, William S. Lear wrote: > On Monday, January 24, 2000 at 13:26:56 (-1000) Stephen E Philion writes: > > > > And what of the poorest Americans' loss of ground compared to the > > richest, as reported by the Fed? The apostles of equality consider > > the rising inequality kindling for social unrest. But while that > > would be true if most workers on the bottom rungs were trapped > > there for generations, America isn't a caste society, and studies > > that track individuals' incomes over time show that Americans have > > a remarkable ability to propel themselves upward. > > > > A 17-year study of lifetime earnings by the Federal Reserve Bank of > > Dallas found that only 5 percent of people in the economy's lowest > > 20 percent failed to move to a higher income group. In a similar > > study by the Treasury Department covering 1979 to 1988, 86 percent > > of Americans in the bottom fifth of income earners improved their > > status. > > > > Inequality is not inequity. Artificial efforts to try to curb > > wealth gaps invariably do more harm than good. Heavier taxation > > might narrow the division between rich and poor, but it would be a > > hollow triumph if it stifled the economy. What Americans ought to > > care most about is maintaining our growth, not the red herring of > > gaps in income and wealth. > > > > W. Michael Cox, chief economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of > > Dallas, and Richard Alm are co-authors of "Myths of Rich and Poor." > > Hmm, the 1960s were an era of unmatched growth and relative equality, > if I'm not mistaken. And, what exactly are "artificial efforts to try > to curb wealth gaps", and how do they differ from the artificial > efforts to impose the cost of operating our system for the benefit of > the few on the weakest in our society? I think they need to take a > look at Horwitz's *Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860*, among > other things. > > Didn't someone on the sane side of the fence recently put out a report > that debunked this sort of nonsense? > > I'd like to see a point-by-point rebuttal to this, sent certified > mail, to the authors. Let's draft it here and let Max send it off on > his finest letterhead. > > > Bill > >
RE: Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?
. . . I'd like to see a point-by-point rebuttal to this, sent certified mail, to the authors. Let's draft it here and let Max send it off on his finest letterhead. Bill Send to who? And why on my letterhead? As I mentioned before (might have been on LBO), my boss Larry Mishel and I debated Cox (Alm is a journalist and doesn't know anything) on a PBS show in Dallas. Mishel did most of the talking since this is his bailiwick more than mine. I was only there because I did a separate show on the public sector debating Cato dude Steve Moore. My favorite line from Cox was that one sign we are richer now is that we have bottled water rather than tap water. Something to bring tears to Perelman's eyes. Much material refuting Cox can be found in State of Working America. Up to now the labor market boyz at EPI don't think his stuff is worth refuting. Too stupid. mbs
Re: Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?
I'm afraid Cox and Alm are pretty hopeless. I debated Cox (and was called a Communist by him) on NPR a couple of months, and he's a pure, free-market ideologue. The New York Times op-ed piece from which this quote comes typifies their approach. Rather than treating education and inequality as intertwined variables, they contend that inequality has not risen because inequality has risen, but because the citizens of some states have more education than others. A counter op-ed piece, yes, but no letter or critique will get through to these lunkheads. Joel Blau
Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?
On Monday, January 24, 2000 at 13:26:56 (-1000) Stephen E Philion writes: > > And what of the poorest Americans' loss of ground compared to the > richest, as reported by the Fed? The apostles of equality consider > the rising inequality kindling for social unrest. But while that > would be true if most workers on the bottom rungs were trapped > there for generations, America isn't a caste society, and studies > that track individuals' incomes over time show that Americans have > a remarkable ability to propel themselves upward. > > A 17-year study of lifetime earnings by the Federal Reserve Bank of > Dallas found that only 5 percent of people in the economy's lowest > 20 percent failed to move to a higher income group. In a similar > study by the Treasury Department covering 1979 to 1988, 86 percent > of Americans in the bottom fifth of income earners improved their > status. > > Inequality is not inequity. Artificial efforts to try to curb > wealth gaps invariably do more harm than good. Heavier taxation > might narrow the division between rich and poor, but it would be a > hollow triumph if it stifled the economy. What Americans ought to > care most about is maintaining our growth, not the red herring of > gaps in income and wealth. > > W. Michael Cox, chief economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of > Dallas, and Richard Alm are co-authors of "Myths of Rich and Poor." Hmm, the 1960s were an era of unmatched growth and relative equality, if I'm not mistaken. And, what exactly are "artificial efforts to try to curb wealth gaps", and how do they differ from the artificial efforts to impose the cost of operating our system for the benefit of the few on the weakest in our society? I think they need to take a look at Horwitz's *Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860*, among other things. Didn't someone on the sane side of the fence recently put out a report that debunked this sort of nonsense? I'd like to see a point-by-point rebuttal to this, sent certified mail, to the authors. Let's draft it here and let Max send it off on his finest letterhead. Bill
Re: Re: recent publications
Oops. Sorry to clog the list with a reply that should have been personal, and then with this "sorry to clog the list" note, etc., and the rest by induction. Peter
Re: recent publications
Recent pub Fleck_S wrote: > To those of you who are URPE members - the URPE winter newsletter would like > to announce any recent publications of members that have come out in > 1999-2000 or are expected out soon. If you have more than one, then give me > the two most recent or interesting ones. Please include the complete > reference. Include a short one sentence blurb and I may be able to include > it. > > Also, if you know of any interesting websites, please share the URL and name > of organization/group. The newsletter publishes these URLs. > > I'll take references until Tuesday noon, then if I get others after the > deadline, they will be included in the Spring newsletter. > > Susan Fleck > > w:(202) 691-5019 > 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. : "Actually Existing Globalization", in Preet Aulakh and Michael Schechter (eds.), Rethinking Globalization(s): From Corporate Transnationalism to Local Interventions, St. Martins Press: 2000. Offers conjunctural explanations for the emergence of neoliberal globalization and sketches a hypothetical, non-neoliberal alternative. Peter
Re: Keynes and Relativity
Here's a more readable version of J. Galbraith's message:
Original message
---
-( Forwarded letter follows )---
Subject: Re: Keynes and Relativity
Thanks to Steve Keen and Sam LanFranco for an interesting pair of comments.
To reply, it seems to me that there are two quite distinct questions. One is,
"is the theory of relativity an appropriate metaphor for Keynes's economics?"
The other is, "Did Keynes think so, and if so, why?" My essay is mainly
directedto the second question, because it voices a proposition that is much
easier to establish and defend. In my view, the literary evidence, extending
from the use of words in the title, to the use of the simile of classical
economists as euclidean geometers, to the title of Keynes's lectures in the
fall of 1933 ("Monetary production economics") at a time when he was working
out the core of the GT, would be suggestive even if one did not have the
directevidence of Keynes's short caption on David Low's drawing of Einstein,
published just one week before Low's famous sketch of Keynes (in the
armchair). As a matter of research method, I went looking for the references
inKeynes's work to Einstein after my attention was drawn (by Skidelsky and
Hsieh&Ye) to the parallels in the title and the "euclidean geometer"
reference. Finding them in the form I did constituted for me very persuasive
evidence that I was not letting my own imagination get out of hand.
The next step in the article involved attempting to describe what the parallel
would have meant to Keynes. Here, I have to work with Keynes's own words,
whichdraw a parallel between the Riemann/Einstein attack on the axiom of
parallels and Keynes's own attack on the supply curve of labor, and hence on
the concept of the "labor market" as the separable locus wherein the volume of
employment isdetermined. Since the principle of effective demand flows
directly from this attack, it seems to me pretty straightforward to assert
that, for Keynes, the antireductionism of Einstein's approach was an essential
part of the parallel. Nor, given the centrality of monetary and liquidity
concepts to Keynes's thinking, is it much of a stretch to see the parallel
between Einstein's attack on the space-time dichotomy and Keynes's attack on
the classical view that "money is a veil."
Now, is all this the best way to view Keynes's contribution to economics? That
seems to be the question raised by both comments. In my view, it contributes
very usefully to an understanding of Keynes's intellectual framework, and
lends quite a bit of support to the interpretation of Keynesian unemployment
as an equilibrium phenomenon in a monetary world -- eg to the worldview
propounded extensively by Paul Davidson on pkt these last few days. It
constitutes a challenge to those who claim the label "Keynesian" for
disequilibrium theories rooted in market failure or coordination breakdowns.
But I think Keynes would agree,and I certainly do, that the use of physics
frameworks can only be pushed so far in economics. Keynes did not "model" his
GT on Einstein's in any slavish sense. Rather, he evidently hoped that the
parallel would lend an element of authority to his challenge to the scientific
pretensions of the classical economics (as he characterized his opponents) and
perhaps also a grace note to his exposition. I believe that we understand
Keynes better when we take note of this, and also that it is remarkable that
sofew references to the allusion exist in print.
On a minor note, I quite agree that any fair representation of Keynes's view
of investment must emphasize the interaction between the marginal efficiency
ofcapital (expected profitability of future investments -- a monetary concept)
and the money rate of interest. Keynes certainly stressed the subjectivity and
variability of the former. But since this is clearly a social construct, it
reinforces the "relativistic" cast of Keynes's thinking.
James Galbraith
forwarded by:
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacad. INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
Why Decry the Wealth Gap?
Let the gap get wider! Steve January 24, 2000 Why Decry the Wealth Gap? By W. MICHAEL COX and RICHARD ALM T he economic expansion that began in 1991 will soon become the longest in our history, yet last week Americans may have been distracted by two reports reminding them of a widening gap between the rich and poor. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, two liberal research groups, put out a state-by-state breakdown of Census Bureau data, which found nine states (led by New York) in which the richest 20 percent of households now earn at least 11 times the income of the poorest 20 percent. This indicated a much sharper disparity between the top and bottom than existed two decades ago. Then the Federal Reserve Bank released its latest survey of consumer finances. It showed that the average net worth of families earning less than $10,000 a year had fallen by $6,600 over the past three years, while households earning more than $100,000 a year had seen their wealth jump by more than $300,000. Our response is: So what? Few of us should be surprised -- or threatened -- by statistics on inequality. Some Americans believe the more equality the better, but the fact is that the distribution of income and wealth isn't arbitrary. It emerges from broad trends in the economy and is a byproduct of a decade that created 17 million jobs and added 20 percent to median household net worth. The unstated implication of the state-by-state report was that the states where income disparities are lower are somehow "fairer" than the states with high disparities. But the truth is that among communities, states and regions, income and wealth will vary for many reasons, several of them unavoidable and laudable. Consider, for example, that income varies with education. According to census data, high school dropouts in the work force earn an average of $26,207, while workers with a professional degree average $127,499. Census figures show that many of the states with the widest income gaps have greater diversity in education levels than states with smaller income gaps. Twenty-six percent of those over the age of 24 in New York -- the state with the greatest income disparity -- have at least a bachelor's degree, whereas in Indiana, which was among the seven states with the lowest income disparity, only 16 percent do. Should we be lamenting that so many New Yorkers went to college? Another non-nefarious cause of increasing income disparity may be our ever-higher immigration rates. Immigrants tend to cluster in low- and high-income groups. Thus it is no surprise that in the seven most unequal states -- New York, Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, California, Rhode Island and Texas -- about 13 percent of the population is foreign-born (in California, it's 25 percent). Among the seven states with the smallest income disparities, the immigrant population is only 3.8 percent. The shift away from manufacturing is also a factor. Service workers span the gamut from hotel maids to brain surgeons, while the pay range is generally narrower in the manufacturing sector. States that are industrial tend to have more equal distributions of income. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that about 10 percent of workers in Arizona, Louisiana and New York have manufacturing jobs, whereas in more equal states like Indiana and Wisconsin the figure is 23 percent. Also, in the seven states with the greatest income inequality, more than 80 percent of the population lives in or near metropolitan areas. In states with the most equality, only about half does. If we were to turn back the clock 100 years and again become a largely rural nation, we might not see such large income disparities, but that's because America's cities are our engines of wealth and offer greater prospects for those who succeed. And what of the poorest Americans' loss of ground compared to the richest, as reported by the Fed? The apostles of equality consider the rising inequality kindling for social unrest. But while that would be true if most workers on the bottom rungs were trapped there for generations, America isn't a caste society, and studies that track individuals' incomes over time show that Americans have a remarkable ability to propel themselves upward. A 17-year study of lifetime earnings by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that only 5 percent of people in the economy's lowest 20 percent failed to move to a higher income group. In a similar study by the Treasury Department covering 1979 to 198
recent publications
To those of you who are URPE members - the URPE winter newsletter would like to announce any recent publications of members that have come out in 1999-2000 or are expected out soon. If you have more than one, then give me the two most recent or interesting ones. Please include the complete reference. Include a short one sentence blurb and I may be able to include it. Also, if you know of any interesting websites, please share the URL and name of organization/group. The newsletter publishes these URLs. I'll take references until Tuesday noon, then if I get others after the deadline, they will be included in the Spring newsletter. Susan Fleck w:(202) 691-5019 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.
heterodox materials for principles courses
I've just rejoined Pen-l and have been going through some of the recent discussion of alternative materials for principles courses, paying special attention to comments about the critical commentary project I'm working on. I think Ellen Frank's question of whether we can find some common ground in critiquing neoclassical texts is a key one. I have a tentative strategy to create-uncover-knit together this land and would be very anxious to get feedback from pen-l discussants when my ideas are fully developed. Peter Dorman's focus on normative starting points has interesting implications for what questions theories (and intro texts) ask. I think the first few chapters in intro texts (what is economics, positive/normative distinctions, etc.) can be used to hold economic discourse responsible for speaking to the concerns Peter raised. I've some ideas about the cultivated blindness (paradigmatic neglect) of neoclassical intro texts, which I also hope to circulate on pen-l for comments in the future. I agree with Jim Devine's point that critique by itself is insufficient to overturn a paradigm. Despite this, I think a critical commentary can serve a useful purpose. The more I have gotten into this project, the more convinced I have become of the need for heterodox economists to attempt to have a greater impact on principles classes. These courses are the sole contact of most undergraduates with economics. Enrollments drop sharply after the intro courses. Even for the majors and those getting a second dose of things in intermediate theory, the paradigmatic lens, expected terrain, etc. has been defined in principles. For a variety of reasons, many heterodox professors use mainstream principles texts. Among the reasons for this are: (1) text book choices made by others in the department, (2) felt needs to prepare students for upper level neoclassical courses or business school classes that assume familiarity with neoclassical presentations, and (3) desires to confront head-on neoclassical models, stories, rhetoric, etc., on the theory that students will encounter the language and mode of reasoning in practical contexts and would do well to critique it with the aid of a sympathetic professor As I noted in my letter to Michael (which he posted to pen-l), I think a critical commentary could add the advantage of a "sustained voice" to the excellent collection of topical essays critical of different dimensions of neoclassical theory. Based on my own experience teaching principles for 20 years and the response I've gotten to the idea, I think there is a market for this type of material. Besides being attractive to heterodox instructors, I think the book could be a friendly ally of isolated students in orthodox neoclassical courses. The travails of some skeptical students at Harvard (SHARE) who tried to broaden the discussion in Martin Feldstein's large intro class typifies this need. I think the idea of a web site with heterodox materials that could be used in principles classes is a great idea. I believe the Global Development and Environment Institute (GDAE) at Tufts University was also thinking of constructing such a site. The folks at GDAE, are among other things, the editors of the "Frontier Issues in Economic Thought" series, an excellent set of books summarizing about 50-75 articles each on a number of topics (Survey of Ecological Economics, Human Well-Being and Economic goals, The Consumer Society, The Changing Nature of Work, and forthcoming: Inequality and Market Power and Sustainable Development). I was also planning on having a cyber space appendix for the commentary book that would allow: (1) elaboration of the text, (2) attention to a broader number of issues, and (3) the introduction of more diverse ways of handling some issues. In general, I imagined the appendix spending more time differentiating amongst heterodox approaches than the text, due to the latter's emphasis on what heterodox critiques shared in common in opposition to neoclassical theory. It would be great to be able to cite stuff on the Pen-l website that related to the commentary. I think the idea of heterodox modules is also a very good one. For those interested in alternative texts, let me mention GDAE's new book Microeconomics in Context. The book was written for a Russian market and is not currently available in a form designed for an American audience. It has a lot of thoughtful innovations and along with some other excellent alternative texts (like Bowles and Edwards' Understanding Capitalism) is a great source of ideas. At the moment I am swamped with tasks related to the workshop I am directing at U Mass that critiques neoclassical principles texts and looks at several heterodox texts. At the end of the workshop (and perhaps during it) I hope to post stuff on Pen-l that reflects our findings or ruminations. Anyone interested in a more active participation in the workshop shou
RE: [Fwd: your textbook project]
I'm just a Seeker of Truth. mbs Yea, what the hell, aren't you somewhat anti-marxist anyway ? CB >>> Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/24/00 10:24AM >>> I realize that this view is fundamentally anti-marxist, but what the hell Peter Do you mind if I use that for my sig line? mbs
[Fwd: your textbook project]
Yea, what the hell, aren't you somewhat anti-marxist anyway ? CB >>> Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/24/00 10:24AM >>> I realize that this view is fundamentally anti-marxist, but what the hell Peter Do you mind if I use that for my sig line? mbs
Evolutionary psychology and anti-Semitism
Evolutionary Psychology's Anti-Semite By: Judith Shulevitz What scares people about the trial going on in London over whether Jewish historian Deborah Lipstadt libeled Holocaust denier David Irving by calling him a liar is that British law requires Lipstadt to show that her statement was true. If she can't prove beyond a doubt that the Holocaust took place, Irving might win. That would be a devastating blow to historical accuracy if it happens, but Culturebox thinks it won't. There's a lot of truth on Lipstadt's side, and very little on Irving's. Plus Lipstadt has one of the best lawyers in London and is planning to call several heavyweight scholars to testify. Irving, on the other hand, is acting as his own lawyer and so far has named very few witnesses and experts, none of whom anyone has ever heard of. If Irving doesn't appear to be taking the necessary steps to win, why else might he have brought the lawsuit? For publicity, is the obvious answer--to air his own views, as well as those of his witnesses. And that's what scares Culturebox. Irving's claim that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz is bad enough, but since it bears directly on the question of his truthfulness, it will be refuted on the spot. Irving's experts, on the other hand, are being called to testify on issues tangential to the case, and their twisted theories could well go unanswered. One expert, John Fox, the former editor of a British Holocaust journal, will probably argue that Lipstadt and the Jews are trying to shut down free discussion of the Holocaust. Irving's other expert is an American professor named Kevin MacDonald, whose ideas about Jews have almost no relevance to the case but represent the broadest, ugliest, and most vicious anti-Semitism passing for scholarship in this country today. We know more or less what McDonald will say on the stand, because he recently put a copy of his written statement to the British court on the Internet. (Click here to go to the discussion group where he posted it. At the drop-down dialogue box, select postings for January 2000, then click on a posting titled "MacDonald's statement in the Irving/Lipstadt trial," dated Jan. 17.) The bulk of MacDonald's testimony will be a summary of his three books about Jews: A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Praeger, 1994); Separation and Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Praeger, 1998); and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998). Here is what he says in them--in Culturebox's words, not his. (If you want to read MacDonald's own summary, clink on the link above. To read a fuller account of his books, go to his Web page.) MacDonald's central thesis is that Judaism is best understood not as a religion but as a blueprint for an experiment in eugenics--a "group evolutionary strategy," he calls it--designed to maximize a single trait: intelligence. For thousands of years, he says, Jews have separated themselves from their neighbors, choosing to confine themselves to a closed society with strict rules against marrying outside the group. They have lived by policies of extreme group loyalty and obedience to rabbinical authority, which served to maintain their racial purity; and they practiced low-birth-rate, high-investment parenting, which is the royal road to a high group I.Q. They conferred social status (which brings along with it the most desirable women) on men according to their brilliance--indeed, says MacDonald, study of the Talmud was nothing more than a casuistic exercise meant to weed out the dim. Eventually, their highly developed genes for mental and verbal acuity, as well as their social aggression (also carefully bred-in), gave the Jews powerful tools that enable them to dominate neighboring ethnic groups in the endless war of all against all for food and resources... Full article at: http://slate.msn.com Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Journalists Threaten Strike To Fight Censorship at Pacifica
(Hi All,The latest on labor matters at Pacifica. Seth Sandronsky) Journalists Threaten Strike To Fight Censorship at Pacifica January 24, 2000 -- Pacifica Radio's top free-lance reporters and contributors today say they are prepared to strike Pacifica's national news program to protest on-going censorship at the 50-year-old community-radio network. The dozens of journalists from across the Americas, Europe and Asia, many of whom have won the industry's top awards, are calling on Mary Frances Berry, who chairs both the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and the Pacifica Foundation, to publicly renounce censorship throughout the network, and to reassert the editorial independence of Pacifica's local and national-news divisions. Should management not meet the demands sent today, the stringers say the 3-month strike will begin on January 31, 2000 at 12:00 p.m. Pacific time. The striking journalists comprise a majority of active contributors and reporters to Pacifica Network News--PNN--a daily, half-hour news program that airs on some 70 radio stations nationally. In a recent two-month period, nearly 70% of Pacifica's stories came from its stringers. Virtually the entire news staff of the network's flagship Berkeley station, KPFA, and its New York station, WBAI, are supporting the action. Strikers say this action in no way targets the local news divisions of the network's five sister stations. A letter outlining the group's demands was sent to Pacifica's management today. "Censorship puts the credibility of the Pacifica Network at risk," said 6-year PNN contributor Robin Urevich from her home in Los Angeles. "Pacifica has built its 50-year reputation on consistently challenging the Establishment, by not bowing to the political agendas of corporate sponsors and by its producers and reporters functioning free of interference from management. This freedom is now under attack," Urevich added. Pacifica has long been a bastion of free speech--from broadcasting Alan Ginsberg's "Howl," to defying the HUAC witch hunts, to airing the commentaries of death-row journalist Mumia Abu Jamal. Since the crisis last spring, when armed guards were called in to lock out staff at KPFA, Pacifica reporters say management has subjected journalists, contributors and independent producers to repeated acts of alteration, suppression and censorship of news stories and public-affairs programming, which they say are of vital interest to the listeners of Pacifica and the broader communities it serves. Reporters also note that management has repeatedly silenced programs in mid-broadcast, and ousted signature voices such as Polk award-winner Larry Bensky. In November, Pacifica Network News director Dan Coughlin was "removed" after airing a story detailing a boycott by sixteen Pacifica affiliates over the issue of censorship. Most recently, veteran news anchor Verna Avery-Brown, the only African- American national-news anchor in public broadcasting, resigned amidst the crisis at PNN. Brown cited, among other concerns, censorship and a disturbing trend away from progressive coverage in Pacifica's national news. The strikers are also demanding that Coughlin be reinstated. (Here are a group of letters and reports about Coughlin's removal). "We believe Pacifica management seeks to intimidate and censor those who try to report on matters that management prefers to keep quiet," said PNN contributor Aaron Glantz from his base in Berkeley. "One result is that the independence of news production is now seriously under threat," Glantz added. For more information, contact Pacifica Reporters Fighting Censorship, (212) 439-8087 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Addendum: From http://www.savepacifica.net/strike/ --- Strike Fund If you wish to support us financially, please make contributions payable to Friends of Free Speech Radio, and mail to: "Free- lancers' Strike Fund," c/o Friends of Free Speech Radio, 905 Parker St., Berkeley, CA 94710. If we do have to strike, many reporters will be putting their livelihoods on line. Depending on our fundraising success, we hope to be able to make strike payments to PNN freelancers who have signed onto the strike. http://www.radio4all.org http://www.radio4all.org/freepacifica Public PGP Block: http://www.radio4all.org/pgp/ - /*This message comes via the freepac list. */ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
cy.Rev: a journal about computers and socialism
>From the home page: http://www.cyrev.net/index.html Welcome to cy.Rev! This site is the host to the revolutionary journal, cy.Rev, "A Journal of Cybernetic Revolution, Sustainable Socialism & Radical Democracy", other related contributions and political discussions based on these articles. We are dedicated to updating the revolutionary tradition to take into account the explosion of the information economy, globalization, environmental destruction and the current struggles of the masses of humanity for survival, justice and dignity. The Current Issue takes you to the latest issue of cy.Rev. The Archive contains all previous issues including our groundbreaking "Promise And Peril of the Third Wave" in Issue 1. Contributions contains additional articles that are of interest to cy.Rev readers. Please note the articles by Jerry Harris on the new Transnationalist Capitalist Class and by Joh Beckwith exposing the latest fallacies to come out of the "IQists" (scientists who continue to attempt to "prove" a link between IQ and genetics). Please visit our current issue and our archives. Every article ends with a feedback form. In that way you can compose your ideas while they are still fresh. It takes us a few days to process your feedback, but we will eventually place it in the appropriate feedback page. Don't worry about which article (or issue) you are responding to, we will know that when we receive your comments. The Feedback link (also at left) takes you to the discussion. Right now, as we begin, we are classifying feedback comments by issue. If we get enough activity, we may attempt to provide some threaded discussion capabilities. We believe debate among revolutionaries is critical in this period. We urge people to use the feedback form and to submit articles. Also note, this is our first attempt at a web site. We still have some work to do to make it more uniform and easy to navigate. We appreciate all your suggestions to make the site better. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, JANUARY 21, 2000 RELEASED TODAY: Regional and state unemployment rates remained stable in December. All four regions posted little or no change over the month, and 45 states and the District of Columbia recorded shifts of 0.3 percentage points or less. The national jobless rate was unchanged at 4.1 percent. Nonfarm employment rose in 41 states and the District of Columbia. ... The median weekly earnings of the nation's 98.2 million full-time wage and salary employees rose 2.4 percent after adjustment for inflation during the 12 months ended in the fourth quarter of 1999, according to BLS. BLS said that, before adjustment for inflation, median weekly earnings increased 5 percent and stood at $568 in the fourth quarter of 1999. Inflation, as measured by the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), rose 2.6 percent over the same 12-month period. Looking at averages over the full year of 1999, Labor Secretary Alexis Herman pointed out that full-time workers realized a 2.9 percent gain in real or inflation-adjusted weekly earnings. That is a record annual gain, she said, noting that the BLS has been collecting these data on a regular basis since 1979. Herman also cited figures in the new BLS report pertaining to pay gaps between workers with different educational attainment levels. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-8). New claims filed with state agencies for unemployment insurance benefits declined 39,000 to a total of 272,000 during the week ended Jan. 15, according to the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration. The weekly total of new claims has remained close to the 300,000 mark for about a year, signaling the extent of labor market tightness across the U.S. economy. Most forecasters expect the job market to remain tight this year, even if the overall pace of the expansion moderates somewhat, as is generally predicted. New claimants have filed to receive benefits through state agencies, but are not yet receiving payments. The four-week average of total UI claimants--those actually receiving benefits--reached its lowest level in 11 years, declining to about 2.0 million during the period ended Jan. 8, which was a drop of 129,000 from the prior period. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-16). The U.S. trade gap expanded in November to a record, as imports jumped 1.4 percent while exports increased 0.7 percent, the Commerce Department reported. Data from the Census Bureau showed that imports increased at a stronger pace than some analysts had expected. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-1: Washington Post, page E3)_The U.S. trade deficit hit another record in November on a surge of imports of foreign cars and consumer goods. ... Higher oil prices helped fuel the rise, and economists also blamed some of the import surge on year-2000 stockpiling, in which many U.S. car dealers built up their inventories in the latter part of 1999. But, as the trade imbalance continued to swell, there was a tiny ray of sunshine in the November numbers: U.S. export performance, dismal for much of 1999, was slightly improved, rising on increased demand for telecommunications equipment, semiconductors, and other products. Imports, as usual, outperformed exports. It was the US's worst trade performance since the Commerce Department started compiling the monthly numbers in 1992. ... (Wall Street Journal, page A2)_The insatiable American appetite for German cars, French perfume, and Japanese televisions has helped the world's wealthiest countries grow faster than at any time since the mid-1990s, but the United States is warning that its allies need to join in the gluttony. ... America's stellar growth means that it is consuming more than its share of world output. Europe and Japan have the potential to grow faster if they loosen up the reins on their economies and worry less about inflation, Treasury Secretary Summers said. Ideally, both major trading partners would then buy more American goods and help to even out global trade. ... (New York Times, page C1). The International Energy Agency warned that crude-oil supply cuts by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have severely diminished world oil inventories. ... The IEA was formed by industrialized nations in the 1970s to coordinate an emergency response to oil shortages and to monitor markets. The editor of the IEA's Monthly Oil Market Report in Paris said in an interview that shortages are possible this summer unless OPEC raises its production levels. ... Crude prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange surged in the past week after OPEC members said they wouldn't boost output as expected in March, when the current supply-cutback agreement expires. In a series of reductions beginning in April 1998, OPEC together with non-OPEC members Mexico and Norway took 4.3 million barrels a day off world markets, reducing production about 6% against world demand of about 75 million barr
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: your textbook project]
I realize that this view is fundamentally anti-marxist, but what the hell Peter Do you mind if I use that for my sig line? mbs
