Re: Re: Krugman Watch: the estate tax abolition (fwd)
At 00:50 16/06/00 -0400, you wrote: People use "right" and "left" very arbitrarily sometimes. What does "right" mean in American politics? and how does "liberal" be left? Mine This is a major gap in left wing political culture between the USA and Europe. My guess is that it comes from the severe repression of socialists in the USA during the cold war. As a result left wing thinking in the USA often has a libertarian flavour to it, which misses the point. At least christian democrats in Europe believe in some sort of social accountability. This column is the linear descendant of articles such as "The Rich, The Right, and The Facts," which nailed the right on growing inequality when Krugman wrote it for The American Prospect five or six years ago. But as always when he tilts liberal, one gets the feeling that the latent message--repositioning himself on the political spectrum as a balanced, objective observer--is as least as important as whatever he happens to arguing. Joel Blau Well framed point about the jostling to appear as a "balanced objective observer". These shifts are how we can detect movements in the underline pattern of ideas, which ultimately are a reflection of the economic base, but always interpreted by people who think they are balanced objective observers. BTW nailing the right on growing inequality is also not a fully socialist idea - it is merely the socialism of redistribution not the socialism of social control of the means of production. Chris Burford London
[fla-left] Fw: Bio Warfare Against Cuba (fwd)
forwarded by Michael Hoover Since 1959 the CIA has conducted over 2,000 operations in Cuba. Our tax dollars at work. -Original Message- From: Common Courage Political Literacy Course [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, June 12, 2000 2:01 PM Subject: Bio Warfare Against Cuba Common Courage Political Literacy Course - http://www.commoncouragepress.com +-+ C O M M O N C O U R A G E P R E S S' Political Literacy Email Course A backbone of facts to stand up to spineless power. +-+ Monday June 12, 2000 === United States Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons Abroad === In Cuba: 1) In August 1962, a British freighter under Soviet lease, having damaged its propeller on a reef, crept into the harbor at San Juan, Puerto Rico for repairs. It was bound for a Soviet port with 80,000 bags of Cuban sugar. The ship was put into dry dock and 14,135 sacks of sugar were unloaded to a warehouse to facilitate the repairs. While in the warehouse, the sugar was contaminated by CIA agents with a substance that was allegedly harmless but unpalatable. When President Kennedy learned of the operation he was furious because it had taken place in US territory and if discovered could provide the Soviet Union with a propaganda field day and set a terrible precedent for chemical sabotage in the Cold War. He directed that the sugar not be returned to the Russians, although what explanation was given to them is not publicly known. Similar undertakings were apparently not canceled. A CIA official, who helped direct worldwide sabotage efforts against Cuba, later revealed that "There was lots of sugar being sent out from Cuba, and we were putting a lot of contaminants in it." 2) The same year, a Canadian agricultural technician working as an adviser to the Cuban government was paid $5,000 by "an American military intelligence agent" to infect Cuban turkeys with a virus which would produce the fatal Newcastle disease. Subsequently, 8,000 turkeys died. The technician later claimed that although he had been to the farm where the turkeys had died, he had not actually administered the virus, but had instead pocketed the money, and that the turkeys had died from neglect and other causes unrelated to the virus. This may have been a self-serving statement. The Washington Post reported that "According to U.S. intelligence reports, the Cubans--and some Americans--believe the turkeys died as the result of espionage." 3) According to a participant in the project: During 1969 and 1970, the CIA deployed futuristic weather modification technology to ravage Cuba's sugar crop and undermine the economy. Planes from the China Lake Naval Weapons Center in the California desert, where high tech was developed, overflew the island, seeding rain clouds with crystals that precipitated torrential rains over non-agricultural areas and left the cane fields arid (the downpours caused killer flash floods in some areas). This said, it must be pointed out while it's not terribly surprising that the CIA would have attempted such a thing, it's highly unlikely that it would have succeeded except through a great stroke of luck; i.e., heavy rains occurring at just the right time. 4) In 1971, also according to participants, the CIA turned over to Cuban exiles a virus which causes African swine fever. Six weeks later, an outbreak of the disease in Cuba forced the slaughter of 500,000 pigs to prevent a nationwide animal epidemic. The outbreak, the first ever in the Western hemisphere, was called the "most alarming event" of the year by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.25 5) Ten years later, the target may well have been human beings, as an epidemic of dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF) swept across the Cuban island. Transmitted by blood-eating insects, usually mosquitos, the disease produces severe flu symptoms and incapacitating bone pain. Between May and October 1981, over 300,000 cases were reported in Cuba with 158 fatalities, 101 of which were children under 15.26 The Center for Disease Control later reported that the appearance in Cuba of this particular strain of dengue, DEN-2 from Southeast Asia, had caused the first major epidemic of DHF ever in the Americas.27 Castro announced that Cuba had asked the United States for a pesticide to help eradicate the fever-bearing mosquito, but had not been given any. In 1956 and 1958, declassified documents have revealed, the US Army loosed swarms of specially bred mosquitos in Georgia and Florida to see whether disease-carrying insects could be weapons in a biological war. The mosquitos bred for the tests were of the Aedes Aegypti type, the precise carrier of dengue fever as well as other diseases. In 1967 it was reported by Science magazine that at the US government
[fla-left] [news] Vieques trespassers sentenced to mere hours behind bars (fwd)
forwarded by Michael Hoover Vieques trespassers sentenced to mere hours behind bars [Beneath this article: "Politician Berrios sick with cancer"] Published in The Orlando Sentinel on June 14, 2000 Activists won`t rule out trespasses Puerto Rican activists declared victory after being handed brief terms for sneaking onto the U.S. Navy bombing range. By Ivan Roman San Juan Bureau SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- Anti-Navy activists claimed victory Tuesday when a federal judge found former senator and gubernatorial candidate Ruben Berrios and an environmental expert guilty of trespassing for re-entering the Vieques target range, but ordered them locked up for just a few hours. As Berrios and Jorge Fernandez Porto were led to holding cells -- for sentences of six and four hours, respectively -- family, friends and supporters of the Puerto Rican Independence Party outside the federal courthouse cheered. They say that in this test of wills, the government blinked. Greeted as a hero when he came down the federal courthouse steps later, Berrios told more than 300 supporters that the court proved the Navy can`t beat the will of the people in this fight to get them out of Vieques. "The first thing I want to say is `We won!`" said Berrios, pointing to the dozens of Puerto Rican and PIP flags waving about. "Today`s nominal sentence made clear the moral bankruptcy and the lack of legitimacy of this government`s actions that its own court won`t sustain. The Navy in Vieques is finished." The pair were the first of the 216 people federal agents cleared off the Navy`s restricted grounds in Vieques on May 4 to defy warnings and return. They faced up to six months in jail and a $5,000 fine. In Tuesday`s light sentence, activists see a precedent for about 90 others still facing trespassing charges for returning to the range. They also expect a boost to the continuing civil disobedience. Fernandez Porto, who was released about 3:30 p.m., was asked whether he would return to Vieques. "We don`t dismiss anything ... we are willing to do whatever we have to do at the moment that it`s necessary," he said. "People who were already willing to serve six months in jail have now seen how the government got weak in the knees," said Julio Muriente, president of the New Independence Movement, another trespasser awaiting trial. This is the latest twist in the 14-month fight to get the Navy to stop bombing on the Vieques target range, considered the crown jewel of Atlantic training facilities, and leave the 22,000 acres it has owned on the island municipality since World War II. In April 1999, a wayward bomb killed a Puerto Rican civilian security guard at the range. Since activists, lawmakers and environmentalists were cleared off the Navy grounds in Operation Eastern Access, many have kept their promise to return, sustaining the movement and trying to create a logjam in the federal courts. After Berrios and Fernandez were caught May 10, three other groups, one as recently as last weekend, have crawled under fences or sailed on small boats to get back in. Attorney General Janet Reno had warned those evicted on May 4 that they could be fined up to $250,000 or face up to 10 years` imprisonment if they returned. But the misdemeanor trespassing charges they have all received are a far cry from that. No arraignments have been set for any other protesters. Seemingly reluctant prosecutors have said that the full force of the law is reserved for the "real crime" they deal with constantly. Upon hearing the judge`s ruling Tuesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jorge Vega Pacheco pointed out Berrios` three-month prison term for conducting a similar protest on the old target range in the neighboring island municipality of Culebra in 1971, but made no specific sentence recommendation. He said the maximum six-month term could have made people so indignant that more protesters would feel compelled to sneak onto the Navy grounds. "We`re not going to make a political statement here," Vega Pacheco said. "Each case will be seen on its merits. No matter which way this went, somebody would say this would be a boost to the protesters." The judge allowed Berrios to make a closing statement. While he did not offer to defend himself on the trespassing charge, Berrios delivered a four-page speech calling the United States "undemocratic" for siding with the Navy over the people`s will and blasting Congress` refusal to act to resolve Puerto Rico`s colonial status. Before sentencing, U.S. District Judge Juan Perez Gimenez, who is believed to be a strong advocate for statehood, shot back: "When I analyze your actions, I see clearly and with immense satisfaction that our democracy is strong and alive. "When I hear you ridicule it, criticize it, even disparage it, I know it`s strong and alive." Posted Jun 14 2000 5:40AM
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2000: RELEASED TODAY: "Employment Characteristics of Families in 1999" indicates that in 1999, 83.1 percent of U.S. families had at least one employed member , up 0.5 percentage point from 1998. Of the nation's 71.3 million families, 6.0 percent reported having an unemployed member, a decline of 0.4 percentage point from the previous year. these data on employment, unemployment, and family relationships are collected as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 50,000 households. Falling energy costs held down the CPI-U to a seasonally adjusted 0.1 percent gain in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Most analysts had predicted a slightly larger advance in May. "Inflation is relatively tame. We should all feel good about the economic outlook," the chief economist of RFA Dismal Sciences told the Bureau of National Affairs. The report, however, overstated the weakness in inflation because the price survey was done early in May before the big gains in fuel prices, he added. BLS economist Patrick Jackman said the drop in energy prices was largely because of seasonal adjustment factors. Driving season brings expected increases in oil prices. When the gains are not as high as the seasonal factors expect, they show a price decline. Gasoline prices dropped 3.5 percent, although most of thus was from seasonal adjustments. "Despite these recent declines, gasoline prices in May were 26.6 percent higher than a year ago," BLS said. Jackman said Department of Energy data indicate gasoline prices bottomed out in early May, and are continuing to climb in June. He expects the CPI for June to reflect a relatively large increase in gasoline prices (Daily Labor Report, page D-4). __ The national inflation rate, which has been inching up this year, leveled off in May, the Labor Department reported yesterday. But rising gasoline prices promised a fresh increase in inflation for June. "There is no longer any doubt that inflation has accelerated," said Joel Popkin, president of an economic consulting firm. Only recently has consumer demand appeared to ease a bit, the principal evidence being a decline in retail sales in April and May. Food prices jumped by 0.5 percent in May, the biggest increase since October 1998. But fluctuating gasoline prices -- they were found to have fallen in May -- more than offset the food price increase. As a result, the overall CPI rose only 0.1 percent, while the core rate was up 0.2 percent. Timing played a big role in this idiosyncratic result. With OPEC's production cutbacks apparently ending, gasoline prices had fallen in April and then, on May 1, they began to rise again. But when BLS surveyed prices in early May, gasoline had not yet returned to its early April level. It has since gone much higher, reaching $1.66 a gallon on average this week, according to the Energy Department. Other things being equal, gasoline prices at $1.66 could add three-tenths of a percentage point to the overall CPI in June, said Patrick Jackman, a senior economist at the bureau. Airline fares were up 0.3 percent in June, starting in mid month. The airlines cite higher fuel costs as a reason for the increase, but other than airline fares very little of the inreased cost of petroleum has been passed through to other products and services -- to trucking rates, for example, and to plastics made from petroleum-based petrochemicals. "It is tough to see the secondary effect yet," Mr. Jackman said (Louis Uchitelle in The New York Times, C14). Consumer prices rose modestly in May from the month before, as falling costs for gasoline, tobacco, and clothing helped to offset rising airfares and grocery prices. Separately, a survey by the National Federation of Independent Business found that small businesses across the country are scaling back hiring and capital spending plans, fresh evidence that the Federal Reserve Board's efforts to cool the economy appear to be working. But on an unadjusted basis, 25 percent of companies surveyed plan to expand employment while 6 percent plan to shrink. Seasonally adjusted, this comes out to a net 13 percent planning increases minus those planning cuts. That net number has averaged 18 percent the past year. But labor problems continue. A record 34 percent of businesses reported they had hard-to-fill positions available for the taking. As a result, 34 percent of businesses raised labor compensation, the highest in the survey's 27-year history. (Yochi J. Dreazen and Rodney Ho in The Wall Street Journal, page A2). Inflation adjusted weekly earnings of most U.S. workers declined 0.3 percent in May, as hours worked declined, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It was the first monthly decline in real pay since March, when it fell by 0.7 percent, BLS said (Daily Labor Report, page D-17). Data compiled by the
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Take on Competition
Anthony D'Costa wrote: IP can raise the profit rate, complementing the weakness of labor. But what is IP? It is an institutional arrangement to appropriate "knowledge" for capitalists' gain. IP is directly related to technological change, a process which in cumulative fashion pushes for more IP. The reason is competition is built on technological strength and the ability to postpone the widespread diffusion of it (for the monopolist). However, knowledge does diffuse, so monopoly control is essentially temporary. Hence the greater stress on IP in the context of intense technogy-led competition. This is the supply side of the story only. I presume with relative price declines (technology-induced) realization is made less insecure. It is thus a dialectical process between competition and monopoly that is inherent in capitalist dynamics. Technical progress, protected by IP restrictions, may boost the profit rate, but at least in the U.S., recent profit rates, though higher than the 1970s and early 1980s, are still below 1950s and 1960s levels, and probably don't hold a candle to 19th century levels. Also, IP applies most strongly to goods, but U.S. personal consumption expenditures are increasingly on services: 33% of PCE in the 1940s, and 58% today. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Take on Competition
Doug Henwood wrote: Technical progress, protected by IP restrictions, may boost the profit rate, I'm not sure I follow this. IP restrictions protect Capitalist A from having his/her product ripped off by Capitalist B. How does it increase the whole profit of Capitalist A + Capitalist B? Carrol
Fwd: new virus
This virus works on the honor system. Please delete all the files on your hard disk, then forward this message to everyone you know. Thank you for your co-operation. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: Re: Re: Krugman Watch: the estate tax abolition (fwd)
At 07:54 AM 6/16/00 +0100, you wrote: People use "right" and "left" very arbitrarily sometimes. What does "right" mean in American politics? and how does "liberal" be left? Mine Chris writes: This is a major gap in left wing political culture between the USA and Europe. My guess is that it comes from the severe repression of socialists in the USA during the cold war. As a result left wing thinking in the USA often has a libertarian flavour to it, which misses the point. At least christian democrats in Europe believe in some sort of social accountability. It seems to me that the political terms "left" and "right" have meaning only depend on the context in which they are defined. "Left" and "right" thus mean something different in the US political context than in the Western European one. Even so, it's hard to use a left-right spectrum except for superficial political analysis, since there are many different issues which distinguish political groups and leaders. (The phrase "that's not leftist" can easily verge on meaninglessness.) The usual recourse is to talk about _two_ dimensions. There's siding with the poor working class vs. siding with the powerful capitalists and their government. Then there's rightist supporting traditional social relations (kinder, kuken, kirken, and nation) vs. leftist pushing for "enlightened" change or individual freedom from traditional forms of repression (homophobia, sexism, racism, nationalism, etc.) A follower of Pat Buchanan might be leftish on the first spectrum by rightist on the second, whereas a US libertarian would be rightist on the first spectrum and leftist on the other. (Old Pat himself is just a fascist knave.) All of this gets pretty confusing, since there are interactions between the two dimensions, so they can't really be separated. I guess one could define left and right in the context of the abstract capitalist mode of production. Then a leftist would oppose it, while a rightist would defend it. But what about other social institutions like racism and patriarchy? Even if we can subsume those as part of capitalism, what about the choice between capitalism and Pol Pot. Pol Pot opposed capitalism, but he was hardly a "leftist." Bringing in a third alternative to capitalism and Mr. Pot messes up the whole political spectrum idea. It's a little like pornography: we can't define the spectrum, but we know what it is when we use it. So let's leave "left" vs. "right" for superficial cocktail-party conversation. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Take on Competition
Because Capitalist A, facing little or no competition, can earn more than Capitalists A and B together. Carrol Cox wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: Technical progress, protected by IP restrictions, may boost the profit rate, I'm not sure I follow this. IP restrictions protect Capitalist A from having his/her product ripped off by Capitalist B. How does it increase the whole profit of Capitalist A + Capitalist B? Carrol -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Take on Competition
Anthony wrote: But what is IP? It is an institutional arrangement to appropriate "knowledge" for capitalists' gain. IP is directly related to technological change, a process which in cumulative fashion pushes for more IP. The reason is competition is built on technological strength and the ability to postpone the widespread diffusion of it (for the monopolist). Michael Perelman's main example of IP (or at least the one he emphasized) was Nike's branding. He also referred to IP in music (on CDs), videos, and software. Except for the last, there's no obvious connection between IP and "technological strength." Even on the last, is Windows 2000 (which is IP) technologically superior to Linux (which is not)? In a lot of ways, Windows is a marketing device, a method of taking over the market (as Judge Jackson saw), rather than a technological improvement. Even its technological side doesn't seem that hot. With every version, Windows takes up more and more hard-disk space and memory. Without _real_ technological change in the form of improved hard disks and memory chips, Windows would be nothing. I guess one could refer to the patenting of natural processes as an example of IP as technological strength. But that's technological strength only from the perspective of the capitalist firm. However, knowledge does diffuse, so monopoly control is essentially temporary. Hence the greater stress on IP in the context of intense technogy-led competition. This is the supply side of the story only. I presume with relative price declines (technology-induced) realization is made less insecure. why less insecure? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Krugman Watch: the estate taxabolition (fwd)
Everybody considers her/himself to be a centrist, fighting off the evil people from the right (or left) while being more reasonable than their allies who are a bit too extreme. I am sure that Carrol has some nice Kenneth Burke or someone elso on this. So while I see Clinton as a creature of the right, others fear him as a dangeous leftist. Then, as Jim says, some ideas defy left/right. The best person in congress on privacy might be Bob Barr. Jim Devine wrote: It's a little like pornography: we can't define the spectrum, but we know what it is when we use it. So let's leave "left" vs. "right" for superficial cocktail-party conversation. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SLATE NEWS: Options-trading candidates
From SLATE's on-line news survey: The [major US] papers continue to work their way through the congressional financial disclosure forms. Both the NYT and the WP notice that seniority in the House leadership seems to be inversely proportional to wealth, with some back-benchers worth millions and some of the leaders having no net assets besides a checking account. But it's the NY [TIMES] that seizes on an oddity in Rep. Rick Lazio's [the Republican candidate for the Senate in New York] portfolio: In 1997, he made his first-ever options purchase and in less than two weeks realized a 600 percent gain on the highly risky transaction. The paper reports that some securities experts say such a profile would have ordinarily led to an insider trading investigation by the SEC. In addition, notes the paper, Lazio's trading in Quick Reilly stock was very successful, adding that former senior executives of the firm are among his major campaign contributors. Lazio's options trades, observes the Times, have a lot of the same features as those famously executed by his Senate opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton Maybe the US senate could be reorganized as an options market. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Brands, their material base? was Re: My Take on Competition
Jim Devine wrote: Michael Perelman's main example of IP (or at least the one he emphasized) was Nike's branding. He also referred to IP in music (on CDs), videos, and software. Except for the last, there's no obvious connection between IP and "technological strength." A point I raised on this got lost in the shuffle. Microsoft has (protected by IP) an actual monopoly on the *product*. Nike only has IP on its name and its various advertising slogans. Hence, I argued, Nike should be compared not to Microsoft but to (for example) Morton's salt and the advertising slogan, "When it rains, it pours." That is, products (shoes or salt) equal to the branded product (by usability standards) exist but the branding provides an illusion of product differentiation. Someone called this a mass hallucination or something like that. I argued that that metaphor was a barrier to understanding brands as a social institution. Then the whole thing went down some other track. I'll have to see if I can find my original post, which I don't remember in detail now. Carrol
Re: Brands, their material base? was Re: My Take on Competition
The difference between Nike and Morton is that stores will only sport shoe stores only sell products that are heavily advertised. Go to an athletic shoe store. Try to find something other than Nike, Reebock, Even New Balance only sells running shoes. Last time I hurt my foot on the court, I tried to find a non-Nike basketball shoe. Reeboks don't fit well. I could not find anything at all that would work because Reebok and Nike took up 95% of the shelf space. Carrol Cox wrote: Jim Devine wrote: Michael Perelman's main example of IP (or at least the one he emphasized) was Nike's branding. He also referred to IP in music (on CDs), videos, and software. Except for the last, there's no obvious connection between IP and "technological strength." A point I raised on this got lost in the shuffle. Microsoft has (protected by IP) an actual monopoly on the *product*. Nike only has IP on its name and its various advertising slogans. Hence, I argued, Nike should be compared not to Microsoft but to (for example) Morton's salt and the advertising slogan, "When it rains, it pours." That is, products (shoes or salt) equal to the branded product (by usability standards) exist but the branding provides an illusion of product differentiation. Someone called this a mass hallucination or something like that. I argued that that metaphor was a barrier to understanding brands as a social institution. Then the whole thing went down some other track. I'll have to see if I can find my original post, which I don't remember in detail now. Carrol -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
free market in religion
from libertaian Virginia Postrel's column in the New York TIMES (June 15, 2000): ... To Laurence Iannaccone, however, the vote [by the Southern Baptists to denounce female pastors] is part of a rational strategy and is not necessarily a sign of greater conservatism. Professor Iannaccone, of Santa Clara University in California, has pioneered the application of economic theory to religion. His research examines how individuals make rational choices among religious alternatives and how religions compete in what is, thanks to the First Amendment, the nation's freest marketplace. a few years ago, there was an article in the AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW about religion as a prophet-seeking activity. Among the questions he has explored are why strict churches -- those that in some way limit members' activities outside the church -- are strong, and how conservative churches adapt when social norms become more liberal. Both questions are relevant to the issues faced by the Southern Baptists, a moderately strict denomination that is the nation's largest Protestant group. Strictness can manifest itself in dietary restrictions, distinctive clothing, geographical separation or prohibitions on activities like dancing or drinking. It can also entail such requirements as sending one's children to the church school, observing unique holidays or attending Wednesday night services in addition to Sunday services. Joining a strict group may sound irrational when there are less costly alternatives. "Why become a Mormon or a Seventh-day Adventist" -- let alone join a so-called cult -- "when the Methodists and Presbyterians wait with open arms?" Professor Iannaccone wrote in "Why Strict Churches Are Strong," a 1994 article in the American Journal of Sociology. His answer is that high costs screen out "free riders," deadbeat members who would otherwise enjoy a church's benefits without contributing energy, time and money. If everyone in the group has to pay a visible price, free riders will not bother to join and a committed core will not end up doing all the work. The group may attract fewer members at first, but it will be stronger over time. Distinctiveness also gives people a reason for affiliation and a sense of camaraderie. Why join a religious group if it is identical to the rest of society? Some people liken the "left" or Marxism to a religion. Thus, if we want the "left" to grow, maybe we should require the wearing of special beanies or the use of obscure jargon? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: Re: Re: Krugman Watch: the estate tax abolition (fwd)
Duly noting the existence of inequality is hardly socialist. It's unclear to me what I said that might have suggested otherwise. About American liberalism, the first useful distinction to be made is between the corporate/business-oriented and that of the more "mass" variety. The former pushes for social reforms to rationalize the marketplace, stabilize the political order, and socialize the costs of production. Usually, it takes these actions in response to upsurges of political organizing--some kind of pressure from below. In general, however, since Americans tend to be driven less by well-developed ideologies, demands for social reforms are more likely to treat the objects of reform as if they were discrete phenomena, readily separable from the functioning of the system as a whole. Sometimes, this has a useful PR dimension--obviously, it is easier to talk about Nike as the embodiment of sweatshop labor than it is to talk about sweatshop labor in the abstract. Nevertheless, the very need to hang the horrors of sweatshop labor on the behavior of one company is really only further confirmation of a particularly American political sensibility--practical, concrete, and less enamoured of large social-theoretical formulations. American liberalism of the `mass' variety, then, has a distinct political cast. Committed to social reform, but wary of impinging on the prerogatives of private enterprise, its pace is incremental, its outcomes exceedingly partial and fragmentary. Still, when it is disruptive enough, business liberalism may take it under its wing. Such alliances have been always been necessary for social reforms in the U.S. By the time business interests steward these reforms, however, private interests have been protected, and all that's left is the sound of one hand clapping. Joel Blau Chris Burford wrote: At 00:50 16/06/00 -0400, you wrote: People use "right" and "left" very arbitrarily sometimes. What does "right" mean in American politics? and how does "liberal" be left? Mine This is a major gap in left wing political culture between the USA and Europe. My guess is that it comes from the severe repression of socialists in the USA during the cold war. As a result left wing thinking in the USA often has a libertarian flavour to it, which misses the point. At least christian democrats in Europe believe in some sort of social accountability. This column is the linear descendant of articles such as "The Rich, The Right, and The Facts," which nailed the right on growing inequality when Krugman wrote it for The American Prospect five or six years ago. But as always when he tilts liberal, one gets the feeling that the latent message--repositioning himself on the political spectrum as a balanced, objective observer--is as least as important as whatever he happens to arguing. Joel Blau Well framed point about the jostling to appear as a "balanced objective observer". These shifts are how we can detect movements in the underline pattern of ideas, which ultimately are a reflection of the economic base, but always interpreted by people who think they are balanced objective observers. BTW nailing the right on growing inequality is also not a fully socialist idea - it is merely the socialism of redistribution not the socialism of social control of the means of production. Chris Burford London
Re: Brands, their material base?
Carrol Cox wrote, . . . the branding provides an illusion of product differentiation. Someone called this a mass hallucination or something like that. I argued that that metaphor was a barrier to understanding brands as a social institution. Then the whole thing went down some other track. I mentioned the *acutely noticed* appearance of Converse All-Stars on the feet of the stars in West Side Story, making them a 'rebellious' fashion statement for suburban school boys somewhat akin to the radical chic satirized by Tom Wolfe. The book by Moynihan that Max 'Feasible' Sawicky recently finished cites _Growing up Absurd_ on more or less the same theme: "Indeed, Goodman argues that a symbiosis of sorts has grown up between the management types and the outcasts as they exchanged styles in music, sex, clothes, and such like: 'But in the alliance, the juvenile deliquents get the short end of the stick, for they esteem the rat race, though they do not get its rewards.'" One might say that branding today is very much about the symbiotic exchange of styles between management types and outcasts. But I think there's something else going on that can be traced back to Coney Island in 1946 then forward to President Lyndon Baines Johnson 1964 State of the Union address where he proclaimed, "This Administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America." (an "unconditional" declaration that would best be qualified by Aaron Wildovsky's sly recipe for violence: "Promise a lot; deliver a little. Lead people to believe they will be much better off, but let there be no dramatic improvement. Try a variety of small programs, each interesting but marginal in impact and severly underfinanced. Avoid any attempted solution remotely comparable in size to the dimensions of the problem you are trying to solve. . .") Running the rat race in NIKEs is part of a dialectic that includes the war on drugs offence of 'driving while black'. However brief, ineffectual and tentative the "unconditional" war on poverty revolution from above may have been, it was nevertheless just long enough to inspire a long lasting 'crime in the streets'-'law and order'-'war on drugs' counter-revolution that never has to apologize for its flagrant lawlessness. Tom Walker
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Take onCompetition
Carrol Cox wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: Technical progress, protected by IP restrictions, may boost the profit rate, I'm not sure I follow this. IP restrictions protect Capitalist A from having his/her product ripped off by Capitalist B. How does it increase the whole profit of Capitalist A + Capitalist B? Emphasis on technical progress here. I'm conceding the point for argument, but my skepticism is visible in the use of the subjunctive mood. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Take onCompetition
Michael Perelman wrote: Because Capitalist A, facing little or no competition, can earn more than Capitalists A and B together. Cappo A = Bill Gates. How many more of them are there? Doug
Re: Brands, their material base? was Re: My Take on Competition
Carrol Cox wrote: Jim Devine wrote: Michael Perelman's main example of IP (or at least the one he emphasized) was Nike's branding. He also referred to IP in music (on CDs), videos, and software. Except for the last, there's no obvious connection between IP and "technological strength." A point I raised on this got lost in the shuffle. Microsoft has (protected by IP) an actual monopoly on the *product*. Nike only has IP on its name and its various advertising slogans. And Nike doesn't earn an extraordinary profit. So I'm waiting for more examples besides Microsoft, whose days as monopolist may be numbered. Doug
Re: free market in religion
Jim Devine wrote: Some people liken the "left" or Marxism to a religion. Thus, if we want the "left" to grow, maybe we should require the wearing of special beanies or the use of obscure jargon? Jim, we already have the jargon. The beanie is the way to go. But don't order them from a sweatshop. Gene
Rodrik on Free Trade
Some on the list may be interested in the article on Dani Rodrik's talk to the IMF Institute reported in the IMF Survey, June 5, 2000. A short quote: Does trade promote growth in small economies? The answer, Rodrik syas is "it depends." Proponents of globalization claim that countries with lower policy-induced barriers to international trade grow faster. But, Rodrik asserted, the empirical evidence does not back this claim of a direct link between trade policies and growth. In fact, he said, even in theory, the effects of lowering trade barriers are ambiguous. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Re: free market in religion
Some people liken the "left" or Marxism to a religion. Thus, if we want the "left" to grow, maybe we should require the wearing of special beanies or the use of obscure jargon? Jim, we already have the jargon. The beanie is the way to go. But don't order them from a sweatshop. No, I don't think that people on the left have a jargon. We speak and write just like ordinary Amurricans. I bet that anyone who's been to high school can pick up a copy of SOCIAL TEXT and instantly figure out the essence of the argument... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: Re: Re: free market in religion
What are you saying Jim? Forget the beanies? Gene Jim Devine wrote: Some people liken the "left" or Marxism to a religion. Thus, if we want the "left" to grow, maybe we should require the wearing of special beanies or the use of obscure jargon? Jim, we already have the jargon. The beanie is the way to go. But don't order them from a sweatshop. No, I don't think that people on the left have a jargon. We speak and write just like ordinary Amurricans. I bet that anyone who's been to high school can pick up a copy of SOCIAL TEXT and instantly figure out the essence of the argument... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: Re: Re: Re: free market in religion
At 01:45 PM 6/16/00 -0700, you wrote: What are you saying Jim? Forget the beanies? only if the have propellers on top! Never Give Up! Never Surrender -- Galaxy Quest. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine "Leading a life of quiet desperation -- but always with style!" ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: Re: Brands, their material base? was Re: My Take onCompetition
Doug, how about the owners' of genes? What if Amazon's patents hold? It could actually become a profitable company perhaps. As for Nike, it only owns a brand. Brand's are susceptible to the sort of attacks that the anti-sweatshop people have made. I think that that movement cut into their profits. Doug Henwood wrote: And Nike doesn't earn an extraordinary profit. So I'm waiting for more examples besides Microsoft, whose days as monopolist may be numbered. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Brands, their material base? was Re: MyTake onCompetition
Michael Perelman wrote: Doug, how about the owners' of genes? We'll see. How are they that much different from patented drugs (I mean in the economic sense - please, no horror stories about Frankenstein crops)? What if Amazon's patents hold? They won't. There's too much money available to hire clever lawyers to circumvent them. It could actually become a profitable company perhaps. Could...perhaps. Supposedly they're making a few pennies on their book biz already. But mainly they got there first - and their service keeps people coming back. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brands, their material base? was Re: MyTake onCompetition
Patented genes mean that anyone who wants to do research on the gene must pay the "owner." That goes farther than patenting medicines. Doug Henwood wrote: Doug, how about the owners' of genes? We'll see. How are they that much different from patented drugs (I mean in the economic sense - please, no horror stories about Frankenstein crops)? What if Amazon's patents hold? They won't. There's too much money available to hire clever lawyers to circumvent them. Maybe, but Jerome Lemelson made hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of flimsier patents than Amazon's. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Brands, their material base? was Re: My Take onCompetition
Michael P. wrote: how about the owners' of genes? What if Amazon's patents hold? It could actually become a profitable company perhaps. 1) how big are the profits of the companies that hold IP compared to those that don't? 2) how does the pricing power of companies that have IP depress real wages relative to labor productivity and therefore increase the aggregate rate of exploitation (rate or surplus-value)? Are these companies large enough compared to the total market to have this effect? 3) have we reached the stage of the discussion where it's best to agree to disagree? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed. ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Information requested: US finance capital? which fraction of thebourgeosie? (70s vs 90s) (fwd)
Apologies for cross-posting...
List(s),
I am thinking at the moment about the possible ways of operationalizing
"finance capitalism". The literature I have read up to now develops
a sociological formulation of the concept from the vantage points of
international political economy and world systems theory. Evidently, there
are diverse theoretical approaches within each group (Marxist, historical,
institutional, Keynesian, etc..). Here are some of the debates I have in
mind that I would like you to comment on, if possible..
1. Van der Pijl (1984), in his study of the formation of the Atlantic
ruling class in the modern practice of US liberalism (between Wilson's
launch for "offensive democratic universalism" and the world economic
crisis of the 1970s) traces the fractional interests within the capitalist
class to two major conflicts of interests: _money capital_ (commercial
capital) and _productive capital_ (industrial capital). He argues that,
traditionally, money-capital interests (financiers, bankers, foreign
investors) adhere to the principles of classical liberal doctrine
(free trade liberalism) whereas industrialists do show a tendecy towards
"state monopoly" capitalism. Following Marx (Vol 3, where Marx opposes
"fictitios capital" to productive capital) Hilferding (financial oligarchy
merged with industry), Lenin and Gramsci, Pijl illustrates how these two
interests of capital dialectically move in such a way to allow "the basic
social conditions of production to be preserved, and if possible,
reinforced". He later continues: " The money capital concept underlay the
liberal internationalism of the early 20th century. It rose to prominence
with the internationalization of the circuit of money capital, which
generalized a rentier ideology among the bourgeosie, both in Europe and
United States. The productive capital on the other hand, provided the
frame of reference for ruling class hegemony when the Atlantic hegemony
subsequently became compartmentalized into spheres of influence due to the
pressures generated by the introduction of mass production (or large scale
industrial production generally) in a context of acute imperialist rivalry
and nationalism" (p.9). The central tenet of Pijl's argument is that the
US capitalism has been able to forge a synthesis between these two
fractions of capital by introducing what is called "corporate liberalism--
allience between organized labor and big business. Although the French
popular front had a smilar sort of class allience, partly of fordist
inspiration, it failed to realize a program comperable to New Deal
liberalism.
In Pijl's formulation, _finance capital_ (bank capital) serves as a frame
of reference to_ money capital_ concept, and, in functional terms, money
capital concept represents _finance capital_, so to speak. Pijl then
introduces critiques and proponents of money-capital from various vantage
points and class interests (This is the part where I am a little bit
confused)
1. Agrarian capitalist critique from the standpoint of rural economy
("farmers' resentment of deflationary policies" ; American populism and
others populist movements in continental Europe)
2. Anti-Semite capitalist critique of _money lenders_ (anti-chrematism of
the Nazi movement in the practice of German capitalism) and nationalist
bourgeois critiques of economic liberalism (List, Hamilton, etc..)
3. Critique of money capital from the standpoint of capitalist productive
capital ,as articulated in the writings of Hobson (his critique of
speculative financiers, rentier class,orienting the British foreign
policies), Keynes (his proponence of the state as the key agency for
capitalist reform", and redistribution of wealth via "inflationary
financing by the state") and Ford (his anticipation of Keynesian
demand-side economic policy as a means to promote mass production and mass
consumption)
4. Gramsci's critique of American fordism..
Question 1: I am confused with the third category. How does Keynes's
notion of state interventionism differs from, let's say, Hamilton's
defense of national economy, especially with respect to the role of
finance capitalism? We know that Keynes was still a liberal, however,
differently from classical liberals, he believed in the need to
intervene in the self-regulating market, allowing the state to protect the
market from the "petty money interests represented by the rentier class".
So he essentially beleived that capitalism could be reformed by an
activist state, but I don't see how this differs from the need to build a
national economy and industrial state as proposed by Hamilton? Does
Hamilton's ideas represent the internationalist or the protectionist
faction of the US bourgeoisie (Similar to Hamilton, List, for example,
promoted the idea of continental customs union)? Does the difference
between Keynes and Hamilton lie in the distinction between free trade
capitalism and anti-free trade capitalism? If so? how so?
for example, Pijl
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brands, their material base? was Re:My Take onCompetition
I am going to make a stab at Jim's test. 1. The most profitable industry -- when you take a large swath -- is the pharmaceutical industry. Companies that produce relatively undifferentiated commodities are relatively unprofitable. 2. A family has to work more hours to buy a unit of medicine. 3. No. I don't know about you, but I am still learning. Do I have to give you a stamped, self-addressed envelope to find out my score? Jim Devine wrote: Michael P. wrote: how about the owners' of genes? What if Amazon's patents hold? It could actually become a profitable company perhaps. 1) how big are the profits of the companies that hold IP compared to those that don't? 2) how does the pricing power of companies that have IP depress real wages relative to labor productivity and therefore increase the aggregate rate of exploitation (rate or surplus-value)? Are these companies large enough compared to the total market to have this effect? 3) have we reached the stage of the discussion where it's best to agree to disagree? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed. ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brands, their material base?was Re:My Take onCompetition
Michael Perelman wrote: 1. The most profitable industry -- when you take a large swath -- is the pharmaceutical industry. Companies that produce relatively undifferentiated commodities are relatively unprofitable. 2. A family has to work more hours to buy a unit of medicine. Yeah, pharmaceuticals are often described as the most profitable legal industry around. But 1) has profitability increased, 2) how much of the industry's revenue comes from out-of-pocket expenditures by final consumers, 3) aren't drug prices lower in countries with national health systems, which are in a stronger bargaining position than buyers in a fragmented system like the U.S., and 4) isn't demand pretty price-inelastic, given what people will pay for health? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brands, their material base?was Re:My Take onCompetition
Doug Henwood wrote: Yeah, pharmaceuticals are often described as the most profitable legal industry around. But 1) has profitability increased, The industry is in flux. They have few blockbusters on line. They spend to much on advertising and not enough on research and the public science on which they depend has been flagging. Even Newt is calling for more spending. 2) how much of the industry's revenue comes from out-of-pocket expenditures by final consumers I don't know -- if you mean from people paying directly rather than via insurance companies. , 3) aren't drug prices lower in countries with national health systems, which are in a stronger bargaining position than buyers in a fragmented system like the U.S., It is not fragmentation. Even the US gov't pays more. It is the power that we give them. and 4) isn't demand pretty price-inelastic, given what people will pay for health? Not sure. Yes, an individual's preference may be inelastic, but the HMOs prefer generics. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brands, their material base? was Re:My Take onCompetition
I asked 1) how big are the profits of the companies that hold IP compared to those that don't? Michael P. answered: 1. The most profitable industry -- when you take a large swath -- is the pharmaceutical industry. Companies that produce relatively undifferentiated commodities are relatively unprofitable. Okay, but do you have numbers? BTW, is the IP "industry" related to Jamie Galbraith's K-sector? if so, he presents some of his data in his CREATED UNEQUAL that suggests that US workers in that sector have had relatively high wage gains. So maybe some of those workers are capturing some of the monopoly rents in that sector? 2) how does the pricing power of companies that have IP depress real wages relative to labor productivity and therefore increase the aggregate rate of exploitation (rate or surplus-value)? Are these companies large enough compared to the total market to have this effect? 2. A family has to work more hours to buy a unit of medicine. What keeps them from earning higher wages so that they can pay for that medicine? is it the IP-based monopoly or is it the general one-sided class war that's been prevailing in the US since the 1970s, along with increased insecurity? 3) have we reached the stage of the discussion where it's best to agree to disagree? 3. No. I don't know about you, but I am still learning. it's up to you. Do I have to give you a stamped, self-addressed envelope to find out my score? I don't grade my friends or their ideas. In fact, I don't grade unless I'm paid to do so. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: Information requested: US finance capital? which fraction of the bourgeosie? (70s vs 90s) (fwd)
Ouestion 4: Is anybody aware of any literature on business behavior, firm theory (especiallly under cris circumstances), which summarizes different approaches (Marxist, institutuonal, rational, ec..).I would also appereciate some ideas on this.. You might try William Lazonick, Business Organization and the Myth of the Market Economy (Cambridge University Press, 1991). Also, as a case study, Robert Fitch, The Assassination of New York (Verso, 1993) is probably worth a look. Joel Blau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FW: Brits win race to decode human genome: Venter admits defeat
As predicted last week on the CrashList, Britain's Sanger Centre for genome research, based in Cambridge, has won the race to decode the human 'book of life'. Commentators are calling it the greatest step in human understanding since Tycho Brahe's observations of planetary movements led to the heliocentric model of the universe. The struggle between British publicly-funded science and US GE monopolies has assumed intense ideological proportions. The struggle to decode the human genome became a race between American GE firm Celera, and British publicly-funded science, with its commitment to open access to genomic code and rejection of the privatisation of human genes. According to agreements announced today, the preliminary 'First Draft' of the 'Book of Life' will be jointly published by the Sanger Centre and Celera; Venter has abandoned the race and is to concentrate on follow-up research. The human genome will not be privatised. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
unsubscribe
Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList - Original Message - From: "UP.secr. (MG!)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 10:06 PM Subject: [PEN-L:20248] MOBILIZE GLOBALLY ! (MG!) (2) ( 2. edition, after clarification and amendment on basis of netters' comments ) REINFORCE, EXPAND AND UNIFY THE GLOBAL RESISTANCE MOVEMENT ! The next necessary step to maintain the momentum of, expand and carry through to their conclusion the historic victories in Seattle, Washington D.C., Havana, etc., is an ever more intense involvement and coordination of ALL progressives of the planet. These include the thousands of progressive NGOs worldwide, progressive trade unions, farmers' movements, peoples movements, minorities, research institutions, governments, etc., as well as individuals. At the same time as this global movement must maintain the flat, decentralized and democratic grassroot structure with everybody's opportunity to initiate and organize a local or global common project, it also must have one common name and one ultimate goal. The umbrella name appropriately could be MOBILIZE GLOBALLY ! (MG!) Obviously, no member should give up its own name. In each and every name a unique and inventive initiative appropriate for the specific purpose and situation is laid down. In principle, each one of the recognized members will become a member of ALL of the other organisations, and in the future carry on its activities on behalf of ALL of the global movement. Support of this worldwide movement should be demonstrated by adding the bracket (MG!) after the name of the individual or organisation. In e-mails it might be inserted permanently after the sender name in the heading. As CIA will do everything to infiltrate, proof of active fighting in agreement with the common goal and thus being a safe partner in the movement, may be obtained upon recommandation by already recognized members in the state in question. The proof will be the inclusion in a world covering list of names of individuals and organisations on a website, from where everybody can download the names. A committee composed of well known organisations points out trustworthy civil society organisations in each state to be responsible for approval of future applications for such confirmed MG! membership. For each state an e-mail address is published whereto applications may be sent. Only NGOs that are not funded directly or indirectly in any way by the corporations or their supranational organisations or governments may apply. In countries with very oppressive regimes, the Internet correspondance will be encrypted, and the lists will only be published when sufficiently large numbers of MG! s have been approved. The common ultimate goal at the same time must be broad and concrete enough, clearly define the enemy and thus be phrased as follows: Transfer of the economic and political power from the transnational corporations, their mass media monopoly and their governments, to the peoples. The worldwide Mobilize Globally! movement will - empower the total movement and its individual members in their various activities and struggles - focus on the superior common goal - enhance all kinds of cooperation nationally and internationally - demonstrate our overwhelming strength when the MG! symbol everywhere will catch the eye, and thus - attract ever broader circles of people. Everybody interested, not least well-known organisations interested in forming part of the initial state committees, please contact us ASAP. Ecoterra Intl. (MG!) http://www.ecoterra.net Indian Confederation of Indigenous and Tribal People, ICITP (MG!) Indigenous Movement (MG!) Insaaf International (MG!) http://www.geocities.com/insaafin Jubilee 2000 NY (MG!) http://www.j2000usa.org Project Censored (MG!) http://www.projectcensored.org Quantum Leap 2000 (MG!) /www.quantumleap2000.org The Foundation for Ethics and Meaning (MG!) http://www.meaning.org The United Peoples (MG!) http://www.unitedpeoples.net __ You are receiving this email because you are subscribed to United Peoples' email list or to some shared mailing list(s). To unsubscribe from the UP list, hit 'Reply', type 'Unsubscribe' in the subject line and hit 'Send'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Take onCompetition
In the aggregate, Capitalists A and B can increase profits (as a share of total costs?) because of IP. It's not A ripping B but both A and B ripping everybody else. xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonTaylor Institute South Asia Program 1900 Commerce StreetJackson School of International Studies Tacoma, WA 98402, USA University of Washington, Seattle Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5612 xxx On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Michael Perelman wrote: Because Capitalist A, facing little or no competition, can earn more than Capitalists A and B together. Carrol Cox wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: Technical progress, protected by IP restrictions, may boost the profit rate, I'm not sure I follow this. IP restrictions protect Capitalist A from having his/her product ripped off by Capitalist B. How does it increase the whole profit of Capitalist A + Capitalist B? Carrol -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
too many re:'s
Anthony D'Costa wrote: In the aggregate, Capitalists A and B can increase profits (as a share of total costs?) because of IP. It's not A ripping B but both A and B ripping everybody else. How do you know this? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Take on Competition
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Jim Devine wrote: Anthony wrote: But what is IP? It is an institutional arrangement to appropriate "knowledge" for capitalists' gain. IP is directly related to technological change, a process which in cumulative fashion pushes for more IP. The reason is competition is built on technological strength and the ability to postpone the widespread diffusion of it (for the monopolist). Michael Perelman's main example of IP (or at least the one he emphasized) was Nike's branding. He also referred to IP in music (on CDs), videos, and software. Except for the last, there's no obvious connection between IP and "technological strength." Even on the last, is Windows 2000 (which is IP) technologically superior to Linux (which is not)? In a lot of ways, Windows is a marketing device, a method of taking over the market (as Judge Jackson saw), rather than a technological improvement. Even its technological side doesn't seem that hot. With every version, Windows takes up more and more hard-disk space and memory. Without _real_ technological change in the form of improved hard disks and memory chips, Windows would be nothing. I had in mind IP as "new ways of making/doing things." Specifically, manufacturing and services/products like software. I suppose the capitalist claim IP if it is able to demonstrate uniqueness of the product and process. I am assuming such IP will include spurious claims because IP is an arrangement to secure rents. I guess one could refer to the patenting of natural processes as an example of IP as technological strength. But that's technological strength only from the perspective of the capitalist firm. But technological strength must be seen from the firm's point of view in a capitalist context. However, knowledge does diffuse, so monopoly control is essentially temporary. Hence the greater stress on IP in the context of intense technogy-led competition. This is the supply side of the story only. I presume with relative price declines (technology-induced) realization is made less insecure. why less insecure? lower prices increase demand, such as say DRAM chips. High volume production (an investment like a billion dollars) ensures lower costs. Typical economies of scale arguement. Anthony D'Costa Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: too many re:'s
Some empirical intuition. Example: Texas Instruments in Bangalore India designed a digital signal process (DSP) chip for use as a controller for Seagate hard disk drives. TI Dallas (a profit center) has the IP on it, making millions of dollars, not TI Bangalore (a cost center). Seagate has its own IP, which virtually all PC owners ultimately pay for. But one must remember that IP for a particular capitalist is particular. Capitalist competition in the way it plays out certainly undermines IP in that alternative processes are developed, etc. xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonTaylor Institute South Asia Program 1900 Commerce StreetJackson School of International Studies Tacoma, WA 98402, USA University of Washington, Seattle Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5612 xxx On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Doug Henwood wrote: Anthony D'Costa wrote: In the aggregate, Capitalists A and B can increase profits (as a share of total costs?) because of IP. It's not A ripping B but both A and B ripping everybody else. How do you know this? Doug
Re: Re: too many re:'s
Anthony D'Costa wrote: Some empirical intuition. Example: Texas Instruments in Bangalore India designed a digital signal process (DSP) chip for use as a controller for Seagate hard disk drives. TI Dallas (a profit center) has the IP on it, making millions of dollars, not TI Bangalore (a cost center). Seagate has its own IP, which virtually all PC owners ultimately pay for. IP is all very nice, but TI probably sells this chip because it's good, but in 6 or 12 months someone else could be making a better one. It's just capitalist innovation with lawyers thrown in. I think you Michael are making way too much out of this. One reason capital is so hot on IP is that it's so cheap to replicate a lot of this stuff, and it's impossible even for lawyers to suppress that. Doug
Re: My Take on Competition
Or the absence of B allows A to rip off an enormous amount. Anthony D'Costa wrote: In the aggregate, Capitalists A and B can increase profits (as a share of total costs?) because of IP. It's not A ripping B but both A and B ripping everybody else. xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonTaylor Institute South Asia Program 1900 Commerce StreetJackson School of International Studies Tacoma, WA 98402, USA University of Washington, Seattle Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5612 xxx On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Michael Perelman wrote: Because Capitalist A, facing little or no competition, can earn more than Capitalists A and B together. Carrol Cox wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: Technical progress, protected by IP restrictions, may boost the profit rate, I'm not sure I follow this. IP restrictions protect Capitalist A from having his/her product ripped off by Capitalist B. How does it increase the whole profit of Capitalist A + Capitalist B? Carrol -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: too many re:'s
I was answering the question of how it could happen; not that it would necessarily happen. Doug Henwood wrote: Anthony D'Costa wrote: In the aggregate, Capitalists A and B can increase profits (as a share of total costs?) because of IP. It's not A ripping B but both A and B ripping everybody else. How do you know this? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: My Take on Competition
Anthony, I suspect that a small fraction of IP is a new way of doing/making something. It includes copyrights, brand names, patents on ways of doing business [which is usually not new at all] Anthony D'Costa wrote: I had in mind IP as "new ways of making/doing things." Specifically, manufacturing and services/products like software. I suppose the capitalist claim IP if it is able to demonstrate uniqueness of the product and process. I am assuming such IP will include spurious claims because IP is an arrangement to secure rents. DRAM is not protected by IP. It is regarded as a commodity, like wheat or soybeans. A processor chip is protected. lower prices increase demand, such as say DRAM chips. High volume production (an investment like a billion dollars) ensures lower costs. Typical economies of scale arguement. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Brands, their material base? was Re: MyTake on Competition
Carrol Cox wrote: Jim Devine wrote: Michael Perelman's main example of IP (or at least the one he emphasized) was Nike's branding. He also referred to IP in music (on CDs), videos, and software. Except for the last, there's no obvious connection between IP and "technological strength." A point I raised on this got lost in the shuffle. Microsoft has (protected by IP) an actual monopoly on the *product*. Nike only has IP on its name and its various advertising slogans. And Nike doesn't earn an extraordinary profit. So I'm waiting for more examples besides Microsoft, whose days as monopolist may be numbered. Doug It doesn't? Brad DeLong
Re: McArthur grantee
He's brilliant, and very witty: good company. Lots of interesting ideas about how game theory should be developed... this fellow got a McArthur grant yesterday. Anybody know of him? Matthew Rabin Professor of Economics University of California, Berkeley Age: 36 Residence: San Francisco, California Links: Matthew Rabin's home page Rabin is a pioneer in behavioral economics, a field that applies such psychological insights as fairness, impulsiveness, biases, and risk aversion to economic theory and research. He is credited with influencing the practice of economics by seamlessly integrating psychology and economics, freeing economists to talk with new perspectives on such phenomena as group behavior and addiction. Rabin has demonstrated particular strength in distilling from psychological research those insights that can be modeled mathematically.
