Nader as villain (from counterpunch.org)
Nader As Villain Until Florida's voting procedures began to monopolise public attention, the villain of the hour was Ralph Nader, whose green vote seems at time of writing to have been a decisive factor in Florida, New Hampshire, Oregon, and New Hampshire. But for the votes for Nader in these states, Gore would have won. Depending on what the Republicans do, Nader could also turn out to have played a crucial role in Wisconsin and Iowa. This was not lost on Democrats, some of whom left such finely crafted messages on the Vote Nader 2000 website as Nov 8, 15:02 as: "Instead of spitting on yourself, why not kill yourself. Save us the trouble of having to hunt you down." "I hope to god that one of the trees that Nader saves falls on him and kills him." "I hope someone kills you!" "May Nader die slowly in horrible agony from some loathsome disease!" (Al Berger) "Go to hell and die!! If I see a car with a faggot Nader bumper sticker I'm gonna smash it with a crowbar!!!" "An Arab can never be trusted. They will wait as long as it takes to do you in and this is exactly what Nader has done to the country." "I hope you get run over by a communist (truck?) Burn in hell you stupid SOB and you can suck on my dick you piece of shit." "Kids across the country will die because they're too frightened to tell someone they are gay. Their blood is on your hands." "I don't ever want to see your faggot face. You assholes handed the country to Bush. Bunch of environmental faggots." "Ralph, please go see Dr. Kevorkian soon. How can you live with the guilt?" "The Arab terror brings down America." Liberals are natural born psychopaths. We don't recall this level of animus from Republicans when Perot's Reform Party cost George H. Bush reelection in 1992. Such sentiments weren't confined to Democratic yahoos on the web. Lloyd Grove, who writes a gossip column for the Washington Post, had this item a couple of days after the election. "NEW YORK, Nov. 8 Al Gore loyalists are enraged at Ralph Nader, whose third-party campaign may have denied Gore the presidency. Around 2:30 a.m. today in Bill and Hillary Clinton's hotel suite--where Miramax mogul Harvey Weinstein and Talk magazine mistress Tina Brown gathered with 50-odd beer-drinking movie folk and hangers-on (including yours truly)--it was apparent that the Clintons are no exception. After President Clinton ticked off the states, including Florida, where Nader was hurting Gore, Brown's husband, Harry Evans, exclaimed: 'I want to kill Nader!' 'That's not a bad idea!' Sen.-elect Clinton replied with a big grin--immediately followed by a collective cry of 'That's off the record!'" Our Chat with Nader Talking to Nader two days after the election we asked him what he thought of Grove's story. "I called up Evans, and he was chagrined", Nader told us. "He said everyone was drunk, and he apologized. But look at what Hillary Clinton said right after. Can you imagine what would happen if the Secret Service monitored a private citizen making a remark like that about a public political figure?" Nader called up New York's freshly elected junior senator too, but it seems she was too busy with her proposed constitutional amendment discarding the electoral college to get back to him. We asked Nader if he was disappointed at the Greens' 3 per cent national showing. "I always knew the projected Green vote would drop when people got into the voting booth", Nader answered. "You should see some of the scare tactics of the Gore crowd. Telling people that if they voted for me they'd been sponsoring back street abortions. In part we have been the victim of inflated expectations with people predicting that we were heading for 8 per cent. On election day I said I reckoned we'd get about 3.5 per cent." Who Needs 5 per cent? Frankly, here at CounterPunch we're glad the Greens didn't get the 5 percent. Coming into that "party-building" money would have inevitably destroyed the party from the inside. The Greens really are anarcho-syndicalists in the best sense. The party is a collective of disparate political groupings, enviros, peace activists, and dissident labor forces. Trying to mould them together into a big political party with a grand strategic platform would, we think, be self-defeating. Another four years of Democratic migration to the right will only invigorate these organizations without risking the pitfalls of trying to become a "major party." The Greens aren't going to "win" until the system is overhauled. However, they can still monkeywrench the System, slice it open it up to show how diseased it is. Make the Gores of the world pay a price. And that ain't bad. We asked Nader when he would prefer Bush or Gore in the White House and he hemmed and hawed a bit. One can make the arguments both ways and we chewed over the alternatives in our chat. On the one hand a Bush victory deriving in part from Nader taking votes away from Gore would remind Democrats that they had better listen more
Free trade / WTO
I am looking for current material on the debate about free trade and the WTO to use with graduate students from China - preferably shorter topical pieces, both pro and contra free trade, as concerns either Chinese or US interests. I would be grateful for any suggestions, especially for material available on the web. Thanks. Trevor Evans Paul Lincke Ufer 44 10999 Berlin Tel Fax +49 30 612 3951 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Castro on US elections.
agreed, Fidel, a dictator, head of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", has improved the lot of the masses over their pre-revolutionary conditions. for years, so did the Bolsheviks and Chinese CP for their masses. from my ethical viewpoint those changes are commendable: better to have a benevolent dictator than a malevolent republic or monarchy. my preference is to leave Fidel alone and give him and Cuba the opportunity to rise and fall on their own merits. then we would see from experience (not theory) whether Cuba under Fidel goes the way of Lanarck, New Harmony, USSR, China, etc. or develops into something so progressive (from the masses standpoint) that the boats head south across the Strait rather than north. anyone out there want to bet how it will turn out? i don't have the expertise to compare directly Cuban standards of living vs. those of US citizens, but i presume that the boats heading north speak well for the facts: by most (maybe not all, as you point out) measures, Cubans are far worse off than US citizens in spite of their heroic efforts and those of Fidel to improve their lot. norm -Original Message- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 5:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4224] Re: Castro on US elections. Norm wrote: US has no EFFECTIVE change in govt in 41 years, but Cuba has NONE whatsoever in that time span. The presence or absence of changes in political representatives a la liberal democracy does not tell us much about a given nation's political direction. Cuba has undergone much social change without changing its head of state; read, for instance, Lois M. Smith and Alfred Padula, _Sex and Revolution: Women in Socialist Cuba_, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. The most momentous social changes in the USA, too, have been made _by non-electoral means_ (e.g., the Civil War, urbanization industrialization, labor movements, civil rights movements, women's movements, gay lesbian movements, etc.). Change of regimes is of world-historical importance, however, when it effects the transition from one mode of production to another. In this sense, Cuba has undergone more world-historical change than the USA. right, US has more income inequality, but the poorest are far better off than the "middle class" in Cuba. By "middle class" in Cuba, you mean doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, and the like? Socialism in any nation, _while the rest of the world economy remains capitalist_, probably makes its intellectuals worse off than its counterparts, and perhaps even makes them worse off than some of the poor, in imperial nations, as you argue. However, Cuba would _never_ have produced so many doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, etc. from peasant or working-class family backgrounds to begin with, _but for the socialist revolution_. So your comparison appears to me to be moot. Yoshie
RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections.
to speak more accurately, i should compare per income quintiles btwn Cuba and US taking acount purchasing power parity. also, unemployment figures and other social indicators (crime, homeless, housing, etc.). anyone out there have those data for Cuba? if not, why not? wouldn't Fidel want to publish favorable social indicators or is he too modest about it? before they arrive to prove me wrong, my guess is that US per capita income quintiles would all exceed those of Cuba. as for other social indicators, my guess is that US would exceed most, but not all. let's look at the facts - if they are available. engineers love facts! norm -Original Message- From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4240] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. I am not nearly as aggressive a defender of Cuba as Yoshie, and I am very concerned about the lack of democracy there--although I think it is perfectly understandable in the circumstances. I am also not as confident as she that Cuba is socialist. But the notion that the poorest in the US--the _poorest__! thwe homeless crackheads and cripples who swarm the streets of Chicago, for example--are better off than Cuban doctors, lawyers, and professors is too many for me. Indeed, I think Yoshie, a grad student TA living on, what $10K a year is it?--might be rather more typical of many US intellectuals (as opposed to professionals like me--I'm a lawyer)--than Norm's afnatsies. Perhaps Norm means taht the working poor are better off than the Cuban middle class. But this is hard to measure. Take a family of four living on minimum wage work in Southside Chicago, making, what about $15K? Maybe it has a color TV set, and maybe someone in the Cuban middle class has to do with BW. But it pays a lot more for its housing, which I guarantee you is as bad or worse; it has no health insurance; it has no retirement or pension, and these things are providedin Cuba. It has accessto food taht is not rationed administratively, but taht is of little comfort to it if it cannot afford that food, and you try feeding a family of four in Chiacgo on 15K. I do in the burbs, where food is cheaper--yes!--than in the inner city, and it costs me about $180 a week. That's a lot more than the southside family can afford. Well, I could go on, but the point is that I think that the comparison is faulty, whatever the many defects of the Cuban economy. --jks Change of regimes is of world-historical importance, however, when it effects the transition from one mode of production to another. In this sense, Cuba has undergone more world-historical change than the USA. right, US has more income inequality, but the poorest are far better off than the "middle class" in Cuba. By "middle class" in Cuba, you mean doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, and the like? Socialism in any nation, _while the rest of the world economy remains capitalist_, probably makes its intellectuals worse off than its counterparts, and perhaps even makes them worse off than some of the poor, in imperial nations, as you argue. However, Cuba would _never_ have produced so many doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, etc. from peasant or working-class family backgrounds to begin with, _but for the socialist revolution_. So your comparison appears to me to be moot. Yoshie _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections.
to speak more accurately, i should compare per income quintiles btwn Cuba and US taking acount purchasing power parity. also, unemployment figures and other social indicators (crime, homeless, housing, etc.). anyone out there have those data for Cuba? if not, why not? wouldn't Fidel want to publish favorable social indicators or is he too modest about it? before they arrive to prove me wrong, my guess is that US per capita income quintiles would all exceed those of Cuba. as for other social indicators, my guess is that US would exceed most, but not all. let's look at the facts - if they are available. engineers love facts! norm You should go to the United Nations Human Development Indicators website for this information. http://www.undp.org/hdro/ They have different sets of criteria. The one that seems most applicable to Cuba is what they call HP1, which is based on human poverty in developing countries. At the last time the measurements were taken in 1998, Cuba ranked 3rd in the world behind Uruguay and Costa Rica--both countries have long-standing social democratic safety nets modeled after the Scandanavian countries. If anything, Cuba's situation has improved over the past couple of years since the brunt of the 'emergency period' following the collapse of the USSR has already been absorbed. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Free trade / WTO
Trevor Evans wrote: I am looking for current material on the debate about free trade and the WTO to use with graduate students from China - preferably shorter topical pieces, both pro and contra free trade, as concerns either Chinese or US interests. For a free-trade view, see ACIT http://www.spp.umich.edu/rsie/acit/. Doug
Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections.
G'day Norman, Can't help you with too many facts - perhaps Louis might come to the rescue. But Cubans do enjoy universal health care (and, apparently, an impressively vital research and development culture in the public health area), universal public education (approaching 100% literacy), life expectancies comparable to many western countries, and the Cuban poor (of which there are unfortunately many) are not as poor as they are in comparable countries. And there's the point. Before we start comparing Cuba (with its colonial past) against the USA (with its imperial past/present), we should perhaps ask how would the USA have gone if it were a raped and pillaged colony until 1959, and invaded and blockaded by a huge and aggressive neighbour ever since? Let's compare the USA to all other world hegemons (which, of course, you can't - but that's the point) and Cuba to all other brutalised erstwhile colonies cum international pariahs! I am given to believe that Cuba compares extremely well with all the 'democratic' countries in Latin America on all the big material criteria. So context before stats, eh? Cheers, Rob. to speak more accurately, i should compare per income quintiles btwn Cuba and US taking acount purchasing power parity. also, unemployment figures and other social indicators (crime, homeless, housing, etc.). anyone out there have those data for Cuba? if not, why not? wouldn't Fidel want to publish favorable social indicators or is he too modest about it? before they arrive to prove me wrong, my guess is that US per capita income quintiles would all exceed those of Cuba. as for other social indicators, my guess is that US would exceed most, but not all. let's look at the facts - if they are available. engineers love facts! norm -Original Message- From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4240] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. I am not nearly as aggressive a defender of Cuba as Yoshie, and I am very concerned about the lack of democracy there--although I think it is perfectly understandable in the circumstances. I am also not as confident as she that Cuba is socialist. But the notion that the poorest in the US--the _poorest__! thwe homeless crackheads and cripples who swarm the streets of Chicago, for example--are better off than Cuban doctors, lawyers, and professors is too many for me. Indeed, I think Yoshie, a grad student TA living on, what $10K a year is it?--might be rather more typical of many US intellectuals (as opposed to professionals like me--I'm a lawyer)--than Norm's afnatsies. Perhaps Norm means taht the working poor are better off than the Cuban middle class. But this is hard to measure. Take a family of four living on minimum wage work in Southside Chicago, making, what about $15K? Maybe it has a color TV set, and maybe someone in the Cuban middle class has to do with BW. But it pays a lot more for its housing, which I guarantee you is as bad or worse; it has no health insurance; it has no retirement or pension, and these things are providedin Cuba. It has accessto food taht is not rationed administratively, but taht is of little comfort to it if it cannot afford that food, and you try feeding a family of four in Chiacgo on 15K. I do in the burbs, where food is cheaper--yes!--than in the inner city, and it costs me about $180 a week. That's a lot more than the southside family can afford. Well, I could go on, but the point is that I think that the comparison is faulty, whatever the many defects of the Cuban economy. --jks Change of regimes is of world-historical importance, however, when it effects the transition from one mode of production to another. In this sense, Cuba has undergone more world-historical change than the USA. right, US has more income inequality, but the poorest are far better off than the "middle class" in Cuba. By "middle class" in Cuba, you mean doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, and the like? Socialism in any nation, _while the rest of the world economy remains capitalist_, probably makes its intellectuals worse off than its counterparts, and perhaps even makes them worse off than some of the poor, in imperial nations, as you argue. However, Cuba would _never_ have produced so many doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, etc. from peasant or working-class family backgrounds to begin with, _but for the socialist revolution_. So your comparison appears to me to be moot. Yoshie _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
RE: Re: RE: Castro on US elections.
again, i'd like to see the facts. however, before they arrive, i presume from newspaper and magazine accounts that US universal health care availability and affordability for US citizens is behind that of many other countries, including Cuba. hey, who said the US was first in everything - not me! however, to suggest that Cuban health care is better quality for those who have it than US health care well let's look at the facts. why is US universal health care behind other nations? the obvious explanation is that competing US factions (classes) working thru the US economic and political process make it that way. maybe if the amount of private money in public elections were reduced and maybe if the amount of public money in public elections were increased, then maybe health care and lots of other things in the US would change for the benefit of the masses. of course, this recommendation doesn't guarantee better health care or better environmental care or better "anything else" care because working class families often don't like spending their earnings on social programs that benefit other groups, but i think that it might promote these "improvements" and it's why i favor public financing of elections across the board. OTOH, i'm not waiting for the US masses to rise and "lose their chains" by overthrowing the system. anyone out there who thinks that could occur? however, even w/o public election financing, US universal health care is still possible under the US democratic-capitalist system. the masses have worked for and gained social improvements before (abolition, suffrage, working conditions, etc.), so why not ultimate success with universal health care? just have to educate the masses, work with them to sell it to the politicians and hope this will overcome the resistance of the "haves". (as you can see, i'm on a roll again today.) norm -Original Message- From: Bill Burgess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 12:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4253] Re: RE: Castro on US elections. At 12:36 PM 09/11/00 -0500, Norm wrote: OK, health care is worse than in W.Europe and some don't have it at all in the US, but it's far better for most US citizens than just about anywhere else. Far better for most US citizens? I doubt this. But more to the point - why is _health_ in the US so bad relative to other countries? Infant mortality is terrible - one figure I've seen is that black infant mortality in Washington is higher than in Havana. A recent study in the British Medical Journal found that all cause and age-adjusted mortality rates in almost every major US city are significantly higher than in Canadian cities. They suggest that part of the reason is greater income inequality in the US (average income is higher in the US, but income inequality is higher, and signficantly correllated with mortality). US capitalism is a very unhealthy system. Bill
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections.
yes, i know the US has treated Cuba and other S.A. countries shabbily ever since it became a world power. can't do much about that now, but we can now leave them alone and let them "do it their way". if we leave Cuba alone, and if Cuban per capita social indicators increase faster than other countries, then i'd say "good job, Fidel; keep up the good work"! however, the fly in the ointment of Cuban achievements is the boat people risking their lives heading for the US. if things are so good there, then why risk life and limb to leave a good thing? how about this as a "poor man's" social statistic: count the people in the boats heading north across the Strait. if they decrease over time, then things must be looking up in Cuba. if US boats start heading south, then it's time the US adopted Fidel's system! norm -Original Message- From: Rob Schaap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4401] Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections. G'day Norman, Can't help you with too many facts - perhaps Louis might come to the rescue. But Cubans do enjoy universal health care (and, apparently, an impressively vital research and development culture in the public health area), universal public education (approaching 100% literacy), life expectancies comparable to many western countries, and the Cuban poor (of which there are unfortunately many) are not as poor as they are in comparable countries. And there's the point. Before we start comparing Cuba (with its colonial past) against the USA (with its imperial past/present), we should perhaps ask how would the USA have gone if it were a raped and pillaged colony until 1959, and invaded and blockaded by a huge and aggressive neighbour ever since? Let's compare the USA to all other world hegemons (which, of course, you can't - but that's the point) and Cuba to all other brutalised erstwhile colonies cum international pariahs! I am given to believe that Cuba compares extremely well with all the 'democratic' countries in Latin America on all the big material criteria. So context before stats, eh? Cheers, Rob. to speak more accurately, i should compare per income quintiles btwn Cuba and US taking acount purchasing power parity. also, unemployment figures and other social indicators (crime, homeless, housing, etc.). anyone out there have those data for Cuba? if not, why not? wouldn't Fidel want to publish favorable social indicators or is he too modest about it? before they arrive to prove me wrong, my guess is that US per capita income quintiles would all exceed those of Cuba. as for other social indicators, my guess is that US would exceed most, but not all. let's look at the facts - if they are available. engineers love facts! norm -Original Message- From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4240] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. I am not nearly as aggressive a defender of Cuba as Yoshie, and I am very concerned about the lack of democracy there--although I think it is perfectly understandable in the circumstances. I am also not as confident as she that Cuba is socialist. But the notion that the poorest in the US--the _poorest__! thwe homeless crackheads and cripples who swarm the streets of Chicago, for example--are better off than Cuban doctors, lawyers, and professors is too many for me. Indeed, I think Yoshie, a grad student TA living on, what $10K a year is it?--might be rather more typical of many US intellectuals (as opposed to professionals like me--I'm a lawyer)--than Norm's afnatsies. Perhaps Norm means taht the working poor are better off than the Cuban middle class. But this is hard to measure. Take a family of four living on minimum wage work in Southside Chicago, making, what about $15K? Maybe it has a color TV set, and maybe someone in the Cuban middle class has to do with BW. But it pays a lot more for its housing, which I guarantee you is as bad or worse; it has no health insurance; it has no retirement or pension, and these things are providedin Cuba. It has accessto food taht is not rationed administratively, but taht is of little comfort to it if it cannot afford that food, and you try feeding a family of four in Chiacgo on 15K. I do in the burbs, where food is cheaper--yes!--than in the inner city, and it costs me about $180 a week. That's a lot more than the southside family can afford. Well, I could go on, but the point is that I think that the comparison is faulty, whatever the many defects of the Cuban economy. --jks Change of regimes is of world-historical importance, however, when it effects the transition from one mode of production to another. In this sense, Cuba has undergone more world-historical change than the USA. right, US has more income inequality, but the poorest are far better off than the "middle class"
Re: RE: Castro on US elections.
however, the fly in the ointment of Cuban achievements is the boat people risking their lives heading for the US. if things are so good there, then why risk life and limb to leave a good thing? norm Because the United States will not allow automatic issuance of visas in Cuba. Castro has indicated that he has no problem allowing unhappy people to get on a plane and come to the USA. But we refuse to make a deal with him to allow such people a green light. We instead use the "dry land" criterion for propaganda purposes. This means that any Cubans who set foot on US soil, whether they have a visa or not, are allowed to become US citizens. This encourages the boat people, with all the negative publicity to the Cuban government. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Castro on US elections.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/14/00 10:39AM however, even w/o public election financing, US universal health care is still possible under the US democratic-capitalist system. the masses have worked for and gained social improvements before (abolition, suffrage, working conditions, etc.), so why not ultimate success with universal health care? just have to educate the masses, work with them to sell it to the politicians and hope this will overcome the resistance of the "haves". ((( CB: Capitalism can't make everybody a "have" and still exist. Assume everybody has assured, if they just do normal work, all their basic needs, including health care : they are actually socially secure across the board. The power to hire and fire would lose its sting. Who would scab in a strike ? Soon all strikes would be successful. The power of bosses would be undermined. The rich soon would not be that different from the poor. Everybody would be a have. The bourgeoisie cannot be bourgeoisie if they do not have in comparison to some have nots. The capitalists could not continue to rule and fool the masses, if great masses are not caught up in the rat race, leading lives of quiet desparation, as Mills phrased it, without time to consider politics and class struggle. This general tendency and necessity of capitalism underlies the current destruction of the mid- 20th Century social democractic reforms/Welfare state/ New Deal. It was getting to the point where the normal continuation of the arc of soc dem reforms , U.S. Social Security, would have come too close to obliterating the bite of being a have not for too many. The U.S. bourgeois could not even tolerate the New Deal reforms supplemented by the Civil Rights reforms and Great Society reforms. It is impossible to have rich people without simultaneously having poor people. They are a dialectical unity in capitalism. Of course, Marx demonstrates the necessary generation of the relative surplus population and reserve army of unemployed by the capitalist tendencies and laws. Viva, Fidel !
Re: RE: Re: Castro on US elections.
agreed, Fidel, a dictator, head of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", has improved the lot of the masses over their pre-revolutionary conditions. for years, so did the Bolsheviks and Chinese CP for their masses. from my ethical viewpoint those changes are commendable: better to have a benevolent dictator than a malevolent republic or monarchy. my preference is to leave Fidel alone and give him and Cuba the opportunity to rise and fall on their own merits. then we would see from experience (not theory) whether Cuba under Fidel goes the way of Lanarck, New Harmony, USSR, China, etc. or develops into something so progressive (from the masses standpoint) that the boats head south across the Strait rather than north. anyone out there want to bet how it will turn out? Isn't forty years of this experiment enough? It seems kind of cruel to the people of Cuba to let it continue... Brad DeLong
Further Privatization of Legislation
You may have seen this before, but it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that in our democracy that votes are proportional to dollars. I picked this account out of Al Krebs's valuable e-mail newsletter, the Agribusiness Examiner. SENATOR MAJORITY LEADER LOTT SEEKS TO GIVE CHIQUITA VETO POWER OVER ANY BANANA WAR SETTLEMENT In what critics are calling outrageous, bad trade policy, and an unconstitutional infringement on the President's foreign-affairs power, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is seeking to give Chiquita Brands International Inc. a veto over any settlement in the contentious banana trade war. By inserting language into a Senate appropriations bill that would, in effect, block the U.S. trade representative from settling the long-running trans-Atlantic banana war without first getting approval from Chiquita the Mississippi Republican is attempting to give a U.S. company extraordinary foreign-policy power. As the Wall Street Journals Helene Cooper recently reported some of the measure's proponents are annoyed that White House officials have dragged their feet on issuing an updated list of European products to hit with punitive tariffs in the banana war, after being ordered to do so by Congress last spring. Lott's Chiquita maneuver, she notes, came a week after Sen. Robert Byrd (Dem.- West.Virginia) put a provision in a spending bill handing over to U.S. steel companies duties collected from their foreign rivals, imposed to fight dumping practices. The Byrd provision passed in the House; Senate approval is likely, aides say. Lott seeks to put the banana provision in a big end-of-session spending bill; if successful, that would about ensure enactment. Lotts provision would mean the European Union would be negotiating with Chiquita an end to the banana trade war. "This is pretty outrageous," Gary Hufbauer, a trade economist with the Institute for International Economics told Cooper.. "This basically changes the whole nature of the system." House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer (Rep. -Texas) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman William Roth (Rep.- Delaware) have written letters to their colleagues complaining about the Lott maneuver. "This proposal constitutes, at best, bad trade policy and, at worst, is an unconstitutional infringement on the President's foreign-affairs power," Roth wrote. "It is bad trade policy because it takes control over a trade dispute out of the hands of the President and puts it in the hands of one segment of the domestic industry that is not fully representative of the broader interests of that industry." Lott, according to Senate GOP staffers, is merely trying to ensure Chiquita doesn't end up with a bad deal. As Cooper notes Europe is threatening retaliatory sanctions on U.S. companies in a separate trade dispute --- over a U.S. foreign-tax subsidy ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization in Geneva. Chiquita proponents worry that U.S. officials might bargain away Chiquita's interests to placate the EU in the tax case. For the past seven years Chiquita Brands International has been opposed to the EU's existing regime, which favors EU banana traders. Chiquita, prefers a system that would base how much a company can import on the size of its market share before the EU created the current regime in 1993. At the time, Chiquita's share was twice the size of its current level. Dole Foods has now drawn ahead of Chiquita in market shares. Although the U.S. doesn't grow bananas, the Clinton Administration has been fighting for the rights of Dole and Chiquita to trade with the EU. Clearly the U.S. bias towards Chiquita stems from the fact that there are no U.S. jobs here at stake here, that there is no danger of a further imbalance of trade, and there is no economic damage about to befall the U.S. It is simply a case of Clinton Co. seeking to protect the financial interests of Chiquitas Carl H.Lindner as opposed to the interests of thousands of small banana farmers in the Eastern Caribbean and in Jamaica. Chiquita employs most of its 45,000 workers in Honduras and Guatemala. As Michael Weiskoff reported in Time Magazine, You wouldn't know how grateful Lindner was by checking records at the Federal Election Commission; he gave the Democratic National Committee only $15,000 in the final 15 months of the [1996] campaign. Instead, D.N.C. officials instructed Lindner to give directly to state-party coffers, which are subject to far less public scrutiny than federal-election accounts. On April 12, 1996, the day after [then U.S. Trade Representative Mickey] Kantor asked the WTO to examine Chiquita's grievance, Lindner and his top executives began funneling more than $500,000 to about two dozen states from Florida to California, campaign officials told Time. In 1999 after WTO approval, the U.S. closed its market to $191.4 million in products from Europe, in a campaign to force the EU to import more bananas distributed by Chiquita and Dole.
Re: RE: Re: Castro on US elections.
Isn't forty years of this experiment enough? It seems kind of cruel to the people of Cuba to let it continue... Brad DeLong *** You're right. Let's all call the White House and Congress and tell them to act like adults rather than imperialists and end the embargo. Ian
Further Privatization of Legislation
You may have seen this before, but it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that in our democracy that votes are proportional to dollars. I picked this account out of Al Krebs's valuable e-mail newsletter, the Agribusiness Examiner. Welcome to the new, improved "free trade". The WTO is struggling mightily to be the Maxwell's Demon of the global economy. Ian
Re: Re: RE: Re: Castro on US elections.
How about ending the experiments in El Salvador and Guatamala? Those experiments with the market are not "kind of cruel" but brutal. I don't understand how capitalism is judged only by US and Europe and not how it is functioning in Indonesia, etc. Gene Coyle Brad DeLong wrote: agreed, Fidel, a dictator, head of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", has improved the lot of the masses over their pre-revolutionary conditions. for years, so did the Bolsheviks and Chinese CP for their masses. from my ethical viewpoint those changes are commendable: better to have a benevolent dictator than a malevolent republic or monarchy. my preference is to leave Fidel alone and give him and Cuba the opportunity to rise and fall on their own merits. then we would see from experience (not theory) whether Cuba under Fidel goes the way of Lanarck, New Harmony, USSR, China, etc. or develops into something so progressive (from the masses standpoint) that the boats head south across the Strait rather than north. anyone out there want to bet how it will turn out? Isn't forty years of this experiment enough? It seems kind of cruel to the people of Cuba to let it continue... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: RE: Re: Castro on US elections.
As opposed to what, Brad, the sort of lovely regimes we've installed and supported all over Latin and Central AMerica? We destroyed Nicaragua's revolution--are the Nicaraguans better off? I have profound unhappiness with the lack of democracy in Cuba, but unlike the countries in the US archipelago down there, Cuba has univeral health care, 100% literacy, adequate food for all, etc. You got something better? You think the Miami Cubans willpreserve what's good down there? Be real, Brad. --jks agreed, Fidel, a dictator, head of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", has improved the lot of the masses over their pre-revolutionary conditions. for years, so did the Bolsheviks and Chinese CP for their masses. from my ethical viewpoint those changes are commendable: better to have a benevolent dictator than a malevolent republic or monarchy. my preference is to leave Fidel alone and give him and Cuba the opportunity to rise and fall on their own merits. then we would see from experience (not theory) whether Cuba under Fidel goes the way of Lanarck, New Harmony, USSR, China, etc. or develops into something so progressive (from the masses standpoint) that the boats head south across the Strait rather than north. anyone out there want to bet how it will turn out? Isn't forty years of this experiment enough? It seems kind of cruel to the people of Cuba to let it continue... Brad DeLong _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Castro on US elections.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/14/00 10:40AM Isn't forty years of this experiment enough? It seems kind of cruel to the people of Cuba to let it continue... (( CB: You Yanqui imperialists have not been letting it continue. What are you crying about, Crocidile ? The Cuban people have done it all these years despite your trying to crush it and not let it continue.
Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections.
Norm, No. The relevant comparisons are with other Latin American and Caribbean nations. On those measures the lot of the poorest people in Cuba, and even those in the median positions, look pretty good, especially on such measures as life expectancy and literacy. I would certainly agree that the richest in the neighboring nations are worse off than they are in Cuba. Duh. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:07 AM Subject: [PEN-L:4398] RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections. to speak more accurately, i should compare per income quintiles btwn Cuba and US taking acount purchasing power parity. also, unemployment figures and other social indicators (crime, homeless, housing, etc.). anyone out there have those data for Cuba? if not, why not? wouldn't Fidel want to publish favorable social indicators or is he too modest about it? before they arrive to prove me wrong, my guess is that US per capita income quintiles would all exceed those of Cuba. as for other social indicators, my guess is that US would exceed most, but not all. let's look at the facts - if they are available. engineers love facts! norm -Original Message- From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4240] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. I am not nearly as aggressive a defender of Cuba as Yoshie, and I am very concerned about the lack of democracy there--although I think it is perfectly understandable in the circumstances. I am also not as confident as she that Cuba is socialist. But the notion that the poorest in the US--the _poorest__! thwe homeless crackheads and cripples who swarm the streets of Chicago, for example--are better off than Cuban doctors, lawyers, and professors is too many for me. Indeed, I think Yoshie, a grad student TA living on, what $10K a year is it?--might be rather more typical of many US intellectuals (as opposed to professionals like me--I'm a lawyer)--than Norm's afnatsies. Perhaps Norm means taht the working poor are better off than the Cuban middle class. But this is hard to measure. Take a family of four living on minimum wage work in Southside Chicago, making, what about $15K? Maybe it has a color TV set, and maybe someone in the Cuban middle class has to do with BW. But it pays a lot more for its housing, which I guarantee you is as bad or worse; it has no health insurance; it has no retirement or pension, and these things are providedin Cuba. It has accessto food taht is not rationed administratively, but taht is of little comfort to it if it cannot afford that food, and you try feeding a family of four in Chiacgo on 15K. I do in the burbs, where food is cheaper--yes!--than in the inner city, and it costs me about $180 a week. That's a lot more than the southside family can afford. Well, I could go on, but the point is that I think that the comparison is faulty, whatever the many defects of the Cuban economy. --jks Change of regimes is of world-historical importance, however, when it effects the transition from one mode of production to another. In this sense, Cuba has undergone more world-historical change than the USA. right, US has more income inequality, but the poorest are far better off than the "middle class" in Cuba. By "middle class" in Cuba, you mean doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, and the like? Socialism in any nation, _while the rest of the world economy remains capitalist_, probably makes its intellectuals worse off than its counterparts, and perhaps even makes them worse off than some of the poor, in imperial nations, as you argue. However, Cuba would _never_ have produced so many doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, etc. from peasant or working-class family backgrounds to begin with, _but for the socialist revolution_. So your comparison appears to me to be moot. Yoshie _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: RE: Re: Castro on US elections.
Norm, But, we also have people leaving Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, all Central American countries and most South American countries in varying numbers, many of them risking their lives, especiallly the Mexicans and Haitians. So, your comparison of Cuba and the US is utterly irrelevant. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 9:55 AM Subject: [PEN-L:4397] RE: Re: Castro on US elections. agreed, Fidel, a dictator, head of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", has improved the lot of the masses over their pre-revolutionary conditions. for years, so did the Bolsheviks and Chinese CP for their masses. from my ethical viewpoint those changes are commendable: better to have a benevolent dictator than a malevolent republic or monarchy. my preference is to leave Fidel alone and give him and Cuba the opportunity to rise and fall on their own merits. then we would see from experience (not theory) whether Cuba under Fidel goes the way of Lanarck, New Harmony, USSR, China, etc. or develops into something so progressive (from the masses standpoint) that the boats head south across the Strait rather than north. anyone out there want to bet how it will turn out? i don't have the expertise to compare directly Cuban standards of living vs. those of US citizens, but i presume that the boats heading north speak well for the facts: by most (maybe not all, as you point out) measures, Cubans are far worse off than US citizens in spite of their heroic efforts and those of Fidel to improve their lot. norm -Original Message- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 5:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4224] Re: Castro on US elections. Norm wrote: US has no EFFECTIVE change in govt in 41 years, but Cuba has NONE whatsoever in that time span. The presence or absence of changes in political representatives a la liberal democracy does not tell us much about a given nation's political direction. Cuba has undergone much social change without changing its head of state; read, for instance, Lois M. Smith and Alfred Padula, _Sex and Revolution: Women in Socialist Cuba_, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. The most momentous social changes in the USA, too, have been made _by non-electoral means_ (e.g., the Civil War, urbanization industrialization, labor movements, civil rights movements, women's movements, gay lesbian movements, etc.). Change of regimes is of world-historical importance, however, when it effects the transition from one mode of production to another. In this sense, Cuba has undergone more world-historical change than the USA. right, US has more income inequality, but the poorest are far better off than the "middle class" in Cuba. By "middle class" in Cuba, you mean doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, and the like? Socialism in any nation, _while the rest of the world economy remains capitalist_, probably makes its intellectuals worse off than its counterparts, and perhaps even makes them worse off than some of the poor, in imperial nations, as you argue. However, Cuba would _never_ have produced so many doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, etc. from peasant or working-class family backgrounds to begin with, _but for the socialist revolution_. So your comparison appears to me to be moot. Yoshie
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections.
Norm, And, how many Haitian boat people have died? How many Mexicans have died crossing the Rio Grande or trying to crawl through tunnels or sewers or in the backs of trucks of those who transport them illegally across the border? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:09 AM Subject: [PEN-L:4403] RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections. yes, i know the US has treated Cuba and other S.A. countries shabbily ever since it became a world power. can't do much about that now, but we can now leave them alone and let them "do it their way". if we leave Cuba alone, and if Cuban per capita social indicators increase faster than other countries, then i'd say "good job, Fidel; keep up the good work"! however, the fly in the ointment of Cuban achievements is the boat people risking their lives heading for the US. if things are so good there, then why risk life and limb to leave a good thing? how about this as a "poor man's" social statistic: count the people in the boats heading north across the Strait. if they decrease over time, then things must be looking up in Cuba. if US boats start heading south, then it's time the US adopted Fidel's system! norm -Original Message- From: Rob Schaap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4401] Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections. G'day Norman, Can't help you with too many facts - perhaps Louis might come to the rescue. But Cubans do enjoy universal health care (and, apparently, an impressively vital research and development culture in the public health area), universal public education (approaching 100% literacy), life expectancies comparable to many western countries, and the Cuban poor (of which there are unfortunately many) are not as poor as they are in comparable countries. And there's the point. Before we start comparing Cuba (with its colonial past) against the USA (with its imperial past/present), we should perhaps ask how would the USA have gone if it were a raped and pillaged colony until 1959, and invaded and blockaded by a huge and aggressive neighbour ever since? Let's compare the USA to all other world hegemons (which, of course, you can't - but that's the point) and Cuba to all other brutalised erstwhile colonies cum international pariahs! I am given to believe that Cuba compares extremely well with all the 'democratic' countries in Latin America on all the big material criteria. So context before stats, eh? Cheers, Rob. to speak more accurately, i should compare per income quintiles btwn Cuba and US taking acount purchasing power parity. also, unemployment figures and other social indicators (crime, homeless, housing, etc.). anyone out there have those data for Cuba? if not, why not? wouldn't Fidel want to publish favorable social indicators or is he too modest about it? before they arrive to prove me wrong, my guess is that US per capita income quintiles would all exceed those of Cuba. as for other social indicators, my guess is that US would exceed most, but not all. let's look at the facts - if they are available. engineers love facts! norm -Original Message- From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4240] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. I am not nearly as aggressive a defender of Cuba as Yoshie, and I am very concerned about the lack of democracy there--although I think it is perfectly understandable in the circumstances. I am also not as confident as she that Cuba is socialist. But the notion that the poorest in the US--the _poorest__! thwe homeless crackheads and cripples who swarm the streets of Chicago, for example--are better off than Cuban doctors, lawyers, and professors is too many for me. Indeed, I think Yoshie, a grad student TA living on, what $10K a year is it?--might be rather more typical of many US intellectuals (as opposed to professionals like me--I'm a lawyer)--than Norm's afnatsies. Perhaps Norm means taht the working poor are better off than the Cuban middle class. But this is hard to measure. Take a family of four living on minimum wage work in Southside Chicago, making, what about $15K? Maybe it has a color TV set, and maybe someone in the Cuban middle class has to do with BW. But it pays a lot more for its housing, which I guarantee you is as bad or worse; it has no health insurance; it has no retirement or pension, and these things are providedin Cuba. It has accessto food taht is not rationed administratively, but taht is of little comfort to it if it cannot afford that food, and you try feeding a family of four in Chiacgo on 15K. I do in the burbs, where food is cheaper--yes!--than in the inner city, and it costs me about $180 a week. That's a lot more than the southside family can
Re: Re: RE: Re: Castro on US elections.
Brad, And, what would be the outcome of an end to the experiment? I agree that there might be more democracy, and, most important from my perspective in terms of possible gains, an end to political prisoners. But, given the experience in Nicaragua as a likely model of an outcome, not to mention the transition economies of the Soviet bloc, I think we can expect a substantial worsening of the economic status of the majority of the population. Any recommendations on how to avoid that particular outcome if and or when the Castro regime (or a similar successor) falls? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 12:00 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4406] Re: RE: Re: Castro on US elections. agreed, Fidel, a dictator, head of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", has improved the lot of the masses over their pre-revolutionary conditions. for years, so did the Bolsheviks and Chinese CP for their masses. from my ethical viewpoint those changes are commendable: better to have a benevolent dictator than a malevolent republic or monarchy. my preference is to leave Fidel alone and give him and Cuba the opportunity to rise and fall on their own merits. then we would see from experience (not theory) whether Cuba under Fidel goes the way of Lanarck, New Harmony, USSR, China, etc. or develops into something so progressive (from the masses standpoint) that the boats head south across the Strait rather than north. anyone out there want to bet how it will turn out? Isn't forty years of this experiment enough? It seems kind of cruel to the people of Cuba to let it continue... Brad DeLong
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections.
How about adding a count of people in boats heading to Guatemala and Honduras? Gene Coyle Mikalac Norman S NSSC wrote: yes, i know the US has treated Cuba and other S.A. countries shabbily ever since it became a world power. can't do much about that now, but we can now leave them alone and let them "do it their way". if we leave Cuba alone, and if Cuban per capita social indicators increase faster than other countries, then i'd say "good job, Fidel; keep up the good work"! however, the fly in the ointment of Cuban achievements is the boat people risking their lives heading for the US. if things are so good there, then why risk life and limb to leave a good thing? how about this as a "poor man's" social statistic: count the people in the boats heading north across the Strait. if they decrease over time, then things must be looking up in Cuba. if US boats start heading south, then it's time the US adopted Fidel's system! norm -Original Message- From: Rob Schaap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4401] Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections. G'day Norman, Can't help you with too many facts - perhaps Louis might come to the rescue. But Cubans do enjoy universal health care (and, apparently, an impressively vital research and development culture in the public health area), universal public education (approaching 100% literacy), life expectancies comparable to many western countries, and the Cuban poor (of which there are unfortunately many) are not as poor as they are in comparable countries. And there's the point. Before we start comparing Cuba (with its colonial past) against the USA (with its imperial past/present), we should perhaps ask how would the USA have gone if it were a raped and pillaged colony until 1959, and invaded and blockaded by a huge and aggressive neighbour ever since? Let's compare the USA to all other world hegemons (which, of course, you can't - but that's the point) and Cuba to all other brutalised erstwhile colonies cum international pariahs! I am given to believe that Cuba compares extremely well with all the 'democratic' countries in Latin America on all the big material criteria. So context before stats, eh? Cheers, Rob. to speak more accurately, i should compare per income quintiles btwn Cuba and US taking acount purchasing power parity. also, unemployment figures and other social indicators (crime, homeless, housing, etc.). anyone out there have those data for Cuba? if not, why not? wouldn't Fidel want to publish favorable social indicators or is he too modest about it? before they arrive to prove me wrong, my guess is that US per capita income quintiles would all exceed those of Cuba. as for other social indicators, my guess is that US would exceed most, but not all. let's look at the facts - if they are available. engineers love facts! norm -Original Message- From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4240] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. I am not nearly as aggressive a defender of Cuba as Yoshie, and I am very concerned about the lack of democracy there--although I think it is perfectly understandable in the circumstances. I am also not as confident as she that Cuba is socialist. But the notion that the poorest in the US--the _poorest__! thwe homeless crackheads and cripples who swarm the streets of Chicago, for example--are better off than Cuban doctors, lawyers, and professors is too many for me. Indeed, I think Yoshie, a grad student TA living on, what $10K a year is it?--might be rather more typical of many US intellectuals (as opposed to professionals like me--I'm a lawyer)--than Norm's afnatsies. Perhaps Norm means taht the working poor are better off than the Cuban middle class. But this is hard to measure. Take a family of four living on minimum wage work in Southside Chicago, making, what about $15K? Maybe it has a color TV set, and maybe someone in the Cuban middle class has to do with BW. But it pays a lot more for its housing, which I guarantee you is as bad or worse; it has no health insurance; it has no retirement or pension, and these things are providedin Cuba. It has accessto food taht is not rationed administratively, but taht is of little comfort to it if it cannot afford that food, and you try feeding a family of four in Chiacgo on 15K. I do in the burbs, where food is cheaper--yes!--than in the inner city, and it costs me about $180 a week. That's a lot more than the southside family can afford. Well, I could go on, but the point is that I think that the comparison is faulty, whatever the many defects of the Cuban economy. --jks Change of regimes is of world-historical importance, however, when it effects the transition from one mode of
HPI-1 measurements from the United Nations
HUMAN POVERTY AND DEPRIVATION The human poverty index is a multidimensional measure of poverty. It brings together in one composite index the deprivation in four basic dimensions of human life-a long and healthy life, knowledge, economic provisioning and social inclusion. These dimensions of deprivation are the same for both developing and industrialized countries. Only the indicators to measure them differ, to reflect the realities in these countries and because of data limitations. For developing countries the HPI-1 measures human poverty. Deprivation in a long and healthy life is measured by the percentage of people born today not expected to survive to age 40, deprivation in knowledge by the adult illiteracy rate and deprivation in economic provisioning by the percentage of people lacking access to health services and safe water and the percentage of children under five who are moderately or severely underweight. Two points. First, for economic provisioning in developing countries, public provisioning is more important than private income. At the same time, more than four-fifths of private income is spent on food. Thus in developing countries lack of access to health services and safe water and the level of malnutrition capture the deprivation in economic provisioning more practically than other variables. Second, the absence of a suitable indicator and lack of data prevent the human poverty index from reflecting the deprivation in social inclusion in developing countries. For industrialized countries the HPI-2 measures human poverty. Deprivation in a long and healthy life is measured by the percentage of people born today not expected to survive to age 60, deprivation in knowledge by the adult functional illiteracy rate, deprivation in economic provisioning by the incidence of income poverty (since private income is the larger source of economic provisioning in industrialized countries) and deprivation in social inclusion by long-term unemployment. The components and the results of the HPI-1 and HPI-2 are presented in indicator tables 4 and 5. The technical note presents a detailed discussion of the methodology for constructing he two indices. WHAT DOES THE HPI-1 REVEAL? Calculated for 85 countries, the HPI-1 reveals the following (table 5): The HPI-1 ranges from 3.9% in Uruguay to 64.7% in Niger. Nine countries have an HPI-1 of less than 10%: Bahrain, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Fiji, Jordan, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay. These developing countries have overcome severe levels of poverty. For 29 countries-more than a third of those for which the HPI-1 was calculated- the HPI-1 exceeds 33%, implying that at least a third of their people suffer from human poverty. Others have further to go. The HPI-1 exceeds 50% in Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal and Niger. A comparison of HDI and HPI-1 values shows he distribution of achievement in human progress. Human development can be distributed more equitably-as in countries with a relatively low HPI-1 for a given HDI value-or less equitably-as in those with a relatively low HDI value for a given HPI-1 (figure 4). Policies play a big par in determining how achievements in human progress are distributed. 1 Uruguay 2 Costa Rica 3 Cuba!!! 4 Chile 5 Trinidad and Tobago 6 Fiji 7 Jordan 8 Panama 9 Bahrain 10 Guyana 11 Colombia 12 Mexico 13 Lebanon 14 Mauritius 15 Venezuela 16 Jamaica 17 Qatar 18 Malaysia 19 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 20 Dominican Republic 21 Brazil 22 Philippine 23 Paraguay 24 Turkey 25 Peru 26 Ecuador 27 Bolivia 28 United Arab Emirate 29 Thailand 30 China 31 Iran, Islamic Rep. of 32 Syrian Arab Republic 33 South Africa 34 El Salvador 35 Sri Lanka 36 Tunisia 37 Cape Verde 38 Oman 39 Honduras 40 Lesotho 41 Nicaragua 42 Algeria 43 Maldives 44 Namibia 45 Swaziland 46 Indonesia 47 Viet Nam 48 Botswana 49 Guatemala 50 Tanzania, U. Rep. of 51 Kenya 52 Zimbabwe 53 Myanmar 54 Congo 55 Egypt 56 Iraq 57 Comoro 58 India 59 Ghana 60 Sudan 61 Rwanda 62 Nigeria 63 Togo 64 Zambia 65 Morocco 66 Cameroon 67 Uganda 68 Pakistan 69 Malawi 70 Bangladesh 71 Haiti 72 Côte d' Ivoire 73 Senegal 74 Benin 75 Gambia 76 Yemen 77 Mauritania 78 Guinea-Bissau 79 Mozambique 80 Nepal 81 Mali 82 Central African Republic 83 Ethiopia 84 Burkina Faso 85 Niger Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections.
Duh on me. I meant to say that the richest in Cuba are worse off than the richest in the neighboring countries. You all know what I meant to say. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 1:26 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4415] Re: RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections. Norm, No. The relevant comparisons are with other Latin American and Caribbean nations. On those measures the lot of the poorest people in Cuba, and even those in the median positions, look pretty good, especially on such measures as life expectancy and literacy. I would certainly agree that the richest in the neighboring nations are worse off than they are in Cuba. Duh. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:07 AM Subject: [PEN-L:4398] RE: Re: Re: Castro on US elections. to speak more accurately, i should compare per income quintiles btwn Cuba and US taking acount purchasing power parity. also, unemployment figures and other social indicators (crime, homeless, housing, etc.). anyone out there have those data for Cuba? if not, why not? wouldn't Fidel want to publish favorable social indicators or is he too modest about it? before they arrive to prove me wrong, my guess is that US per capita income quintiles would all exceed those of Cuba. as for other social indicators, my guess is that US would exceed most, but not all. let's look at the facts - if they are available. engineers love facts! norm -Original Message- From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4240] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. I am not nearly as aggressive a defender of Cuba as Yoshie, and I am very concerned about the lack of democracy there--although I think it is perfectly understandable in the circumstances. I am also not as confident as she that Cuba is socialist. But the notion that the poorest in the US--the _poorest__! thwe homeless crackheads and cripples who swarm the streets of Chicago, for example--are better off than Cuban doctors, lawyers, and professors is too many for me. Indeed, I think Yoshie, a grad student TA living on, what $10K a year is it?--might be rather more typical of many US intellectuals (as opposed to professionals like me--I'm a lawyer)--than Norm's afnatsies. Perhaps Norm means taht the working poor are better off than the Cuban middle class. But this is hard to measure. Take a family of four living on minimum wage work in Southside Chicago, making, what about $15K? Maybe it has a color TV set, and maybe someone in the Cuban middle class has to do with BW. But it pays a lot more for its housing, which I guarantee you is as bad or worse; it has no health insurance; it has no retirement or pension, and these things are providedin Cuba. It has accessto food taht is not rationed administratively, but taht is of little comfort to it if it cannot afford that food, and you try feeding a family of four in Chiacgo on 15K. I do in the burbs, where food is cheaper--yes!--than in the inner city, and it costs me about $180 a week. That's a lot more than the southside family can afford. Well, I could go on, but the point is that I think that the comparison is faulty, whatever the many defects of the Cuban economy. --jks Change of regimes is of world-historical importance, however, when it effects the transition from one mode of production to another. In this sense, Cuba has undergone more world-historical change than the USA. right, US has more income inequality, but the poorest are far better off than the "middle class" in Cuba. By "middle class" in Cuba, you mean doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, and the like? Socialism in any nation, _while the rest of the world economy remains capitalist_, probably makes its intellectuals worse off than its counterparts, and perhaps even makes them worse off than some of the poor, in imperial nations, as you argue. However, Cuba would _never_ have produced so many doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, etc. from peasant or working-class family backgrounds to begin with, _but for the socialist revolution_. So your comparison appears to me to be moot. Yoshie _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
RE: Castro on US elections.
i would like to remind the posters of the theme of the initial posts (see below). we seemed to have strayed. i understand that lefties, like ideologues of other persuasions, like to extol the virtues of their Weltanschaungen, but when the illusions become grotesque, then i have to object. to understand what i mean, please refer the quotes from ken hanley and Fidel below. (also comment from brad delong.) pretty one-sided opinions? norm - The US has had no effective change of goverment in 41 years. Capital has ruled throughout. There may have been some reforms favorable to the working class but the result is a health care system that is far less equitable than Cuba's and a record of mostly reactionary wars and covert action: Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, Grenada, Yugoslavia, etc.etc. that make Cuban foreign intervention (eg.Angola) look saintly. After 41 years and all those changes of government income inequality is greater, the country has one of the worst social safety nets of any advanced capitalist country, and greater income inequality than ever. Whatever the privileges of Castro and his buddies it is as nothing compared to the inequality in the US. But then the GDP is doing well and this rising tide lifts all boats right! I thought the cake and the crumbs going to the poor was a more accurate analogy. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 9:14 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4155] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. Fidel speaking: "The United States, such a vocal advocate of multi-party systems, has two parties that are so perfectly similar in their methods, objectives and goals that they have practically created the most perfect one-party system in the world. Over 50% of the people in that 'democratic country' do not even cast a vote, and the team that manages to raise the most funds often wins with the votes of only 25% of the electorate. The political system is undermined by disputes, vanity and personal ambition or by interests groups operating within the established economic and social model and there is no alternative for a change in the system." - From Fidel Castro's interview with Federico Mayor Zaragoza, former Director General of UNESCO, published in Granma International, June 23, 2000. - So clearly it is far better to have *no* change of government for 41 years? What silliness... Brad DeLong
Ergonomics law update........
full article at http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20001114/laborsafetydc.html U.S. Implements Job-Safety Rule Opposed by Business WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration put in place on Monday a final safety standard, vigorously opposed by business, which it says will prevent 460,000 painful workplace injuries a year caused by repetitive motion. By announcing the final ergonomics standard now and having it take effect on Jan. 16, just before a new president is inaugurated on Jan. 20, the administration acted before a possible George W. Bush administration could delay or kill it. But Charles Jeffress, head of the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) insisted that the timing of the implementation of the standard had nothing to do with the possibility of an incoming Republican administration that is likely to oppose it. ``The schedule, if you will, was set before there was any thought about who the candidates were going to be in the election,'' Jeffress said in an interview. OSHA has been researching an ergonomic standard since 1990, except in 1995 when it was blocked from doing so by the Republican-controlled Congress. Until last year, Congress had mostly prevented the agency from implementing a standard, following an intense lobbying campaign by business groups. OSHA originally proposed the standard last Nov. 23 and made several changes to it in the final version, following nine weeks of public hearings and a review of other public comments. ``It's the culmination of a 10-year process,'' said Jeffress. ''We have done the studies; we have heard from the public.'' The ergonomics standard requires employers of more than 102 million workers at 6.1 million work sites take steps to prevent so-called musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), or repetitive strain injury (RSI), such as carpal tunnel syndrome or back injuries caused by repeated motion on the job. Its sweep covers an array of jobs that usually require lifting, repetitive arm movements or using computer keyboards. Companies will have to advise their workers of possible injury risks and the importance of prompt reporting of symptoms but are not required to actually change the way work is done unless an employee is hurt on the job or has symptoms of a work-related injury, OSHA said. Business groups, calling the rules rushed, scientifically weak and a payoff to labor unions, said they would challenge them at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Baruch Fellner, an attorney pressing the suit by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and other groups, said the rules are too vague and not supported by science, OSHA's economic analysis is ``fatally flawed'' and the agency violated procedures in developing the standard. ``We fully expect to prevail in this lawsuit,'' Fellner said. Other business group representatives told a news conference the rules are difficult to follow and would greatly impede productivity. They cited government statistics that show the worker complaints of these kinds of injuries have declined 34 percent in the last three years. NAM Senior Vice President Mike Baroody said OSHA's timing was aimed at avoiding congressional oversight or the review of the next president and was aimed at fulfilling a promise that Vice President Al Gore made to organized labor. ``Rightly understood, this is not a health and safety rule -- it's a political payoff,'' said Baroody. ``And it's a scandal.'' The business community could accept rules that rely on ``a performance standard that encourages people to reduce the incidence of these complaints, these injuries,'' Baroody said. OSHA estimates companies will have to fix 18 million jobs in the next 10 years, cutting in half the number of MSDs. It said the rules would prevent about 230,000 of the injuries reported each year and another 230,000 among those not reported. The government estimates that employers will have to spend $4.5 billion a year on training, administration and workplace alterations to comply with the standard. But society would reap estimated annual savings of $9.1 billion from lower workers' compensation costs for employers, greater productivity and worker savings, OSHA said. Business groups said OSHA has greatly underestimated the true cost of the rules. One group, the Employment Policy Foundation, recently estimated the standard will actually cost businesses $125.6 billion a year. Peg Seminario, safety and health director for the AFL-CIO, said the rules will be especially helpful to women, who make up 46 percent of the workforce but suffer 70 percent of workplace injuries to the upper extremities of the body. ``We think it's a major step forward and will result in major changes in the workplace without question and is indeed long overdue,'' she said. ``That being said, it could be made stronger.'' Jeffress said that during OSHA's hearings, there were few, if any claims the standard could not be supported
Yet another FSC update
U.S. House approves export tax bill WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives gave final approval on Tuesday to legislation aimed at averting billions of dollars in sanctions against U.S. goods in a heated dispute with Europe over tax breaks for American exporters. After months of delay, the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of White House-backed legislation repealing the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) program, which doles out tax breaks to U.S. exporters through offshore subsidiaries, sending it to President Bill Clinton to be signed into law. The vote should delay at least until June $4 billion or more in threatened European Union sanctions against U.S. products, and possibly avert them altogether. White House officials said Clinton would swiftly sign the bill into law. The Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled last February that the FSC program was an illegal export subsidy, handing the EU a major trade victory. The EU set a final deadline of Nov. 17 for Congress and the president to enact the legislation, setting off a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill culminating in Tuesday's passage.
Re: RE: Castro on US elections.
Norm, Are you going to answer the substantive questions that have been posed by several of us to you, or are you just going to make ideologically loaded and smarmy wisecracks? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 2:29 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4421] RE: Castro on US elections. i would like to remind the posters of the theme of the initial posts (see below). we seemed to have strayed. i understand that lefties, like ideologues of other persuasions, like to extol the virtues of their Weltanschaungen, but when the illusions become grotesque, then i have to object. to understand what i mean, please refer the quotes from ken hanley and Fidel below. (also comment from brad delong.) pretty one-sided opinions? norm - The US has had no effective change of goverment in 41 years. Capital has ruled throughout. There may have been some reforms favorable to the working class but the result is a health care system that is far less equitable than Cuba's and a record of mostly reactionary wars and covert action: Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, Grenada, Yugoslavia, etc.etc. that make Cuban foreign intervention (eg.Angola) look saintly. After 41 years and all those changes of government income inequality is greater, the country has one of the worst social safety nets of any advanced capitalist country, and greater income inequality than ever. Whatever the privileges of Castro and his buddies it is as nothing compared to the inequality in the US. But then the GDP is doing well and this rising tide lifts all boats right! I thought the cake and the crumbs going to the poor was a more accurate analogy. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 9:14 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4155] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. Fidel speaking: "The United States, such a vocal advocate of multi-party systems, has two parties that are so perfectly similar in their methods, objectives and goals that they have practically created the most perfect one-party system in the world. Over 50% of the people in that 'democratic country' do not even cast a vote, and the team that manages to raise the most funds often wins with the votes of only 25% of the electorate. The political system is undermined by disputes, vanity and personal ambition or by interests groups operating within the established economic and social model and there is no alternative for a change in the system." - From Fidel Castro's interview with Federico Mayor Zaragoza, former Director General of UNESCO, published in Granma International, June 23, 2000. - So clearly it is far better to have *no* change of government for 41 years? What silliness... Brad DeLong
Re: HPI-1 measurements from the United Nations
Lou, This is a list of less developed countries only. The UN Human Development indexes clearly show the highest levels occurring in some of the most developed countries. Last list I saw had Canada as # 1 with Japan and several Scandinavian and other European countries and even Singapore ahead of the US. But the US was ahead of Cuba. OTOH, there is certainly strong evidence that many people in Cuba are better off than the poorest people in the US economically. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 1:39 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4419] HPI-1 measurements from the United Nations HUMAN POVERTY AND DEPRIVATION The human poverty index is a multidimensional measure of poverty. It brings together in one composite index the deprivation in four basic dimensions of human life-a long and healthy life, knowledge, economic provisioning and social inclusion. These dimensions of deprivation are the same for both developing and industrialized countries. Only the indicators to measure them differ, to reflect the realities in these countries and because of data limitations. For developing countries the HPI-1 measures human poverty. Deprivation in a long and healthy life is measured by the percentage of people born today not expected to survive to age 40, deprivation in knowledge by the adult illiteracy rate and deprivation in economic provisioning by the percentage of people lacking access to health services and safe water and the percentage of children under five who are moderately or severely underweight. Two points. First, for economic provisioning in developing countries, public provisioning is more important than private income. At the same time, more than four-fifths of private income is spent on food. Thus in developing countries lack of access to health services and safe water and the level of malnutrition capture the deprivation in economic provisioning more practically than other variables. Second, the absence of a suitable indicator and lack of data prevent the human poverty index from reflecting the deprivation in social inclusion in developing countries. For industrialized countries the HPI-2 measures human poverty. Deprivation in a long and healthy life is measured by the percentage of people born today not expected to survive to age 60, deprivation in knowledge by the adult functional illiteracy rate, deprivation in economic provisioning by the incidence of income poverty (since private income is the larger source of economic provisioning in industrialized countries) and deprivation in social inclusion by long-term unemployment. The components and the results of the HPI-1 and HPI-2 are presented in indicator tables 4 and 5. The technical note presents a detailed discussion of the methodology for constructing he two indices. WHAT DOES THE HPI-1 REVEAL? Calculated for 85 countries, the HPI-1 reveals the following (table 5): The HPI-1 ranges from 3.9% in Uruguay to 64.7% in Niger. Nine countries have an HPI-1 of less than 10%: Bahrain, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Fiji, Jordan, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay. These developing countries have overcome severe levels of poverty. For 29 countries-more than a third of those for which the HPI-1 was calculated- the HPI-1 exceeds 33%, implying that at least a third of their people suffer from human poverty. Others have further to go. The HPI-1 exceeds 50% in Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal and Niger. A comparison of HDI and HPI-1 values shows he distribution of achievement in human progress. Human development can be distributed more equitably-as in countries with a relatively low HPI-1 for a given HDI value-or less equitably-as in those with a relatively low HDI value for a given HPI-1 (figure 4). Policies play a big par in determining how achievements in human progress are distributed. 1 Uruguay 2 Costa Rica 3 Cuba!!! 4 Chile 5 Trinidad and Tobago 6 Fiji 7 Jordan 8 Panama 9 Bahrain 10 Guyana 11 Colombia 12 Mexico 13 Lebanon 14 Mauritius 15 Venezuela 16 Jamaica 17 Qatar 18 Malaysia 19 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 20 Dominican Republic 21 Brazil 22 Philippine 23 Paraguay 24 Turkey 25 Peru 26 Ecuador 27 Bolivia 28 United Arab Emirate 29 Thailand 30 China 31 Iran, Islamic Rep. of 32 Syrian Arab Republic 33 South Africa 34 El Salvador 35 Sri Lanka 36 Tunisia 37 Cape Verde 38 Oman 39 Honduras 40 Lesotho 41 Nicaragua 42 Algeria 43 Maldives 44 Namibia 45 Swaziland 46 Indonesia 47 Viet Nam 48 Botswana 49 Guatemala 50 Tanzania, U. Rep. of 51 Kenya 52 Zimbabwe 53 Myanmar 54 Congo 55 Egypt 56 Iraq 57 Comoro 58 India 59 Ghana 60 Sudan 61 Rwanda 62 Nigeria 63 Togo 64 Zambia 65 Morocco 66 Cameroon 67 Uganda 68 Pakistan 69 Malawi 70 Bangladesh 71 Haiti 72 Côte d' Ivoire 73 Senegal 74 Benin 75 Gambia 76 Yemen 77 Mauritania 78 Guinea-Bissau 79 Mozambique 80 Nepal 81 Mali 82
economic rationality
fwd: Law, Economics, and the Skeleton of Value Fallacy" California Law Review BY: KYRON HUIGENS Yeshiva University Benjamin Cardozo School of Law Document: Available from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=245500 http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=245500 Paper ID: Cardozo Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 28 Contact: KYRON HUIGENS Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. edu mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Postal: Yeshiva University Benjamin Cardozo School of Law 55 Fifth Ave New York, NY 10003 USA Phone: 212-790-0404 Fax: 212-790-0205 ABSTRACT: Experiments in the last decade or so have demonstrated persistent failures on the part of ordinary individuals rationally to pursue self-interest. The experiments pose serious challenges to economics,rational choice theory, and the law and economics school. Some experiments, for example, suggest an "endowment effect", that contradicts the Coase Theorem; the notion that, in the absence of transaction costs, goods will find their most efficient distribution regardless of their initial assignment. Cass Sunstein has collected a set of essays by economists and legal scholars exploring these challenges, in a volume entitled Behavioral Law and Economics. This review essay argues that the contributors to the volume have not worked out the full implications of these experiments, and that to do so gives one good reasons not to do economics or the economic analysis of law at all. The experiments indicate that value is context dependent. If value is context dependent, then it is also intransitive. But the transitivity of value is an essential assumption of economic analysis. Economists recognize, of course, that their method is reductive, and that it does not reflect human valuation and choice in all its actual richness. But economists and legal economists do suppose that they have captured at least the essentials of sound practical reasoning, so that their policy prescriptions are reliable. This assumption is unsustainable. I refer to this defect as the skeleton of value fallacy, and describe how it infects several of the essays collected in this volume. James D. Rodgers 347 Koebner Circle State College, PA 16801
Re: Re: HPI-1 measurements from the United Nations
Lou, This is a list of less developed countries only. The UN Human Development indexes clearly show the highest levels occurring in some of the most developed countries. Last list I saw had Canada as # 1 with Japan and several Scandinavian and other European countries and even Singapore ahead of the US. But the US was ahead of Cuba. OTOH, there is certainly strong evidence that many people in Cuba are better off than the poorest people in the US economically. Barkley Rosser Barkley, I said all along that Cuba should be judged against underdeveloped countries. It does not make sense to group the United States and Cuba. That being said, here are some interesting comparisons: Life expectancy at birth United States: 76.8 Cuba: 75.8 Haiti: 54.0 Adult Literacy rate: United States: 99.0 Cuba: 96.4 Haiti: 47.8 Overall Human Development Index: United States: 0.935 Cuba: 0.783 0.440 Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: HPI-1 measurements from the UnitedNations
Louis Proyect wrote: Adult Literacy rate: United States: 99.0 Cuba: 96.4 Haiti: 47.8 The 99% figure for the U.S. is extremely generous. In the first version of the Human Development Report, the U.S. literacy rate was pegged at 95% (if I'm remembering that right). At the time, Bush's Education Department was reporting something like 11% of U.S. adults to be functionally illiterate. The 95% figure made the U.S. come in extremely low in the HDI rankings, prompting great outrage in DC. The next year, the literacy rate was marked up to 99%, and the share of the relevant population in primary school was added to the criteria. Magically, the U.S. shot up in the rankings. Doug
USA = the Rogue State! (was Re: Castro on US elections)
Isn't forty years of this experiment enough? It seems kind of cruel to the people of Cuba to let it continue... Brad DeLong *** You're right. Let's all call the White House and Congress and tell them to act like adults rather than imperialists and end the embargo. Ian On this subject (as on many others), the USA has acted as the rogue state, defying the opinions of the entire world: * Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:04:13 -0800 From: Chris Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marxism List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: US still flips off the world on Cuba CUBA: U.N. SEEKS END TO EMBARGO For the ninth year, the United Nations General Assembly called by a wide margin for the lifting of the United States embargo on Cuba. The vote was 167 to 3, with 4 abstentions. Only Israel and the Marshall Islands voted with the United States. El Salvador, Latvia, Morocco and Nicaragua abstained. Barbara Crossette (NYT) 10-XI-2000 * Yoshie
clinton Redux
The Sacramento Bee reprinted in a Richard Cohen article based on an interview with Clinton. Right before the election, Clinton complained to Cohen that Gore had seceded too much of the middle to Bush. In other words, if the brilliant Clinton had been running the election, Gore would have run a campaign even more like the DLC. Clinton is smart, has been a commitment interview showed, but his political intelligence seems to have substantial limits. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HPI-1 measurements from the United Nations
Lou posted: Barkley, I said all along that Cuba should be judged against underdeveloped countries. It does not make sense to group the United States and Cuba. That being said, here are some interesting comparisons: Life expectancy at birth United States: 76.8 Cuba: 75.8 Haiti: 54.0 Adult Literacy rate: United States: 99.0 Cuba: 96.4 Haiti: 47.8 What, the USA boasts of the adult literacy rate of 99.0%? Our dictators must be making things up to hide behind the Iron Curtain of number fetish; or they must mean all Americans, however poor, can sign at least rent-to-own contracts, if not credit-card slips. I say this in part because whenever I teach "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift, half the students think Swift is recommending cannibalism. Among the ironically-challenged, the half agrees with the narrator on his opinion of the Irish poor, if not on the proposal itself. Yoshie
Re: Further Privatization of Legislation
this is reminiscent of an old science fiction book by Pohl and Kornbluth, titled THE SPACE MERCHANTS, in which corporations choose US Senators. If there's a legal dispute, it's appealed up to the Chamber of Commerce. It's the logical conclusion of the _laissez faire_ variant of orthodox economics. It's the way that Cuba would be organized if Brad had his way, a return to Batista... (BTW, the long and extremely painful experiment with US-dominated neocolonialist capitalism in Cuba had clearly failed in 1959. Why does Brad want to try again?) SENATOR MAJORITY LEADER LOTT SEEKS TO GIVE CHIQUITA VETO POWER OVER ANY BANANA WAR SETTLEMENT In what critics are calling "outrageous," "bad trade policy," and "an unconstitutional infringement on the President's foreign-affairs power," U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is seeking to give Chiquita Brands International Inc. a veto over any settlement in the contentious banana trade war. By inserting language into a Senate appropriations bill that would, in effect, block the U.S. trade representative from settling the long-running trans-Atlantic banana war without first getting approval from Chiquita the Mississippi Republican is attempting to give a U.S. company extraordinary foreign-policy power. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: HPI-1 measurements from the United Nations
At 04:02 PM 11/14/00 -0500, you wrote: The 99% figure for the U.S. is extremely generous. In the first version of the Human Development Report, the U.S. literacy rate was pegged at 95% (if I'm remembering that right). At the time, Bush's Education Department was reporting something like 11% of U.S. adults to be functionally illiterate. The 95% figure made the U.S. come in extremely low in the HDI rankings, prompting great outrage in DC. The next year, the literacy rate was marked up to 99%, and the share of the relevant population in primary school was added to the criteria. Magically, the U.S. shot up in the rankings. he who pays the piper (or refuses to do so until he gets his way) calls the tune... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 14 Nov 2000 -- 4:92 (#487)
--- Support our Sponsor LOWEST AIRFARE IN THE SKY - Deep discounts: cruises, hotels, international travel, vacations, cars. Connect to thousands of travel agents competing for your business. Hot NEW site! http://click.topica.com/R8bz8SnrbAjwjxa/Imandi SUBSCRIPTIONS: We picked up eight new subscriptions thanks to readers telling their friends about the journal. Please tell us about your change of address and your friends about the newsletter. __ The Internet Anti-Fascist: Tuesday, 14 November 2000 Vol. 4, Number 92 (#487) __ Updates to Latest Readings: Action Alerts: "Liz Michael" [EMAIL PROTECTED], "[Far Right Targets 'Countercoup' Demonstrations] ALERT- Mobilization," 10 Nov 00 People For the American Way, "Sign the Re-Vote Petition!," 13 Nov 00 Anarchist Black Cross Innsbruck (translated by Arm The Spirit), "Anti -Fascists To Go On Trial In France," 12 Nov 00 Fascists and Conservatives Introduction Bart Barnes (Washington Post), "Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies," 30 May 98 Howard Gleckman (Business Week Online), "Remembering Barry Goldwater," 1 Jun 98 via http://www.concentric.net/~Tycho4/Goldwatr.htm, "Barry Goldwater and the 'Old Conservatism'" Barry M. Goldwater, "Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable" Announcement: Austria, 8-10 Nov 2001: Genocides of the 20th century Real Political Correctness: ACLU Press Release, "WA Court Bars Enforcement of Medina's 'Get a License to Talk' Law," 3 Nov 00 Rightwing Quote of the Week: realfeelings [sic], "'racist' is euphemism for 'white male'," 9 Nov 00 -- ACTION ALERTS: Far Right Targets "Countercoup" Demonstrations [The message below was recently intercepted and may be of interest to people planning to go to the future protests as well as those who track the organizing of the far right. -- tallpaul] ALERT- Mobilization "Liz Michael" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 Nov 00 ALERT - MOBILIZATION for Saturdays, November 11 and 18. 1 PM. Please forward to EVERYONE you know IMMEDIATELY I've thought about this and thought about this and thought about this. The next two Saturdays there are scheduled to be leftist protests, which I designed to be part of an overall media strategy to get Al Gore illegitimately installed as the 43rd President of the United States. Normally, I don't like to go to rallies. I don't like showings. I don't really like these goofs who have nothing better to do than go to rallies. I'd rather be working. However, it has become clear to me that these rallies are very different. These rallies are designed to directly undermine a legitimate election for President of the United States, and to undermine and eliminate the very republic itself. They are seeking to influence the electors of the Electoral College to dishonor their vow to do their duty as the citizens elected them to. And as such, I believe they need to be met man per man, sign per sign, flag per flag. I believe we may well have two choices. We can meet these liberal tools right here, right now, peacefully, and show the whole world, which may be watching, that we defend the duly elected President-elect of the United States and the United States Constitution. Or we can allow these people to work their conspiracy to overturn an election, undermine the Constitution, install an illegitimate President whose federal agents we will have to fight violence against violence. Perhaps, by meeting these individuals at these rallies, we can possibily help avert a civil war. Therefore, I am urging all people to read this letter, to show up at these rallies for a counter-demonstration against the "Counter Coup", as this entity is calling itself. I am additionally forwarding this list to the press, in the event they have not yet seen it. Their web site is http://geocities.com/countercoup/. A caveat I issue here. I won't want any of you to engage in violence against these people. However, I have been informed that certain demonstrations have riots planned in them. If this is the case, and a rally turns violent, retreat, walk away and disperse. This is not the place to engage the enemies of freedom in battle. We may find ourselves with ample necessity to do that later on. Even if you don't personally support George W. Bush or his government, I am still of the opinion that these leftist tools need to be met anyway. In Liberty, -- Liz Michael www.lizmichael.com Political Activism For The Liberation Of The World - - - - - Sign the Re-Vote Petition! People For the American Way 13
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 RELEASED TODAY: A total of 147.5 million persons worked at some point during 1999, an increase of about 2.7 million persons from the prior year, according to the annual survey of work experience. The number of individuals who experienced some unemployment during the year continued to decline. About 13 million individuals were in this category in 1999, down about 1 million from 1998. ... The Wall Street Journal's feature "Tracking the Economy" (page A6) shows the Thomson Global Forecast for the October Consumer Price Index figure, scheduled to be released Thursday, to be for an increase of 0.2 percent in contrast to last month's 0.5 percent. The core rate is forecast to be up 0.2 percent also, after rising 0.3 percent in September. Prescription drugs accounted for 44 percent of the increase in health costs last year, researchers said today. In a report published by the Journal of Health Affairs, the researchers said overall health costs for services covered by private insurance rose by 6.6 percent last year, while drug spending increased by 18.4 percent. The study did not separately examine costs for people without insurance. An author of the report said prescription drugs accounted for more of the 6.6 percent increase in health costs than either hospital care or doctors services. ... Inflation is back, after several years of low growth in health insurance premiums, he, a former director of health care studies at the Congressional Budget Office, said. Higher premiums mean higher costs for employers and, in many cases, for employees, he said. ... (New York Times, page A12). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration releases its final ergonomics program standard and publishes the rule in the November 14 "Federal Register". Labor unions greet the announcement of the final rule, while industry representatives vow to block it in court. OSHA Administrator Charles N. Jeffress says the rule "establishes concrete, objective guidance for employers to help them determine when they need to take further action and when they've fulfilled their obligation to resolve problems in their workplaces." According to OSHA, the rule will "spare 460,000 workers painful injuries and save an average of $9.1 million each year." The new ergonomics standard does not apply to construction, maritime, agriculture, or railroad industries. However, it covers all general industry employers and 6.1 million general industry worksites with more than 102 million workers. OSHA claims that about 60 million of these worksites do not address ergonomics, which puts workers at risk for injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome and other musculoskeletal disorders. ... (Daily Labor Report, page AA-1; Washington Post, page E1; Wall Street Journal, page A4; Washington Times, Nov. 12, page C3). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Productivity and Costs: Manufacturing Industries, 1990-98 application/ms-tnef
Re: Re: Influence and its causes - an overdue aside.
At 14:40 13/11/00 -0800, Michael Perelman wrote: Chris, I already told Louis offlist to tone down the humor and he agreed. Your point about the role of the monasteries is appropriate. Louis Mumford made the same argument. However, in your posts do not directly challenge Louis or anybody else. That tends to make flames break out. Thanks for understanding. I am glad you appreciate my comment about monasteries, particularly since you have just written a book on, as I understand it, the early history of capitalism. And also because I was biting my tongue and bending over backwards - at the same time - to try to find some constructive fragment of serious contribution in Lou's deliberately confusing contribution. I am also glad of course that you appear to have discouraged humour that is actually mocking and derisory, rather than a lightening of the tone of the list as a whole. Much as flame wars are undesirable, I would suggest that Lou and I are far too clever to have a flame war. We have not. The problem is Lou's tendency to revert at times to his tactics of the drunken chinese boxer. As for challenges, this is difficult to interpret as a guideline. Is the following post by Barkley a challenge? Re: RE: Castro on US elections. by J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. 14 November 2000 20:37 UTC Norm, Are you going to answer the substantive questions that have been posed by several of us to you, or are you just going to make ideologically loaded and smarmy wisecracks? Barkley Rosser The word 'smarmy' probably goes beyond your guidance on language, and no doubt Barkley would graciously withdraw it, but I cannot see that in essence such a pointed question is unreasonable or damages the prospects of a focussed and engaged debate on this list. How do you define a challenge? It might be said that by posting a summary of the Brenner debate on 6th November, Louis Proyect was implicitly presenting a challenge as to whether people accepted it or not. My own sense at the time, was that this was not unreasonable. You signalled a desire that people should not re-open the Brenner debate by just repeating previous ground, which was also not unreasonable comment. When Hinrich some time later added a specific point about the British Marxist historians I wished to enter in on that because not surprisingly, Christopher Hill is someone whom I admire and for whom I have affection. Since people hopefully spend time engaging on this list and other lists, not out of abstract intellectual curiosity, but because they feel emotionally engaged, I would really suggest it is hard to define civilised discourse by a rule outlawing challenges. It is also difficult that although a number of contributors to this list moderate other lists, one promotes his own list in particular in a way that some would argue sets a challenging standard as to what is to be regarded as marxism or not. I would prefer a reference paragraph on the PEN-L web site as to how you see the main focus and aims of the list, so that contributors can judge their contributions in terms of whether they are near the centre of that target or likely to be seen as near the edge of it. There should be an expectation of debate, but encouragement of a standard of etiquette that can allow the list to engage with progressive academic work in the area of political economy. Thank you for the list. Chris Burford London
Re: RE: Re: Castro on US elections.
But what does leaving Cuba alone mean? The US imposes sanctions against Cuba as well as using other covert and overt means to undermine the government. If the Cuban experiment fails it will prove nothing. In my view the experiment is already very much compromised by the development of a two tier economy and dependence upon capitalist investment. Those linked to the tourism industry often do well, whereas even professionals paid by the state receive relatively low salaries. Also, foreign capitalist investment is becoming more a factor in economic development. It is very difficult to have a socialist island in a capitalist sea. By the way I do not idolize Cuba. Civil and human rights leave much to be desired; but if among human rights you include a right to a job, shelter, and health care, even now cut off from support from any socialist bloc and subject to sanctions imposed by the most powerful country in the world it does fairly well. CHeers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 8:51 AM Subject: [PEN-L:4397] RE: Re: Castro on US elections. agreed, Fidel, a dictator, head of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", has improved the lot of the masses over their pre-revolutionary conditions. for years, so did the Bolsheviks and Chinese CP for their masses. from my ethical viewpoint those changes are commendable: better to have a benevolent dictator than a malevolent republic or monarchy. my preference is to leave Fidel alone and give him and Cuba the opportunity to rise and fall on their own merits. then we would see from experience (not theory) whether Cuba under Fidel goes the way of Lanarck, New Harmony, USSR, China, etc. or develops into something so progressive (from the masses standpoint) that the boats head south across the Strait rather than north. anyone out there want to bet how it will turn out? i don't have the expertise to compare directly Cuban standards of living vs. those of US citizens, but i presume that the boats heading north speak well for the facts: by most (maybe not all, as you point out) measures, Cubans are far worse off than US citizens in spite of their heroic efforts and those of Fidel to improve their lot. norm -Original Message- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 5:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4224] Re: Castro on US elections. Norm wrote: US has no EFFECTIVE change in govt in 41 years, but Cuba has NONE whatsoever in that time span. The presence or absence of changes in political representatives a la liberal democracy does not tell us much about a given nation's political direction. Cuba has undergone much social change without changing its head of state; read, for instance, Lois M. Smith and Alfred Padula, _Sex and Revolution: Women in Socialist Cuba_, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. The most momentous social changes in the USA, too, have been made _by non-electoral means_ (e.g., the Civil War, urbanization industrialization, labor movements, civil rights movements, women's movements, gay lesbian movements, etc.). Change of regimes is of world-historical importance, however, when it effects the transition from one mode of production to another. In this sense, Cuba has undergone more world-historical change than the USA. right, US has more income inequality, but the poorest are far better off than the "middle class" in Cuba. By "middle class" in Cuba, you mean doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, and the like? Socialism in any nation, _while the rest of the world economy remains capitalist_, probably makes its intellectuals worse off than its counterparts, and perhaps even makes them worse off than some of the poor, in imperial nations, as you argue. However, Cuba would _never_ have produced so many doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, etc. from peasant or working-class family backgrounds to begin with, _but for the socialist revolution_. So your comparison appears to me to be moot. Yoshie
Re: RE: Castro on US elections.
I agree that Brad's illusions are grotesque. It in no way follows from what Fidel says that no change in government is superior to changes in government. Brad's conclusion is a complete non sequitur. Instead of taking on Castro's critique point by point, Brad changes the subject and draws a conclusion that in no way follows from anything Castro had to say. However I gather that Brad is under the illusion that he has made some point even though what he says has no relationship to what Castro said and certainly does not follow from it. At least you are making some progress in recognising logical howlers. I assume that Brad meant his remark ""what silliness" to refer to his own remarks -since there is nothing in Castro's speech to which they could refer. CHeers, Ken Hanly From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 1:24 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4421] RE: Castro on US elections. i would like to remind the posters of the theme of the initial posts (see below). we seemed to have strayed. i understand that lefties, like ideologues of other persuasions, like to extol the virtues of their Weltanschaungen, but when the illusions become grotesque, then i have to object. to understand what i mean, please refer the quotes from ken hanley and Fidel below. (also comment from brad delong.) pretty one-sided opinions? norm - - Original Message - From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 9:14 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4155] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. Fidel speaking: "The United States, such a vocal advocate of multi-party systems, has two parties that are so perfectly similar in their methods, objectives and goals that they have practically created the most perfect one-party system in the world. Over 50% of the people in that 'democratic country' do not even cast a vote, and the team that manages to raise the most funds often wins with the votes of only 25% of the electorate. The political system is undermined by disputes, vanity and personal ambition or by interests groups operating within the established economic and social model and there is no alternative for a change in the system." - From Fidel Castro's interview with Federico Mayor Zaragoza, former Director General of UNESCO, published in Granma International, June 23, 2000. - So clearly it is far better to have *no* change of government for 41 years? What silliness... Brad DeLong
Labor unrest in MacDonalds of Canada in Russia
Fairly long. CHeers, Ken Hanly
Labor Unrest in MacDonalds Canada in Russia
Actually this is considerably longer than the previous post. Cheers, Ken Hanly The Independent (UK) 14 November 2000 Big Mac, Big Trouble It was supposed to be the start of a beautiful McFriendship. When the world's hungriest hamburger chain opened its first branch in Moscow, a new golden age of east-west relations was predicted. But 10 years on, the dream has gone stale By Patrick Cockburn Natalya Gracheva thinks that she is being watched. She works in the security section of the McDonald's food-processing plant known as "McComplex" on the outskirts of Moscow. Part of her job is to watch what staff are doing on television monitors, but two years ago, after she started a trade union at McDonald's, she claims one television video camera was trained permanently at her back. "They are waiting for me to make a small mistake in my work", she says. "I wouldn't be surprised if they sacked me tomorrow." Gracheva, a bubbly 40-year-old woman, sounds alternatively amused and frightened by her experiences since she formed the union at McDonald's in the wake of the Russian financial crash of 1998. She remembers that when she first joined McDonald's, a few months after it opened its first restaurant in Moscow in 1990, the slogan of the company was: "We are a united family and we will survive everything together." But when the Russian economy crashed, she claims McDonald's workers found their real wages in roubles had dropped significantly â?" some say by up to seventy per cent. Until then, working for McDonald's, which today has some 58 outlets in Russia, was a prestige job in Moscow. Its 700-seat restaurant just off Pushkin Square served 50,000 people a day and was a highly publicised symbol of Western capitalism in the heart of the former Soviet Union. Street photographers who used to take pictures of Soviet tourists visiting Lenin's tomb in Red Square moved to the street outside McDonald's, where they photographed customers embracing a wooden cut-out of Boris Yeltsin with the famous yellow "M" of the restaurant in the background. This week, the McDonald's in Pushkin Square, decorated with models of European landmarks including Big Ben and the Eiffel Tower, was full â?" though not packed â?" with young Russians paying 12 roubles (30 pence) for a hamburger and 14 roubles for a cheeseburger. But the company has lost its old allure in Moscow, which 10 years ago led to 27,000 Russians applying for a single job and queues half a mile long outside its biggest restaurant. Instead, McDonald's is acquiring a much less favourable image among Russians for paying low wages by international standards â?" one waiter at Pushkin Square said he earned 17 roubles (43 pence) an hour â?" and for what some people see as union busting. The economic collapse of 1998 mortally wounded hopes among ordinary Russians that free market capitalism would improve their standard of living. Gracheva says the mood among the workers at McComplex changed overnight when they discovered that they had to accept McDonald's American-style work discipline, but were no longer paid such high wages to compensate. "It was a revolutionary situation", she says. "As their pay shrank, people lost their fear of being sacked." Workers who joined Gracheva's union claim they then came under intense pressure from management to leave. One of them, Yevgeny Druzhinin, a forklift truck driver, appeared in court last month over claims by McDonald's that he had broken an expensive piece of machinery. For his part, Druzhinin argued that the accusations were fabricated to punish him for his union activity. The judge made no link between Druzhinin's union activity and the disciplinary action taken by the company against him â?" but the court decided that he was not, after all, responsible for the breakage as McDonald's alleged. Soon after the decision, the Duma â?" the Russian parliament â?" summoned the McComplex workers before a special committee. The McDonald's management refused to attend. If they had been present, they would have heard Druzhinin tell the committee that: "A security officer hinted that I might be preparing an act of terrorism. He told me: 'You create too many problems. I'll have you put in prison.'" Druzhinin also claimed that the security officer is a former member of the KGB. Shortly after this threat, again according to Druzhinin, he was summoned to a local police station and told to keep his mouth shut if he wanted fewer problems with the McDonald's management. Innokenty Dukhovlinov, who worked in the food freezing department, told the parliamentarians: "Look, we have to work an hour in our freezer shop, where the temperature is minus 26 degrees [centigrade] and we have only five-minute breaks to warm up. One of our colleagues got frostbite on his penis. We regularly get ear infections." Dukhovlinov said that when he complained to a McDonald's personnel officer: "She told me flatly that I am alone and that she has the whole organisation behind
Lessons of the US election
Another take on the issue of voting outside the two-party system. Cheers, Ken Hanly The Progressive November 9, 2000 Lessons of the Election by Matthew Rothschild When it appeared that George W. Bush won the election by the narrowest of margins, the long knives were quickly drawn and aimed at Ralph Nader. He cost Al Gore the Presidency, we were told. He and his foolish, adolescent, or utopian supporters detracted from their own cause and betrayed their natural allies, we were told. Nonsense. Ralph Nader held up the banner of progressive politics, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. Ralph Nader's supporters voted their conscience, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. Al Gore did not earn their votes by any stretch of the imagination. He forfeited them. Just look at his last TV ad. He made three boasts: He fought in the Vietnam War, he broke with his party to support the Gulf War, and he played a pivotal role in the destruction of welfare. For many, this was a reminder of how unworthy Gore was. After all, here was a candidate who was for the death penalty, for the sanctions on Iraq, for the Cuban embargo, and for increased Pentagon spending. Nevertheless, many progressives held their noses and voted for Gore. We understand that decision, just as we understand the decision of those who voted for Nader (or for the fine Socialist Party candidate David McReynolds). Remember, many of the Nader voters wouldn't have dreamed of voting for Gore under any circumstances. Some would have, to be sure, but that they chose a candidate more to their liking was their right as citizens. And in any event, it's not Nader's fault that Gore came across as a pedantic prig in the first debate, and it's not Nader's fault that Gore could not overcome his Clinton complex and allow the President to campaign more aggressively for him--especially in Arkansas. At some point, the Nader-blamers have to face facts: Gore was a poor candidate with a poor record on progressive issues. We are not indifferent to the difficulties that a Republican White House (assuming Bush hangs on to it) and a Republican-controlled Congress would create, and we will fight alongside our allies within the Democratic Party to resist any revanchist thrust. But we also recognize the validity--indeed, the valor--of Ralph Nader's effort. We have decried the rightward drift of the Democratic Party over these last twelve years. Ralph Nader stood up and demanded a new direction for that party. We have been trying to promote a new progressive agenda, and Ralph Nader succeeded beyond our expectations in articulating some of its key items. On issue after issue--bioengineered foods, campaign finance reform, capital punishment, civil liberties, corporate crime, family farms, globalization (NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank), health care, housing, the Middle East, nuclear disarmament, Pentagon spending, poverty, the war in Colombia, the war on drugs, and many more--he espoused progressive views with intelligence and defiance, thus educating millions of Americans to some of the most important concerns of our day. Had Nader not run, none of these views would have come across, and the American public would have been fed the woefully misleading idea that Al Gore represents the leftwing pole in American politics. By proudly defending progressivism, Nader did us all a favor. He thundered about "the democracy gap," and he railed like a prophet against the overarching power of corporations in America. Who among us can say that these are not crucial issues? He also energized a new generation of progressive activists. At rally after rally around the country, Nader spoke to young people who had never before been inspired to participate in public life, and he rekindled the hopes of thousands and thousands of others who had given up on our democracy. As he put it, "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you with a vengeance." In so doing, he revived the spirit of rebellion in this country. Fundamental social change does not come about by curbing our hopes, shelving our dreams, and settling short. It comes about by making demands. These might seem outrageous or irresponsible at the time, but they are vital if we are ever to shake things up and get what we want. As Gandhi said, "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." Nader did all this with the deck stacked against him. He was excluded from the debates, maligned by members of the media (especially The New York Times), and abandoned and excoriated by many erstwhile friends (especially in The Nation). He also ran on a shoestring. Still, he fought on. And for this we are grateful. As Eugene Victor Debs did in 1912 and 1920, as Robert La Follette did in 1924, and as Norman Thomas did time and again, Ralph Nader repudiated the choice of the lesser evil and stood on principle. No one should blame him--or his supporters--for that.
Comedy, Canadian style
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Donna Barker" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Vote now! Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:00:11 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal As you may have heard, Stockwell Day has proposed that a petition of 350,000 signatures be enough to call for a national referendum on any topic. If you, among others, believe that Canada should go to a national referendum requiring Stockwell Day change his name to Doris Day, please register your demand at: http://www.22minutes.com/ Please give this the widest possible circulation. ___ Gil Yaron Aurora Institute P.O. Box 74513 Kitsilano Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6K 4P4 Phone/Fax: (604) 734-1815 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___
Re: Re: Re: Influence and its causes - an overdue aside.
I officially withdraw the term "smarmy." However, my "challenge" stands. A lot of serious questions were asked. None have been answered at all. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 7:30 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4437] Re: Re: Influence and its causes - an overdue aside. At 14:40 13/11/00 -0800, Michael Perelman wrote: Chris, I already told Louis offlist to tone down the humor and he agreed. Your point about the role of the monasteries is appropriate. Louis Mumford made the same argument. However, in your posts do not directly challenge Louis or anybody else. That tends to make flames break out. Thanks for understanding. I am glad you appreciate my comment about monasteries, particularly since you have just written a book on, as I understand it, the early history of capitalism. And also because I was biting my tongue and bending over backwards - at the same time - to try to find some constructive fragment of serious contribution in Lou's deliberately confusing contribution. I am also glad of course that you appear to have discouraged humour that is actually mocking and derisory, rather than a lightening of the tone of the list as a whole. Much as flame wars are undesirable, I would suggest that Lou and I are far too clever to have a flame war. We have not. The problem is Lou's tendency to revert at times to his tactics of the drunken chinese boxer. As for challenges, this is difficult to interpret as a guideline. Is the following post by Barkley a challenge? Re: RE: Castro on US elections. by J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. 14 November 2000 20:37 UTC Norm, Are you going to answer the substantive questions that have been posed by several of us to you, or are you just going to make ideologically loaded and smarmy wisecracks? Barkley Rosser The word 'smarmy' probably goes beyond your guidance on language, and no doubt Barkley would graciously withdraw it, but I cannot see that in essence such a pointed question is unreasonable or damages the prospects of a focussed and engaged debate on this list. How do you define a challenge? It might be said that by posting a summary of the Brenner debate on 6th November, Louis Proyect was implicitly presenting a challenge as to whether people accepted it or not. My own sense at the time, was that this was not unreasonable. You signalled a desire that people should not re-open the Brenner debate by just repeating previous ground, which was also not unreasonable comment. When Hinrich some time later added a specific point about the British Marxist historians I wished to enter in on that because not surprisingly, Christopher Hill is someone whom I admire and for whom I have affection. Since people hopefully spend time engaging on this list and other lists, not out of abstract intellectual curiosity, but because they feel emotionally engaged, I would really suggest it is hard to define civilised discourse by a rule outlawing challenges. It is also difficult that although a number of contributors to this list moderate other lists, one promotes his own list in particular in a way that some would argue sets a challenging standard as to what is to be regarded as marxism or not. I would prefer a reference paragraph on the PEN-L web site as to how you see the main focus and aims of the list, so that contributors can judge their contributions in terms of whether they are near the centre of that target or likely to be seen as near the edge of it. There should be an expectation of debate, but encouragement of a standard of etiquette that can allow the list to engage with progressive academic work in the area of political economy. Thank you for the list. Chris Burford London
Canadian Election Preditions
Here is a website that makes predictions re the Canadian federal election in case anyone is interested. The present prediction has the governing Liberals returned with the Canadian Alliance forming the opposition. Cheers, Ken Hanly Here is the url for a website predicting federal election outcomes. Claims to be accurate. . http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~m6chan/
Information on Rhonda Williams Memorial Service
For anyone in the D.C. area: http://www.ncat.edu/~neconasc/rhondawilliams.htm mbs
Re: Re: RE: Castro on US elections.
Ken Hanly wrote: [clip] [clip[ i understand that lefties, like ideologues of other persuasions, like to extol the virtues of their Weltanschaungen, but when the illusions become grotesque, then i have to object. It is amusing how often the plaints of red-baiters reduce to one empty irrelevancy: Those reds really believe what they believe. Some day I hope to meet someone who doesn't believe what she believes. It would be an interesting experience. But until that happens I can't take objections like Norm's very seriously. Carrol
Re: Re: RE: Castro on US elections.
I agree that Brad's illusions are grotesque. It in no way follows from what Fidel says that no change in government is superior to changes in government. Does it follow from what Fidel does that no change in government is superior to changes in government? But the idea of a gerontocrat who hopes to rule his country nearly absolutely for 50 years giving lessons in political institution design is funny, isn't it? Brad DeLong
Hitting the Funny Bone
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Brad DeLong wrote: But the idea of a gerontocrat who hopes to rule his country nearly absolutely for 50 years giving lessons in political institution design is funny, isn't it? Yes, Lee Kuan Yew invoking Confucian virtue *is* fairly amusing. Oops, wrong maximum leader of an efficient one-party state... what was I thinking! -- Dennis
Privatization question
Does anyone know what year Chile privatized it's Social Security system? Ian
Re: Re: Re: RE: Castro on US elections.
The answer to your first query. No. What one earth makes you think otherwise? What has this to do with what he SAYS? Your second remark exhibits again your rhetorical skills at changing the subject. Even I was taken in and remarked that the US had no really essential change in government over 41 years. Have you ever heard of the fallacy of ad hominem? Your "argument" represents a classical example and by a "progressive" neoclassical economist even. You say nothing against what Castro has to say in his critique of the US electoral system but use ageism "gerontocracy" and other negative phrase to discredit Castro without addressing one iota of the substance of his critique. Good job. Your are not funny. You are hilarious. Cheers , Ken Hanly P.S. Now you are supposed to incorporate "Good job" in your reply, just in case you haven't a clue what to do. - Original Message - From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:34 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4448] Re: Re: RE: Castro on US elections. I agree that Brad's illusions are grotesque. It in no way follows from what Fidel says that no change in government is superior to changes in government. Does it follow from what Fidel does that no change in government is superior to changes in government? But the idea of a gerontocrat who hopes to rule his country nearly absolutely for 50 years giving lessons in political institution design is funny, isn't it? Brad DeLong
Re: Castro on US elections.
This discussion about Castro is going nowhere. Brad knew, I feel confident, was sort of response his comments would provoke. Others are pushing the heat up even further. It's obviously time to stop. Let me ask a different type of question. Suppose Castro were to hold an election. Suppose he had every intention of making it free and fair. Wouldn't it be a disaster? It would be open season for the CIA to try to do everything it could to muck things up. Can you imagine how much money Congress would willingly and openly appropriate to support "free" elections in Cuba? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Castro on US elections.
Let me ask a different type of question. Suppose Castro were to hold an election. Suppose he had every intention of making it free and fair. Wouldn't it be a disaster? It would be open season for the CIA to try to do everything it could to muck things up. Can you imagine how much money Congress would willingly and openly appropriate to support "free" elections in Cuba? Michael Perelman And very few -- if any -- Americans would protest the appropriation to "support 'free' elections in Cuba."... Yoshie
Re: Privatization question
Does anyone know what year Chile privatized it's Social Security system? Beginning in 1981, though initially the eligible assets were quite restricted. For an overview see Diamond and Valdes-Prieto, "Social Security Reforms," in Bosworth et al. eds. 1994. _The Chilean Economy._ Brookings. Best, Colin
Post-Aries, Post-Foucault
In America, it is time to write sequels to Philippe Aries's _Centuries of Childhood_ Michel Foucault's _Discipline Punish_. The centuries of childhood are coming to an end, and the soul is no longer the prison of the body, when it comes to criminal justice. It is noteworthy that reforms of both mental health institutions and the juvenile justice system had the same trajectory: initiated by civil libertarians in the name of recognizing the dignity autonomy of the individual endowing the mentally ill young offenders with rights, the reforms ended up, contrary to the intentions of the reformers, becoming parts of neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism = de-modernization. This equation is perhaps the most starkly visible in the belly of the beast and former socialist nations. * The New York Times September 10, 2000, Sunday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section 6; Page 41; Column 4; Magazine Desk HEADLINE: The Maximum Security Adolescent BYLINE: By Margaret Talbot; Margaret Talbot is a contributing writer for the magazine and a fellow at the New America Foundation. ...One hundred years ago, when progressive-era reformers first invented the idea of a separate justice system for juveniles, it was boys like Jeff [a 14-year-old boy] and Marco [another 14-year-old boy, arrested for "molesting his 7-year-old sister"] they had in mind. Nearly everything about the newly created juvenile court, from its paternalistic ethos to its central tenet that juveniles were not to be confused with hardened criminals to its goal of sentencing "in the best interest of the child," represented a radical break with the past and a pledge of faith in the malleability of youth. Until then, children had been tried, sentenced, imprisoned and sometimes executed alongside adults. The common-law tradition did offer some recognition that young children were different from adults. Children under 7 who committed crimes were presumed not to be responsible for them and could not be punished. But after that, the question of culpability got murkier. Those between the ages of 7 and 14 were generally thought to lack responsibility for their actions. Those between 14 and 21 were presumed capable of forming criminal intent and were therefore punishable. Yet as early as the 1820's, judges who had to sentence juveniles in criminal court worried openly about the implications of putting young people behind bars. Letting them off scot-free was neither morally nor socially acceptable, but sending them to jail or prison with adults was like consigning them, in the words of one judge, to a "nursery of vices and crimes, a college for the perfection of adepts in guilt." By the turn of the century, these qualms had spread widely enough to make jury nullification a problem: jurors were acquitting young lawbreakers rather than imposing sentences that would lock them up with adults. At the same time, the emerging child-study movement and the new specialty of pediatrics helped popularize the idea that childhood was a distinct phase of life and that adolescents, in particular, moved through discrete developmental stages, which adults had a duty to try and understand. Like compulsory school-attendance laws and bans on child labor, the juvenile court was a product of this new approach to childhood. It was to be presided over by a judge in street clothes, not a black robe, seated at a desk, where he could easily put a reassuring arm around a troubled lad. In 1899, Illinois established the first juvenile court; by 1925, 46 states had done the same. The idea of a justice system tailored for children sank deep roots in American culture. In fact, it was not until the late 1960's that the system came under any real questioning. Paradoxically, the assault was launched by the civil liberties left. Because the juvenile court was supposed to be helping the accused child and because it shielded his identity in a way the criminal court did not, it was liberated from the necessity for due process protections -- the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, the privilege against self-incrimination and so forth. The trouble with this arrangement was that it offered the court nearly unlimited authority to confine youths while it devised cures for their antisocial behavior. The civil liberties critique of the juvenile justice system found its most powerful expression in the Supreme Court's 1967 decision in the Gault case. On June 8, 1964, Gerald Gault, a 15-year-old boy living in Gila County, Ariz., made an obscene phone call to his neighbor, one Mrs. Cook. (He wondered, quaintly enough, if she had "big bombers.") Mrs. Cook called the sheriff, who arrested the boy; his mother came home from work and found Gerald missing, with no explanation. At two subsequent hearings, Mrs. Cook never appeared, no other witnesses were sworn and no transcript made. Yet in the end, the judge ordered
