Re: Japan's Debt
Mat wrote: By the way, I just read a novel that includes an interesting exploration of consumer debt and personal bankruptcy in Japan: Miyuki Miyabe, _All She Was Worth_ A lawyer in the book argues that there is a tendency for society to blame the individual who goes into debt, but that the fault really lies in the system. I haven't read the book by Miyabe, but I'll look it up. Consumer credit does not seem very well developed in Japan, with the exception of so-called sarakin, which charges usurious interest rates. In fact, before I came to the USA, I never had any credit card -- now I have ten!!! My parents brother -- who have never travelled outside Japan -- still have none. Japanese workers do not use checking accounts either (again, my family in Japan do not have one; nor did I have one before coming to the States), and the absence of checking accounts, I believe, tends to encourage saving rather than spending. It feels different spending cash, instead of writing a check (even aside from the fact that many checking accounts in the USA have overdraft protection which blurs the boundary between deposit credit). I heard it somewhere that consumer credit (excluding mortgages) makes up only 3 percent of bank lending in Japan. Is that right? Were I a "nationalist" member of the ruling class concerned with deflation the "liquidity trap," I'd probably advocate an accelerated development of consumer credit, as well as developing a better "social safety net" like unemployment insurance, old age pension, etc. However, the fundamental problem that Japan faces is not likely the "liquidity trap." I believe it is due to (a) the dead end of export-led industrialization; (b) over-competition over-capacity in the existing markets (recall Robert Brenner here); and (c) political stalemates (the divided ruling class the weak working class, neither of which has a coherent program and the strength to create "consent" to a new settlement in a Gramscian sense impose its will on the rest of society). Some parts of the ruling class do not see the current situation as "their problem" -- instead, they'd rather make use of this occasion to restructure labor regulations, social programs, etc. more in line with strict neoliberalism, while other parts of the ruling class do not have the guts to do so. Yoshie
The Jim Crow Five and the Coming Political War
= The Jim Crow Five and the Coming Political War = Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last night, five Justices of the Supreme Court declared that the 14th Amendment was created to suppress the black vote and protect the white corporate elite's hold on power. In the name of "equal protection", these five Jim Crow Justices sanctified the results of an election where black voting districts often saw as many as 25% of their votes thrown into the trashcan of inaccurate machine counts. As dissenting Justice Stevens noted, for all the majority worried about possible inconsistencies in hand counts from different counties, they seemed blithely unconcerned about the fact that there was no consistency in the very voting systems used in different counties. Largely poor and black districts were systematically more likely to use the inaccurate punch card voting systems, while richer whiter districts saw their votes protected by more accurate optical scanning systems. Yet the Jim Crow Court majority upheld such county-based inequalities in the name of - get this - "local expertise." That the Rehnquist majority has thrown away all credibility for their supposed "states rights" federalism jurisprudence is a given. But that basic hypocrisy pales before the obscenity of Chief Justice William Rehnquist's concurring opinion, a decision evoking equal protection by a man who as a law clerk at the time of Brown v. Board of Education argued "I think Plessy v. Ferguson, the legal foundation for mandatory racial segregation, was right and should be re-affirmed." This is a man who would later in the 1950s and 1960s lead GOP efforts at polls in Arizona to harass and disenfranchise black voters using the literacy tests and other tools of Jim Crow voter intimidation. Yet this man had the audacity last night to cite civil rights precedents in overruling the Florida Supreme Court. Dripping with contempt, Justice Ginsberg decried Rehnquist's "casual citation" of cases overturning state Supreme Court decisions made "in the face of Southern resistance to the civil rights movement" when the situation in Florida was "hardly comparable." Left unsaid was the fact that Rehnquist was aligned with that Southern resistance to civil rights; his citation of those cases was an Orwellian twisting of history to protect the racist disenfranchisement of voters in Florida that those cases were originally meant to stop. Evidence from the Florida election has continued to show that the old Jim Crow techniques have given way to new, only slightly more sophisticated forms of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement. The NAACP and other groups have documented systematic efforts to block black and latino voting, from police roadblocks to illegal demands for multiple IDs. But the most truly odious addition to the Jim Crow arsenal this election was what some have dubbed "disenfranchisement by database." In Florida, Secretary of State Katherine Harris hired a company called Choicepoint, run by a bevy of GOP corporate funders, to produce a blacklist of voters to purge from the voting rolls. These names were supposedly purged because they were felons, but the list was so inaccurate that well over 7000 innocent people - 54% of them black - were illegally stripped of their right to vote by Harris and Choicepoint. It is this partisan theft of the election through disenfranchisement that Rehnquist and the rest of the Jim Crow Five upheld last night. One might think that this racist disenfranchisement was an isolated act of opportunism to gain Presidential power. But the disenfranchisement of blacks, latinos and others who are rapidly becoming the new majority in America, is actually the very threat that has driven the GOP to this partisan election theft, from preelection purges of the rolls to the thugs at the Miami-Dade canvassing board to last night's Court decision. The GOP corporate elite sees the coming demographic shift and knows it may very well spell the end of their easy dominance through racial scapegoating. In their screwed up and conflicted way, the Democrats have been and continue to be the vehicle for the self-empowerment and enfranchisement of a whole range of excluded groups in our society, from the Civil Rights Acts to Motor Voter to the expansion of citizenship for new immigrant groups, and the corporate Right decided that this process needed to be turned back in this election. The corporate Right has only had to look at what's going on in California, as latinos and other non-whites have become the majority and the GOP has been nearly obliterated as a political force, to fear for the future. New pro-union, pro-education and pro-health care policies have been passed by the state legislature and even more radical change in the state is mobilizing in the streets.. The Right tried and failed to stem that political tide in California through anti-immigrant
Re: Japan's Debt
Jim D. wrote: BTW, I think one way that Japan could recover is to imitate an old US practice. Give aid to a poor area (such as East St. Louis, Illinois) but "tie" it so that it can only be spent in Japan. It takes a real burning ambition to become _the_ global hegemon -- as opposed to a junior partner in U.S.-led imperialism -- to come up with a Marshall plan. More crucially, recall that the actual Marshall plan was implemented with a view toward making Communism unpopular in Europe. In the absence of Communism, what would be the point of a Marshall plan for the ruling class? Some segments of the Japanese governing elite may have had a little ambition to use the Asian crisis in order to re-make the area more in line with their imperial vision, as opposed to Americans', but after their proposal to create the Asian Monetary Fund met U.S. disapproval, they beat a hasty retreat, I remember. This encourages Japanese businesses to expand without relying on Japanese people to spend (something they've been reluctant to do). They don't spend because they, on the average, live _very long_ but old age pensions are dreadfully inadequate. Consumer credit is underdeveloped also. Instead of spending money on public works, much of which nowadays seems to neither strengthen economic infrastructure nor create many jobs, merely supporting bad old ties of patronage linking politicians construction companies, the Japanese governing elite should go social democratic build up the social safety net (esp. unemployment insurance old age pensions), _but they won't do so, since it's not in their interest_. At the same time as waves of deflation, the political elite were still are making a move to cut back "wastes" "frauds" from national health care (which wasn't even truly universal to begin with, divided into three different parts: Shakai Hoken [for employees], Kokumin Kenko Hoken [for the self-employed others who do not qualify for Shakai Hoken], Rojin Hoken [for the elderly]). Take a look at this: * Health insurance crisis _Mainichi Shimbun_ 6 February 2000 The national health insurance system is on the brink of a major crisis and is unlikely to remain solvent over the next two or three years if the status quo is maintained. Since the wages of workers who pay health insurance premiums have fallen for three consecutive years, imposing a premium hike at this time is not an option. Therefore, the only alternative is to implement fundamental reform as soon as possible to increase the efficiency of the health insurance system. But the recommendations in the report submitted by the Council on Health Insurance and Welfare on Feb. 3 to Health and Welfare Minister Yuya Niwa are a far cry from fundamental reform. The report recommends that patients shoulder a greater burden of medical expenses, hospital meal fees be increased and urges the Health and Welfare Ministry to undertake reforms promptly http://www.mainichi.co.jp/english/news/archive/22/08/opinion.html * With this sort of ruling-class attack on social spending (esp. on health care), and in the absence of consumer credit, how are Japanese workers to feel like spending in a mad-cap American fashion, instead of _saving all they can to survive old age, diseases, accidents, etc._? Yoshie
Re: The Jim Crow Five and the Coming Political War
Excellent, Nathan. I'm sending this around. --jks = The Jim Crow Five and the Coming Political War = _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: Japan's Debt
Yoshie quotes Jan Kregel sayingClearly, in present conditions it is not the lack of a credible inflation policy [as he dubs Krugman's cure], but a credible interest rate policy that is creating difficulty. As Keynes notes in relation to Fisher's recommendations of inflating out of the Great Depression: "The stimulating effect of the expectation of higher prices is due, not to its raising the rate of interest (that would be a paradoxical way of stimulating output --in so far as the rate of interest rises, the stimulating effect is to that extent offset), [*1] but to its raising the marginal efficiency of a given stock of capital" (JMK:VII, p. 143) that is, raising the expectation of returns on new investment relative to the rate of interest, and this requires a credible policy that interest rates will not rise along with the rate of inflation, which is to say that the Fisher relation and the quantity theory should not hold. [*2] [*1] I think Keynes is off-base here. As I see it, Fisher was recommending a cut in nominal interest rates in the short run, which encourages inflationary expectations, which lowers the much-more-important expected real rate. In a situation of unused capacity and extreme unemployment, there is little reason to expect the nominal rate to rise in step with inflationary expectations (as Keynesian economics points out), so there is no reason why we shouldn't see real rates falling. [*2] here's where PK, not Keynes, is wrong, because he doesn't pay attention to the marginal efficiency of capital (roughly, the expected rate of profit). It's possible that real private investment won't respond, even to negative real interest rates. (The IS curve may be vertical or close to it.) Here pen-l faces a disagreement: Peter says that Japanese private corporations and banks face stuff like low profitability, excessive debts, pessimistic expectations, and unused capacity, while Dennis (always an optimist concerning Japan) sees profitability recovering. It would great to see some evidence. But the failure of a higher rate of increase in the quantity of money to increase prices and the rate of interest is what Krugman calls the liquidity trap and he identifies as the cause of Japan's recession. I interpret PK more prosaically: he's saying that monetary policy can't lower nominal interest rates and thus, given expectations of inflation, real expected real rates. This is because nominal interest rates can't fall below zero (while some would add a little liquidity premium on top of that zero). PK's main story about what's happening isn't about inflation. Rather, inflation is what he recommends. In Japan even if the Bank of Japan could mount a credible inflation policy, there would be no guarantee of the stability of the yield curve. this is right on target. Low short rates may coincide with higher long rates. What is required is a credible policy to ensure increased higher rates of return on investment, which may or may not be accompanied by rising prices. In general in Japan it has not. This requires credible increases in aggregate demand. PK might respond that expansionary (inflationary) monetary policy might raise aggregate demand in this way, so that this is a distinction without a difference. Traditionally in Japan this has come from exports. Given recent Yen strength and other structural changes in global markets this is now unlikely. What Japan needs is a credible policy of increasing the return on producing for domestic demand. From a Keynesian point of view it might be more appropriate to say that Japan is in an underemployment equilibrium with deficient aggregate demand than in a liquidity trap. I'd agree that the "vertical IS curve" situation referred to above is quite an apt description of what's going on (perhaps with a horizontal LM curve thrown in). If so (i.e., if Dennis' optimism is off-base) then Japan faces a contradiction. On the one hand, they need to build the welfare state, including old-age pensions, as Yoshie points out, in order to shore up aggregate demand (since infrastructural investment has hit the wall). Also as she says, the ruling elites won't do that, since it's against their own self-interest (both as a group and as individuals). But if the Japanese workers kicked up a fuss, they'd be pushed to do so. But the other horn of the contradiction is that intensified working-class struggle would hurt investors' expectations, making private investment even more depressed. Is this analysis totally wrong? enquiring minds want to know Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
RE: Re: Japan's Debt
Actually I disagree with Jim's assessment, and think Yoshie is right. I don't think Jan is just concerned with what Keynes "really" meant or said, but with whether Krugman's analysis is useful for effective policy. By the way, there are some other useful papers on the subject at Levy. Marc Andre Pigeon's Minskian interpretation, e.g. By the way, is it cool that Yoshie is evaluating Levy working papers and I am discussing Japanese novels, or is this scary?! -Original Message- From: Yoshie Furuhashi To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/13/00 3:24 AM Subject: [PEN-L:6097] Re: Japan's Debt From Jim D. to Mat: At 11:20 AM 12/12/00 -0600, you wrote: "Krugman on the Liquidity Trap: Why Inflation Won't Bring Recovery In Japan," Jerome Levy Economics Institute, Working Paper No. 298, March 2000 Jan. A. Kregel Abstract Paul Krugman has argued that Japan is in a liquidity trap and that it can recover only if the central bank there follows a policy of "credible inflation." This paper argues that Krugman's proposal, which is similar to what Fisher proposed during the depression, is based on a different interpretation of the liquidity trap from that proposed by Keynes and as a result his policy recommendations can result in neither the elimination of the trap nor in Japan's economic recovery. I was a bit disappointed with this article, which seems obsessively concerned with "what Keynes really said." Sometimes the Keynesians can be more fundamentalist in their method than the Marxists. Right, but Kregel's conclusion appears sounder than Krugman's (within the confines of Keynesian economics, that is), at least to this non-economist: * Clearly, in present conditions it is not the lack of a credible inflation policy, but a credible interest rate policy that is creating difficulty. As Keynes notes in relation to Fisher's recommendations of inflating out of the Great Depression: "The stimulating effect of the expectation of higher prices is due, not to its raising the rate of interest (that would be a paradoxical way of stimulating output --in so far as the rate of interest rises, the stimulating effect is to that extent offset), but to its raising the marginal efficiency of a given stock of capital" (JMK:VII, p. 143) that is, raising the expectation of returns on new investment relative to the rate of interest, and this requires a credible policy that interest rates will not rise along with the rate of inflation, which is to say that the Fisher relation and the quantity theory should not hold. But the failure of a higher rate of increase in the quantity of money to increase prices and the rate of interest is what Krugman calls the liquidity trap and he identifies as the cause of Japan's recession. In Japan even if the Bank of Japan could mount a credible inflation policy, there would be no guarantee of the stability of the yield curve. What is required is a credible policy to ensure increased higher rates of return on investment, which may or may not be accompanied by rising prices. In general in Japan it has not. This requires credible increases in aggregate demand. Traditionally in Japan this has come from exports. Given recent Yen strength and other structural changes in global markets this is now unlikely. What Japan needs is a credible policy of increasing the return on producing for domestic demand. From a Keynesian point of view it might be more appropriate to say that Japan is in an underemployment equilibrium with deficient aggregate demand than in a liquidity trap. http://www.levy.org/docs/wrkpap/papers/298.html * Yoshie
RE: Re: Re: Japan's Debt
Jim- Are you an advocate of IS-LM?? Is this analysis totally wrong?
Kickoff the unaugural ball!
On January 20, 2001 wear black or go naked. Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant Bowen Island (604) 947-2213
Re: RE: Re: Re: Japan's Debt
At 10:42 AM 12/13/00 -0600, you wrote: Jim- Are you an advocate of IS-LM?? No, but ISLM provides a good language for the _start_ of a discussion, since almost every macroeconomist knows it. For example, Paul Davidson, a well-known anti-ISLMicist, uses IS-LM in his paper on the finance demand for money (reprinted in his MONEY IN THE REAL WORLD). He may now be more purist, but he's still got that blot on his escutcheon (from his own purist perspective). I'm afraid that ISLM will survive until someone presents a clear alternative, since criticizing a theory doesn't smash it until there's an obvious replacement. It's interesting that in Thomas Palley's excellent book on post-Keynesian macroeconomics, he presents a series of useful models that aim to get us away from the official Keynesianism (what Robinson termed "bastard Keynesianism"). The economics is quite different, but the graph remains the same. In his final, most complete, model, what do we see but ISLM? he draws it upside-down and (if I remember correctly), backward, but it's still ISLM. The story behind the curves is different, but it's the same graph. (I've lost my copy of that book, alas!) It sort of reminds me of Rasputin. All sorts of folks have tried to kill ISLM, in all sorts of ways, but it survives. Even the recent article (from a quite establishmentarian perspective) by David Romer, I believe, in Brad's journal (THE JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES) didn't kill it as much as arguing that the LM curve shouldn't be upward-sloping, since the Fed can fine-tune interest rates. In the end, I think ISLM has a little to say about the short run, but see the rate of profit as the main variable running a capitalist economy, along with such things as the debt load, expectations, and unused capacity. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: Re: Re: Japan's Debt
Yoshie- I would say Miyabe's book gives a very different view of consumer credit in Japan than what you put forward. It does argue that there are a group of people who do not go for credit cards, but this is not due to their unavailability, etc. I will try to type a few paragraphs in later. Some history is provided, via the lawyer character explaining some stuff to the detective. It talks of big crises in the early 80s and early 90s, but also talks about the beginnings in the early 60s. The book also goes into the whole issue of family registers and legal identity, also focusing on bureaucracy. Supposedly Miyabe's written lots of books that have been made into movies. Do you know if any of these ones we would have seen (e.g. Tampopo, Accountant's Wife, etc.)?
Re: RE: Re: Japan's Debt
By the way, is it cool that Yoshie is evaluating Levy working papers and I am discussing Japanese novels, or is this scary?! Fantastically cool, Matt! Only a jack of all trades can really aspire to be master of one! Especially when the one in question is political economy, eh? I realise it's because I'm a white bearded chap, but I do come over all wistful for those great days of an intellectually bold and vibrant bourgeoisie, say 150 years back, when white bearded chaps were not only free to inquire into all areas of nature and the arts, but indeed felt it absolutely necessary to do so. None of that stuff we're hearing about narrow specialists, encouraged to intellectual inertia by the deadening institutional sway du jour, eh? We gotta rediscover (if enormously expand) the spirit that linked Joseph Banks to Freddie Engels or Stephen Maturin to Sherlock Holmes. The belief that it is downright practical to stick the beak in a multitide of 'disciplines' and to theorise across that whole spectrum - and to have everyone so enabled and so disposed ... And on to claret and cigars with a generation of Yoshie Fuhurashis and Matt Forstaters, I say! Yours beyond even his bed-time, Rob.
Re: Re: RE: Re: Japan's Debt
At 04:29 AM 12/14/00 +1000, you wrote: Fantastically cool, Matt! Only a jack of all trades can really aspire to be master of one! or jill of all trades, in Yoshie's case. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Japan's Debt
Thanks, Dennis. Can you provide some references? Peter Dennis Robert Redmond wrote: On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Peter Dorman wrote: investment. The structural question is whether the elimination of these unproductive investments, and the resulting financial drag, can be accomplished within the political-economic framework of Japanese capitalism. So far, Japan has not found a way to do this. Japanese profit rates are way, way, *way* up, especially in high-tech markets, and most of the bad debts of the system have been washed out. Even the banks are showing decent profit margins again. There isn't much evidence that capital markets have replaced the keiretsu banks as sources of investment, though the Big Four (Sumitomo-Mitsui, Mitsubishi-Tokyo, UFJ and Mizuho) *are* becoming more like European-style universal banks, i.e. doing business with their erstwhile keiretsu competitors. -- Dennis
gridlock
So it looks like we're going to have another 4 years in the Bush Leagues, here in the old US of A. People like Alex Cockburn argue that the Bushwackers won't have much of an impact because of the gridlock in Congress. With gridlock, Cockburn argues, big initiatives like Clinton-Gore's welfare reform, are less likely to pass. I'm not sure this works. With a 50/50 split in the Senate and close to it in the House, whether or not gridlock is good depends on how the Democrats respond in cases when there's a big divide between them and the GOPsters on issues (like abortion rights and Supreme Court appointments). My feeling -- but I'm willing to convinced otherwise -- is that compared to the Republicans with their hard-ball tactics (now with a velvet glove of "compassionate conservatism"), the Demos are a bunch of wimps. After all, didn't most Democrats -- including Al Gore and Joe Lieberman -- vote for Scalia and Thomas? Haven't the Democrats been more willing to compromise? I have a hard time imagining them fighting each and every Bush appointment the way the GOPsters have done with Clinton appointments. What the Democrats need is a backbone, an external (non-electoral) force pushing them not to compromise, like the Civil Rights movement of yore. Those who try to push them to the left while promising to vote for them no matter what they do (like leftist endorsers of Gore) are weakened by the obvious contradiction in that attitude. However, given the weak vote for Nader, there's little reason why the Democrats should lean in his direction. (See Kath Pollitt's column in the most recent issue of the NATION.) In fact, the Democrats are more likely to unite with the Republicans to make third-party efforts even more difficult in the future (instead of introducing needed reforms like instant run-off elections). They've almost always shown themselves willing to sacrifice democracy in the name of protecting the Democratic Party's insider status. Grass-roots insurgency -- like the anti-Vietnam War movement -- seems more likely to shake things up than electoral action. If the economy goes into a recession (as looks likely at this point), then maybe those movements will arise. But it's quite possible they'll be right-wing, as with the militia movement that arose at the time of the Bush (pére) recession and the "jobless recovery." It's likely that there will be a big move for the warring parties to unite in the name of the "public interest." There are lots of matters that the duopoly parties agree on, such as the war against Serbia and welfare reform. So the benefits of gridlock may not pan out. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
analytical philosophy
[was: Re: Have You Read All These Books?] I wrote: Okay, we agree in practice. _In practice_, AP's [analytical philosophy's] method involves discouragement of scholarship as Justin defines it here. Justin responds: Of course we could drop the "method involves" and have a sentence that means almost the same thing, which undermines the point of talking about "method." However, there is no point in raking this over again. Perhaps "AP" can be _defined_ as the rejection of discussions of "method" (i.e., how logical analysis and empirical study should be combined to answer moral, empirical, and other questions)? So issues like the debate between Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, and others who study the philosophy of science are deemed to be irrelevant (or even silly) by the practitioners of AP? I asked:The _official_ or desired method of AP is logic? then what distinguished it from Aristotle? of from any other school of philosophy (except maybe post modernism)? haven't almost all philosophers since Aristotle thought that formal logic was extremely revealing if not absolutely necessary to clear thinking? Does AP add anything to logic that previous philosophers didn't know about? Justin responds: Analytical philosophy is the heir of logical positivism, which gave modern logical, as developed by Frege, Russell and Whitehead, et al. an absolutely central place in doin philosophy. Modern mathematical logic is a quantum jump over the Aristotlean logic that preceded it in power and flexibility; there's no comparison. ... So, yes, I think you can say that analytical philosophy has advanced the study of logic a bit--more than anyone had since Aristotle, truth be told. Russell's analutical philosophy, the early Wittgenstein, and logical positivism (the Vienna Circle) made the use of this logic basic to the doing of philosophy; problems were formulated in terms of it, and those that couldn't be were dismissed. The only previous philosophical movement that made logic so central was scholasticism, where philosophers were likewise expected to be fluent in formalism and able to think that way as part of professional competence. Of course the logic was much more primitive. Analytical philosophy has discarded most of the tents of logical positivism--the verification principle, etc.--but it has retained the emphasis on logic. At Michigan grad school in philosophy, you had to pass the math logic course with a high grade, and it also fulfilled the language requirement, on the grounds taht it was a "formal language." ... Okay, so the AP types gave us greater understanding of formal logic. This is all for the good, though I can imagine that logic, like mathematics, can easily be fetishized in the face of an empirical world that often seems illogical or at least too heterogeneous and mixed to be fit into logical categories. Then, how is AP distinguished from other schools of philosophy that accept the validity and importance of logic? For example, Bertell Ollman tries to be as logical as possible. The way the term "analytical philosophy" is used, at least as I've encountered it, it would exclude him. Would it also exclude my brother the philosophy professor, who's into "natural law"? BTW, he's also very logical, given his premises. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: analytical philosophy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/13/00 02:28PM Would it also exclude my brother the philosophy professor, who's into "natural law"? BTW, he's also very logical, given his premises. CB: That's natural, because law focuses on formal logic ( of which non-contradiction is the first principle) as much as analytical philosophy.
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2000 RELEASED TODAY: A total of 5.7 million injuries and illnesses were reported in private industry workplaces during 1999, resulting in a rate of 6.3 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers. Employers reported a 4 percent drop in the number of cases and a 2 percent increase in the hours worked compared with 1998, reducing the case rate from 6.7 in 1998 to 6.3 in 1999. The rate for 1999 was the lowest since BLS began reporting this information in the early 1970s. ... The economy continues to shift toward high technology, but a coming wave of baby-boomer retirements also will boost demand for more traditional skills. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts employers will replace about 25 percent more retirees between 2003 and 2008 than they did between 1993 and 1998. Demand will be greatest for secretaries, drivers of heavy trucks, elementary school teachers, and industrial engineers (Wall Street Journal's "Work Life" feature, page A1). With 6,000 Internet job sites in operation, the BLS says more than twice as many people now look for work online than use private employment agencies. [Based on research by outside authors published in the October 2000 Monthly Labor Review] (The Wall Street Journal's "Work Life" feature, page A1). The epidemic of back injuries among nurses is to be the subject of research at a Florida veterans' hospital. ... The type of worker most prone to having a bad back may not be a construction laborer, truck loader, of warehouse worker -- but rather a nurse, according to figures for BLS. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-5). The nation's jobless rate rose in November and third-quarter growth was its most sluggish in 4 years. Yet the labor market remains tight and experts say it may stay so. An employment outlook survey of 16,000 companies by Milwaukee staffing firm Manpower Inc. found 27 percent expect to increase staff next year while 58 percent will maintain current employment levels. Manpower says the job market is so tight that employers who add staff for peak business periods, such as retailers, should recruit workers year round to stay competitive (Wall Street Journal's "Work Life" feature, page A1). __Mirroring an expected slowdown in the nation's economy, nonfarm employment in California, which has grown at a 3 percent or better pace for 4 consecutive years, will slow markedly in 2001 and 2002 to about half the 3.6 percent gain recorded this year, the quarterly UCLA Anderson Forecast predicts. ... Few economists expect a recession next year, although most forecasters have lowered their growth projections in recent weeks amid mounting reports of sluggish growth. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-2)_California's economy will weaken due to the shakeout in Silicon Valley, but it will continue to outpace the rest of the U.S., several economists forecast. ... (Wall Street Journal, page A2). __The percentage of American workers who received health insurance coverage through an employer increased between 1998 and 1999, the Employee Benefit Research Institute says. According to EBRI, employers were the source of coverage for 158.4 million Americans in 1999, up from 154.8 million in 1998. In 1999, 73.3 percent of American workers were covered by an employer-based health plan, up from 72.8 percent in 1998. EBRI said the expansion continued a longer-term trend that began in 1993, and based its analysis upon Census data. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-4). __Employment is the most important factor in obtaining health care coverage for most nonelderly Americans, a new survey by the Health Insurance Association of America found. The HIAA survey found that more than three out of five workers, or 63 percent, receive job-based coverage and nearly three out of four workers, or 74 percent, were offered health insurance by their employer. However, 13.6 million of the 17 million uninsured workers were not offered health insurance by their employers, the survey found. Lower-income workers -- especially those who work part time -- are less likely to be offered job-based coverage and less likely to accept such coverage if offered. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-7). __The cost of employer-sponsored health insurance benefits will rise 11 percent next year, and many employers say they will pass on more of the expense to workers, according to a national survey of employers. Two out of five employers plan to deduct more money from employees' paychecks for health benefits next year, the survey of 3,326 companies by William M. Mercer Inc., a New York-based consulting firm, found. Last year, one in five employers said they would increase employee health insurance payments. ... (Washington Post, page E1). __New York benefits consultant William M. Mercer Inc. says employer health-benefit costs rose 8.1 percent in 2000. But the job market is making employers reluctant to pass those costs on to current workers. ... Xerox Corp., Stamford,
Re: analytical philosophy
Perhaps "AP" can be _defined_ as the rejection of discussions of "method" (i.e., how logical analysis and empirical study should be combined to answer moral, empirical, and other questions)? So issues like the debate between Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, and others who study the philosophy of science are deemed to be irrelevant (or even silly) by the practitioners of AP? No, the anti-method thing is more of a pragmatist trope than a general AP thing. I, predictly, do not believe there is any such thing as "scientific method," and as someone trained in philosophy of science and political science, I will say that I find nothing so silly and irrelevant as social scientists who look to the philosophy of science literature for a models of how to do social science--it's appallingly common. I would sit in my pol sci seminars and laugh, tell the other stidents and prof, pay no attention to what WE say, just go out and find good examples of actual reserach and follow those! That's the danger of discussions of method, they will be treated as recipes. Okay, so the AP types gave us greater understanding of formal logic. This is all for the good, though I can imagine that logic, like mathematics, can easily be fetishized in the face of an empirical world that often seems illogical or at least too heterogeneous and mixed to be fit into logical categories. Absolutely. Then, how is AP distinguished from other schools of philosophy that accept the validity and importance of logic? In a pragmatic, sociological sort of way, by the articles students are taught to read and model their work on and that professors are expected to cite and discuss, and also by a sensew of what problems and what kind of answers are important and acceptable. But you knew this, so whya re you asking me? Are you trying for a concession that there is no essence of AP, that all philosophy is AP? What? For example, Bertell Ollman tries to be as logical as possible. The way the term "analytical philosophy" is used, at least as I've encountered it, it would exclude him. No shit. He doesn't use logical formalsim, doesn't refer to Quine and Davidson or Rawls for his vocabulary and questions, doesn't think that their questions are interesting or their answers important, and responds to APs who find his own use of Hegelian-MArxist dialectics obscure with the charge that they are fetishized, that is, with more H-M dialectics. So he's not an AP,w hether that is good or bad. Would it also exclude my brother the philosophy professor, who's into "natural law"? BTW, he's also very logical, given his premises. I don't think AP is dogmatic about doctrines anymore. It's a matter of style and reference. Hell, you can be an analytical Marxist,a s long as you do it the way the APs do their stuff. So you can be an analytical Thomist, I guess. What's the point of this discussion? I am not be arrogant about AP: it came up because I was trashing it as ignorant and uncultured. --jks _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: analytical philosophy
I wrote: Perhaps "AP" can be _defined_ as the rejection of discussions of "method" Justin writes: No, the anti-method thing is more of a pragmatist trope than a general AP thing. I, predictly, do not believe there is any such thing as "scientific method," and as someone trained in philosophy of science and political science, I will say that I find nothing so silly and irrelevant as social scientists who look to the philosophy of science literature for a models of how to do social science--it's appallingly common. I would sit in my pol sci seminars and laugh, tell the other stidents and prof, pay no attention to what WE say, just go out and find good examples of actual reserach and follow those! That's the danger of discussions of method, they will be treated as recipes. I can see that some -- many -- social scientists _overdo_ the study of scientific method (and escape into method when they can't do empirical research or say anything substantive about the world), but how can you find "good examples of actual research" if you don't have some idea of what "good" is? It sure seems that the whole point of the study of scientific method is to answer that question. (Much of the study might involve waste motion, like most academic ventures, but at least people like Lakatos give some guidance for what "good" research is.) Following pragmatism, do we define good research as what's useful? to whom? One of the reasons I'm interested in scientific method issues (Lakatos, etc.) is because economists, as a bunch, absolutely reject such issues. When I took economic theory in 1974 at UC-Berkeley, our introduction to method was reading a debate between Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson. The MF argued that it's okay to make totally outrageous assumptions in making a model as long as the model as a whole predicted empirical data accurately. PS had some counter-argument which was pretty superficial, though I've forgotten his exact point (singular). (All of the debate was basically nonsense, especially since the MF doesn't follow his own method and the polite PS didn't mention that.) Anyway, even that reading was dropped from the theory course the next year. We wouldn't want our students to reflect on what they're doing! After all, "economics is what economists do," especially those economists at prestigious institutions (who in turn decide which institutions are prestigious). In the absence of some sort of philosophical basis, the only academic way to decide what "good" research is by having the tenure and promotion committees (along with the Dean and the college President) decide. Or have the journal editors or the foundation grant-givers decide. It's like having the market decide the worth of your work, where of course those with the most "dollar votes" have the most say. But people need to reflect on the research they do beyond thinking about how the "powers that be" value it. Robert Oppenheimer knew that. Okay, so the AP types gave us greater understanding of formal logic. ...Then, how is AP distinguished from other schools of philosophy that accept the validity and importance of logic? In a pragmatic, sociological sort of way, by the articles students are taught to read and model their work on and that professors are expected to cite and discuss, and also by a sensew of what problems and what kind of answers are important and acceptable. But you knew this, so whya re you asking me? Are you trying for a concession that there is no essence of AP, that all philosophy is AP? What? My impression is that "analytic philosophy" simply defines itself as valid, so that anything deemed to be "sensible" is part of AP (so Bertrand Russell can be appropriated as part of the pack). That's hardly philosophical reflection, especially about the meaning of "validity." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy
I am not sure what the point of the study of scientific method is,a nd I am specially trained in it. There may not be a single point. I doubt if there is. But I am absolutely certain that philosophers have no insight denied to scientists about what counts as good science. If the philosophers say, good science must do X , nd the scientists say, sez who!, the scientists should win. So, you tell us what's good economics. Don't wait for us to tell you. That means it is up to you and your tenure committees. Sorry 'bout that. I don't see pragmatism as defining good research as what is useful. That is too narrow. That sort of a priori answer is not pragmatic. Thats' not waht your tenure committess would say, is it? AP is verya rrogant and defines itself as the only good philosophy. But it did not "appropriate" Russell. He helped invent it. He is an unabashed founder. --jks I can see that some -- many -- social scientists _overdo_ the study of scientific method (and escape into method when they can't do empirical research or say anything substantive about the world), but how can you find "good examples of actual research" if you don't have some idea of what "good" is? It sure seems that the whole point of the study of scientific method is to answer that question. (Much of the study might involve waste motion, like most academic ventures, but at least people like Lakatos give some guidance for what "good" research is.) Following pragmatism, do we define good research as what's useful? to whom? One of the reasons I'm interested in scientific method issues (Lakatos, etc.) is because economists, as a bunch, absolutely reject such issues. When I took economic theory in 1974 at UC-Berkeley, our introduction to method was reading a debate between Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson. The MF argued that it's okay to make totally outrageous assumptions in making a model as long as the model as a whole predicted empirical data accurately. PS had some counter-argument which was pretty superficial, though I've forgotten his exact point (singular). (All of the debate was basically nonsense, especially since the MF doesn't follow his own method and the polite PS didn't mention that.) Anyway, even that reading was dropped from the theory course the next year. We wouldn't want our students to reflect on what they're doing! After all, "economics is what economists do," especially those economists at prestigious institutions (who in turn decide which institutions are prestigious). In the absence of some sort of philosophical basis, the only academic way to decide what "good" research is by having the tenure and promotion committees (along with the Dean and the college President) decide. Or have the journal editors or the foundation grant-givers decide. It's like having the market decide the worth of your work, where of course those with the most "dollar votes" have the most say. But people need to reflect on the research they do beyond thinking about how the "powers that be" value it. Robert Oppenheimer knew that. . . . . My impression is that "analytic philosophy" simply defines itself as valid, so that anything deemed to be "sensible" is part of AP (so Bertrand Russell can be appropriated as part of the pack). That's hardly philosophical reflection, especially about the meaning of "validity." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Kicking off the unaugural ball II
Michael, Isn't Bob Perelman your brother? I wanted to check the status of the coined word "unaugural" as of Dec. 13, 2000 and did an Alta Vista and Google search (6 and 26 hits respectively). Most of the entries appear to be typos but one of them referred to an essay by Bob Perelman that briefly discusses The Unaugural Poem, a parody of Maya Angelou's Inaugural Poem read at Clinton's first inauguration. I've pasted the excerpt below. Here's my proposition: Do an Alta Vista and Google search on unaugural on Feb. 13, 2001 and on Dec. 13 2001 to gauge the spread of the term. Uncanny. excerpt from BUILDING A MORE POWERFUL VOCABULARY: BRUCE ANDREWS AND THE WORLD (TRADE CENTER) http://www.english.upenn.edu/~perelman/ANDREWS.txt Coolidge and Fagin wrote a parody of Angelou's inaugural poem that uses an OuLiPo method of defamilization. Every noun Angelou used was replaced by a noun five words removed in the dictionary. Thus the passage I quoted earlier becomes: There is a true yawn to respond to The singing Roach and the wise Rock Crystal. So say the Ash Can, the Hippogriff, the Jetsam, The Afterbirth, the Native American Legion, the Sinner, The Catnip, the Musskellunge, the Freezer, the Great White Way, The Ipso Facto, the Quota, the Prima Donna, the Sheet, The Gavel, the Stovepipe, the Prawn, The Prism, the Homburg, the Taxi. They hear. They all hear The spatter of the Tree of Heaven. If Andrews is playing with fire in a decentered, all-over fashion, Coolidge and Fagin are, with these substitutions, picking up specific burning brands one after the other. Some of the changes are particularly charged: Asian = Ash Can; Native American = Native American Legion; Rabbi = Quota, etc. To any identifying reader these substitutions might feel like insulting jokes. But if one tried to ascribe a particular location to the source of the insult, it wouldn't be easy. This isn't Andrew Dice Clay joking about faggots, or a racist attack. It is the dictionary's random speech. If we allow ourselves the double vision that the parody assumes, the oddness of the results can be funny. The alphabetic proximity of "Catholic" to "Catnip" or of "Gay" to "Gavel" furnishes a compact display of the arbitrariness of language. And then there's a second level, on which the arbitrary suddenly becomes paradoxically meaningful. Being gay will mean, for the next few decades, dealing with courtrooms and gavels directly or indirectly; "stovepipe" is a surprisingly good nickname for "straight," both geometrically and with its New England crackerbarrel connotations. But we shouldn't lose sight of the basic fuel of the parody, which is a great dissatisfaction with the coalition of identities that Angelou is positing, and the emphatic rejection of its rhetoric that works with established cadences and symbols, not single words. I imagine that it was the specific inclusiveness of Angelou's poem, plus its being officially recognized as poetry by an incoming administration, that triggered the desire to pull the rug from under it. I doubt that it would have seemed like a particularly good idea to redo, say, Amiri Baraka's "It's Nation Time." But for all of its vocabularistic satire on names and specific identities, the subject position from which "The Unaugural Poem" is funny is itself specific: it is one where all resources of language are present and equally available: the writer must be able to take possession of all the words in the dictionary without any moments of alienation. There is one restriction involved, however: all particular identification has to be eliminated. Any investment in present tense collectivities--or to put it another way, any present tense political identity--is banished. To parody Angelou is to reject a unification of poetry and politics of a far different kind than Andrews calls for. But if political poetry is defined as having an effect beyond the purely literary sphere, then Angelou's unificiation has a much stronger grip on the title than Andrews' aggressiveness. Rock, river, and tree used as large symbols may grate on a spectrum of poetic sensibilities, but as political speech their vacuousness can be seen is strategic and as forming vehicles for more specific messages. She used her momentary political capital to recite a rhythmic call for a multicultural coalition with anti-militarist overtones. How much efficacy we want to grant these overtones is a question. Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant Bowen Island, BC
Disenfranchisement Report - Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
- Original Message - From: "Rich Cowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] MEMO TO MEDIA To: Reporters, Editorial Writers and Columnists Covering Florida Vote From: Ed Jackson, Advancement Project (202) 728-9557, (202) 251-3894, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Diane L. Gross, LawyersÌ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (202) 662-8317; cell: 202-258-9951; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: November 17, 2000 Re: Democracy At Risk: Voting-Rights Complaints Mounting In Florida For 11 days, the nation and the media have been transfixed by issues related to balloting problems in the Florida elections, and understandably so. However, there have also been substantial and credible allegations of disenfranchisement of minority voters in several Florida counties. There are compelling reasons to address these complaints of disenfranchisement immediately, and with the utmost gravity: First, Florida has a long and well-documented history of discrimination against African American voters. Because of their past history of discrimination, five of FloridaÌs counties have been declared ÏcoveredÓ jurisdictions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (requiring them to obtain U.S. Justice Department authorization for any proposed change in voting practices in those counties). Second, there have been reports from Florida that hundreds of African Americans, Haitian Americans and Puerto Ricans may have been denied their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in the November 7, 2000 election. Civil rights organizations associated with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) have received complaints of widespread denial of the right to vote, predominantly affecting minority voters and heavily-minority precincts. Some of these complaints were presented at NAACP field hearings November 11 in Miami, at which leaders of several other LCCR member organizations participated. These hearings were the first step in an effort to make a public record of the reports of voting irregularities experienced by African Americans and other citizens who attempted to vote, and to ascertain the extent of the disenfranchisement. ALLEGED ABUSES The information gathered by civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, details allegations of several forms of outright denial of the right to vote, as well as intimidation and barriers that prevented or discouraged voting. All of the following types of disenfranchisementÛalleging serious violations of the United States Constitution, the federal Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, as well as Florida Election Law and Florida Civil Rights LawsÛhave been described in complaints to LCCR organizations: Voters Turned Away at the Polls ÖMinority voters who have been registered, and have voted, for many years were told when they appeared at their polling places that they did not appear on the voting lists. Some minority voters said they were turned away because they did not have photo identification, even though Florida law provides that registered voters without photo IDs may cast Ïaffidavit ballotsÓ. ÖReports indicate that in some counties, minority voters were asked for a photo ID while white voters were not. ÖSome minority voters claimed that they were turned away even when they appeared at the polling place with both their voter card and a photo ID. ÖVoters who did not appear on the voting list or have a photo ID reported that they were shunted into a ÏproblemÓ line, where they waited for long periods of time after being told that election officials were trying to telephone headquarters. However, because phone lines were jammed and many of these calls never went through, many voters said they became discouraged and left without voting. ÖSome voters told of being sent from polling place to polling place, with no real effort to determine where they actually would be permitted to vote. Some claimed to have been turned away from not just one, but three or four polling places. ÖOther voters reported being denied the right to vote because of minor, immaterial discrepancies in their names as they appeared on registration lists and in their proof of identificationÛsuch as their use of middle initials. Voters who were turned away said that they were not offered affidavits or challenged ballots. ÖMoreover, poll workers reportedly were instructed by their supervisors to be particularly ÏstrictÓ in challenging voter qualifications because of aggressive voter registration and turnout efforts that had been made in their communities in connection with the November 7 election. ÖLarge numbers of minority voters who registered before the October 10, 2000 deadline under Florida law did not receive their voting cards before November 7. When they appeared at the polls, they were told they were not on the voting list and were not permitted to vote. Polling Places Moved
Re: Question for Lefties, and Left Green Synthesis
This discussion of what is capitalism?, it seems to me, has great relevance for any real left-green synthesis. Most of the left is oblivious to the existence of postindustrial productive forces geared to qualitative development, and the fact that capitalism is absolutely incompatible with such postmaterial development. Real postindustrialism is not primarily about information and computers, but about human cultural development, and how this new role for creativity makes possible widespread substitution of human intelligence for materials and energy. Its about what Martin Sklar called disaccumulation and what the industrial ecologists call dematerialization. Only the industrial ecologists, and advocates of eco-capitalism, do not see that capitalism cannot by definition dematerialize the economy as a whole because it is based in quantitative accumulation. Capitalism is based in material and monetary accumulation; in scarcity; and in cog-labour. I agree with the folks arguing that it is the commodity relationship (M-C-M, etc.) that is key, because qualitative development (or the regeneration of communities and ecosystems) can never be, for the system as a whole, a by-product, a spin-off or a trickle-down of accumulation. The ecological end-use approach is essentially the socialist use-value approach. The starting point is human and ecological needand the redefinition of wealth. Questions of the distribution of wealth must followand will followfrom that. The focus of Jim and others on proletarianism and wage labour is very closely connected to this subordination of human development; todays working classes must ultimately put an end to cog-labour, and make sure that even routine labour is truly developmental. I agree with Yoshie that support for ongoing struggles is essential, but developing a large social vision is essential. In the name of diversity and difference, apparently feeling burned by its past association with vulgar Marxism, most of the left is retreating from the understanding of historical potentials that should be the lefts forte. The left is largely clueless about the political-economic alternatives to capitalism, and for this reason its stale statism does not ring true with many in the social movements who are already working to create alternatives. These alternativesin every sector of the economy and societyare not simply ecotopian dreams. The precondition for a real left-green synthesis is for the left to wake up to alternative forms of production geared to ecological community regeneration. When the left can do this, it can be very effective in showing how eco-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. But will also become aware that a narrow focus on the state will be insufficient, and even counterproductive, for creating regenerative wealth. There needs to be new rules, and these new rules can institutionalize quite different processes than accumulation. And in fact they would have to discourage accumulation. Markets, driven by the profit-motive, today are destructive; but tomorrow, driven by social and ecological values and indicators, they might be something else. Rather than poo-pooing environmentalist concerns with consumption (and therefore the CONTENT of production), the left should be raising the ante, and indicating the new forms of production and exchange (and community-based regulation) which can establish a new mode of Brian Milani Eco-Materials Project, Toronto Green Economics Website http://www.greeneconomics.net
Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy
Many analytical philosophers have been interested in the philosophy of science. Often they are interested in analysis of scientific concepts both in psychology and physical sciences. Norman Malcolm for example argued at great length with Skinner re Behaviorism. Ryle's Concept of Mind on the other hand is a critique of Cartesian type assumptions re Mind that some, but not Ryle himself, regard as a type of linguistic behaviorism. Ryle also has written on the relationship of scientific to everyday concepts. Stephen Toulmin's work in the philosophy of the physical sciences is very readable and perhaps somewhat neglected. Much more sophisticated and often on specific topics, eg. a whole book on the concept of a positron, is Norwood Russell Hanson. Elizabeth Anscombe seems to identify herself to a considerable extent with the Thomistic and Aristotelian traditions even though she is a Wittgensteinian. CHeers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 3:28 PM Subject: [PEN-L:6113] Re: Re: analytical philosophy I wrote: Perhaps "AP" can be _defined_ as the rejection of discussions of "method" Justin writes: No, the anti-method thing is more of a pragmatist trope than a general AP thing. I, predictly, do not believe there is any such thing as "scientific method," and as someone trained in philosophy of science and political science, I will say that I find nothing so silly and irrelevant as social scientists who look to the philosophy of science literature for a models of how to do social science--it's appallingly common. I would sit in my pol sci seminars and laugh, tell the other stidents and prof, pay no attention to what WE say, just go out and find good examples of actual reserach and follow those! That's the danger of discussions of method, they will be treated as recipes. I can see that some -- many -- social scientists _overdo_ the study of scientific method (and escape into method when they can't do empirical research or say anything substantive about the world), but how can you find "good examples of actual research" if you don't have some idea of what "good" is? It sure seems that the whole point of the study of scientific method is to answer that question. (Much of the study might involve waste motion, like most academic ventures, but at least people like Lakatos give some guidance for what "good" research is.) Following pragmatism, do we define good research as what's useful? to whom? One of the reasons I'm interested in scientific method issues (Lakatos, etc.) is because economists, as a bunch, absolutely reject such issues. When I took economic theory in 1974 at UC-Berkeley, our introduction to method was reading a debate between Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson. The MF argued that it's okay to make totally outrageous assumptions in making a model as long as the model as a whole predicted empirical data accurately. PS had some counter-argument which was pretty superficial, though I've forgotten his exact point (singular). (All of the debate was basically nonsense, especially since the MF doesn't follow his own method and the polite PS didn't mention that.) Anyway, even that reading was dropped from the theory course the next year. We wouldn't want our students to reflect on what they're doing! After all, "economics is what economists do," especially those economists at prestigious institutions (who in turn decide which institutions are prestigious). In the absence of some sort of philosophical basis, the only academic way to decide what "good" research is by having the tenure and promotion committees (along with the Dean and the college President) decide. Or have the journal editors or the foundation grant-givers decide. It's like having the market decide the worth of your work, where of course those with the most "dollar votes" have the most say. But people need to reflect on the research they do beyond thinking about how the "powers that be" value it. Robert Oppenheimer knew that. Okay, so the AP types gave us greater understanding of formal logic. ...Then, how is AP distinguished from other schools of philosophy that accept the validity and importance of logic? In a pragmatic, sociological sort of way, by the articles students are taught to read and model their work on and that professors are expected to cite and discuss, and also by a sensew of what problems and what kind of answers are important and acceptable. But you knew this, so whya re you asking me? Are you trying for a concession that there is no essence of AP, that all philosophy is AP? What? My impression is that "analytic philosophy" simply defines itself as valid, so that anything deemed to be "sensible" is part of AP (so Bertrand Russell can be appropriated as part of the pack). That's hardly philosophical reflection, especially about the meaning of "validity." Jim
RE: Re: Question for Lefties, and Left Green Synthesis
This discussion of what is capitalism?, it seems to me, has great relevance for any real left-green synthesis. Most of the left is oblivious to the existence of postindustrial productive forces geared to qualitative development, and the fact that capitalism is absolutely incompatible with such postmaterial development. *** Do you mean post-technological? If not, then what does post-industrial mean? Capitalism is a system of property and contract rights at it's core. Capitalists have shown a rather insidious proclivity towards making sure that technological innovations conform to a desired property and contract scheme that allows them to accumulate lots of $$$ and legally avoid paying for the pecuniary externalities imposed on other owners and non-owners. Real postindustrialism is not primarily about information and computers, but about human cultural development, and how this new role for creativity makes possible widespread substitution of human intelligence for materials and energy. Its about what Martin Sklar called disaccumulation and what the industrial ecologists call dematerialization. Only the industrial ecologists, and advocates of eco-capitalism, do not see that capitalism cannot by definition dematerialize the economy as a whole because it is based in quantitative accumulation. Capitalism is based in material and monetary accumulation; in scarcity; and in cog-labour. * Who reaps the benefit of that creativity is, again, a manifestation of the dominant legal relations between owners and non-owners. Technology under capitalist relations of production push at and beyond the ability of some ecosystem's regenerative and resiliency capacities. As for the ability of capitalism to dematerialize, see: http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80901e/80901E08.htm especially the appendix. Then come back and tell me that Alan Greenspan and all the other high priests of capitalism have the slightest idea on how to achieve those goals, let alone the desire. I agree with the folks arguing that it is the commodity relationship (M-C-M, etc.) that is key, because qualitative development (or the regeneration of communities and ecosystems) can never be, for the system as a whole, a by-product, a spin-off or a trickle-down of accumulation. The ecological end-use approach is essentially the socialist use-value approach. The starting point is human and ecological needand the redefinition of wealth. Questions of the distribution of wealth must followand will followfrom that. The focus of Jim and others on proletarianism and wage labour is very closely connected to this subordination of human development; todays working classes must ultimately put an end to cog-labour, and make sure that even routine labour is truly developmental. Decommodifying our lives is the great adventurestruggle. Democratic determination of use values is the great project of the 21st century. At the same time, a lot more material output of goods is gonna be needed to alleviate the misery of hundreds of millions. So the relations of production must be transformed totally. I agree with Yoshie that support for ongoing struggles is essential, but developing a large social vision is essential. In the name of diversity and difference, apparently feeling burned by its past association with vulgar Marxism, most of the left is retreating from the understanding of historical potentials that should be the lefts forte. The left is largely clueless about the political-economic alternatives to capitalism, and for this reason its stale statism does not ring true with many in the social movements who are already working to create alternatives. These alternativesin every sector of the economy and societyare not simply ecotopian dreams. The precondition for a real left-green synthesis is for the left to wake up to alternative forms of production geared to ecological community regeneration. ** Many on the left know about the experiments of which you speak. By forms of production, do you mean that in an engineering sense or is it similar to relations of production as commonly used by lefties? When the left can do this, it can be very effective in showing how eco-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. But will also become aware that a narrow focus on the state will be insufficient, and even counterproductive, for creating regenerative wealth. There needs to be new rules, and these new rules can institutionalize quite different processes than accumulation. ** Apart from the whole gender bias issue built into the idea of rules, if you are talking about the laws of property and contract under which ecologically benign technologies and social services are delivered to citizens, then you're talking about the state as enforcer of rules both in the making and remaking sense. And in fact they would have to discourage accumulation. Markets,
What Happened in Russia, by Ernie Tate
[Ernie Tate was a leader of the British Trotskyist movement in the 1960s, where he helped to build the Vietnam antiwar movement, and where he recruited Tariq Ali among many other radicalizing students and youth. He now lives in Canada where he is employed as a skilled worker. If I get a hold of Shepherd's piece, I will pass it along as well. Shepherd was a leader of the American Trotskyist movement who was purged in the early 1980s.] === Hello Louis, This is a piece I wrote for a discussion inspired by an article by Barry Shepherd. I thought you would like to see it. It was nice meeting you in New York. Best wishes, Ernie Tate === What Happened In Russia? a contribution to a discussion, December 11, 2000 by Ernest Tate I'm sure I was not alone among socialists during the period of Gorbachev and the final days of "peroistroika", thinking that this was perhaps the opening phase of the "political revolution" and that the Russian working class would not permit the bureaucracy to dismantle the gains of the Russian Revolution. The idea of "political revolution", the need for the working class to mobilize around a program of "workers control" to allow it to realize its full creative possibility to overcome the crisis of stagnation resulting from bureaucratic control, was an essential feature of the analysis of the USSR developed by Leon Trotsky. This program for political revolution, to which supporters of the "degenerated workers state" theory subscribed, encompassed some of the demands of the bourgeois democratic revolution such as freedom of speech and association, the right to strike, demands for workers control around which the working class would mobilize through workers councils, and wh! ich would pose the question of "political power". There is little evidence of political revolution in the processes of change in Russia and Eastern Europe since the collapse. Rather , the drive for change, especially political change, has tended to come from those layers in society who are outside the organized working class. Looking at some of the changes in Russia, especially in the decades before Gorbachev, we can understand why. From Kruschev in the early 1960s, social and economic changes under the bureaucracy began to cause its disintegration. Despite Kruschev's claims that they would bypass the standard of living of the capitalist countries, by the early 1970s targets of the central plan for economic growth and labour productivity were not met. Before 1960 rates of growth under the two five year plans were 14% and 11% a year, respectively, remarkably high when compared to Western capitalist economies. Projecting this growth rate into the future, Kruschev could, with some justification say the USSR would bypass capitalism. But the reality was something else. During the 70s and 80s, the Russian growth rate fell to under 4%, says David Lane in his book, The Rise and Fall of State Socialism. (1) At the same time, important demographic shifts in the population began to undermine the regime. Two thirds had become urban -- from 22,000,000 in 1922 to 186,800 in 1989. (2) In 1950, the number of employees categorized as "non-productive", that is non-manual employees, in such sectors as science, education, culture, health, insurance and tourism, totalled 6,260,000. In the space of 17 years, that figure had jumped almost four times to 23,812,000. (3) It was this demographic group that had the most important impact on the history of the last twenty years. There was the rapid growth of television and other means of communication. David Lane writes that , "The population's expectations rose: a consumer mentality matured as did the bourgeoisification of aspirations."(4) "This led to a more wide-spread receptivity to alternate conceptions of socialism at the same time as there was a pervasiveness of illegal as well as private economic activity." Among petty -bourgeois layers in the society there was an increase in the belief that they would capitalize their special skills in a market relationship. "It was a mechanism to realize intellectual capital in monetary terms." Lane says.(5) In general, there had been a deterioration in the standard of living of these layers, compared to the pre-war period. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of truck drivers earning much more that highly trained medical specialists. Loyalty and solidarity with the regime began to break down, especially among professionals, who had become disenchanted with their status: they were in turn cultivated by the leadership. Lane gives data on the sociological shift in the membership of the Communist Party from the late Breznev period to Gorbachev, towards non-manual and professional layers and the influx of these layers into the top leadership and a simultaneous decline in the number of individuals from working-class backgrounds. "The implication here," he says, "is that a dual class structure was developing in which
Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy
Justin wrote: I am not sure what the point of the study of scientific method is,a nd I am specially trained in it. There may not be a single point. I doubt if there is. Perhaps you had the wrong professors (and given your complaints about them, that seems likely). But you don't present an argument for this proposition that can be either endorsed or rejected, so we don't know if it's valid or not. But I am absolutely certain that philosophers have no insight denied to scientists about what counts as good science. If the philosophers say, good science must do X , nd the scientists say, sez who!, the scientists should win. So you think that having insights from outside of one's discipline never helps? At least in economics, I know that knowing that ideology plays a role in each of the major research programs. So it helps to pay attention to such things, while philosophical reflection helps us to find the balance between abstract model-building and empiricism. I also think that examining epistemological discussions helps us avoid such views as dogmatism and indeterminism. In biology, it's clear that method (including ideology) plays a role: look at Dawkins vs. Gould. A little discussion of what's wrong with reductionism would help the former a lot. Levins Lewontin apply a philosophical lever to pry out all sorts of important stuff in their DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST. They don't eschew philosophy at all. Even physics (the alleged king of the physical sciences), when it gets into speculative stuff like string theory or cosmology, could use some philosophical reflection, since the usual consensus is impossible to attain. Though THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE (by Bruce Greene) is quite revealing and even more brilliant, I think that it could have used some philosophical insight (such as concerning the relationships between parts and wholes or the nature of scientific inquiry) to make his exposition even clearer. The Lakatosian idea of competing research programs also seems to apply to the split between string theory and the "standard model," while Occam's Razor might decide the debate in favor of the former. I think it's better to have dialogue between different academic disciplines rather than to set them off in little overspecialized boxes (all made of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same). But even if the scientists insist on being positivistic jerks, those who study science can learn from philosophy, helping us choose which scientific theory or generalization is most valid. Unless we decide to be ruled by scientists, such insights from outside the scientific communities will be needed. So, you tell us what's good economics. Don't wait for us to tell you. This is an absurd dichotomy (tell us/wait for us to tell you). Why can't there be dialogue? That means it is up to you and your tenure committees. Sorry 'bout that. So you think that academia is beyond hope? Probably, but if one's only standards are those of the system, it leads to opportunism, cynicism, or worse. To paraphrase some dead old philosopher (who's likely to be ignored by analytical philosophers), unexamined research isn't worth doing. One of the reason why economics is bombarded by so much worthless research is because people do it simply to climb up the academic ladder rather than because they're genuinely interested in it. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
(no subject)
One of the reason why economics is bombarded by so much worthless research is because people do it simply to climb up the academic ladder rather than because they're genuinely interested in it. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine * Isn't it more accurate to say that economists "bombard" one another with useless theory driven facts because they [male bashing alert] enjoy setting up arguments in order to try and win them? The term academic ladder says it all. Productive dialogue/multilogue is rare, esp. in the US 'cause the king of the hill model of communication is so internalized. As for interdisciplinary dialogue...political ecology for 100 please, Alex. Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy
Jim Devine wrote: To paraphrase some dead old philosopher (who's likely to be ignored by analytical philosophers), unexamined research isn't worth doing. I'll be damned. You put some legitimate zing into a proposition that in the original was pretty vicious. To say the unexamined *life* is not worth living is to raise a very acute question re who gets to decide when a life is worth living. But *research*. No hubris, thought there may be sharp dispute, over proclaiming which research is or is not worth doing. Carrol
Korea: Bank's president under union siege over merger regarded as jobsthreat
SCMP Thursday, December 14, 2000 Bank's president under union siege over merger regarded as jobs threat B.J. LEE and AGENCIES in Seoul Hundreds of South Korean bank workers were last night laying siege to the bank's president in an attempt to stop him signing a merger agreement that could threaten their jobs. Kim Sang-hoon, president of Kookmin Bank, was blockaded in his office by about 200 union protesters, singing and chanting slogans. To read the full article, click here: http://www.scmp.com/News/ToBody.asp?Sec=BusinessAID=20001214003824998 --- SCMP.com is the premier information resource on Greater China. With a click, you will be able to access information on Business, Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. Bookmark SCMP.com for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong, China, Asia and the World. Voted the Best Online newspaper outside the US and brought to you by the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's premier English launguage news source. --- Copyright (c) 2000. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sino-US row flares
SCMP Thursday, December 14, 2000 Sino-US row flares CHRISTINE CHAN and AGENCIES China has reacted furiously to a United States decision to restrict textile imports from the mainland, raising fears of a trade war between the two. Chinese Government officials said they reserved the right to take "further" action in the dispute, which began when the US tightened import quotas by US$9 million this year. To read the full article, click here: http://www.scmp.com/News/ToBody.asp?Sec=BusinessAID=20001214003833206 --- SCMP.com is the premier information resource on Greater China. With a click, you will be able to access information on Business, Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. Bookmark SCMP.com for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong, China, Asia and the World. Voted the Best Online newspaper outside the US and brought to you by the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's premier English launguage news source. --- Copyright (c) 2000. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Korea: Bank's president under union siege over merger regarded as jobsthreat (fwd)
SCMP Thursday, December 14, 2000 Bank's president under union siege over merger regarded as jobs threat B.J. LEE and AGENCIES in Seoul Hundreds of South Korean bank workers were last night laying siege to the bank's president in an attempt to stop him signing a merger agreement that could threaten their jobs. Kim Sang-hoon, president of Kookmin Bank, was blockaded in his office by about 200 union protesters, singing and chanting slogans. To read the full article, click here: http://www.scmp.com/News/ToBody.asp?Sec=BusinessAID=20001214003824998 --- SCMP.com is the premier information resource on Greater China. With a click, you will be able to access information on Business, Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. Bookmark SCMP.com for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong, China, Asia and the World. Voted the Best Online newspaper outside the US and brought to you by the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's premier English launguage news source. --- Copyright (c) 2000. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Gore's concession speech
Gore's concession speech hardly helps the cause of those who want to use the closeness of the race to shift US politics to the left. It was patrician and patronising in tone and substance. Its overuse of quotations and dignified good humour was intended to signal that the New Democrats are the natural rational party of government. His closing remarks about wishing to fight for those who had been marginalised presented himself as a condescending saviour and would have done nothing to endear himself to the white male working class who voted massively for Bush [For example, among white men without a four-year college degree, [Bush] received 63 percent support and a whopping 29 point margin over Gore, up from a mere 7 points for Dole in 1996. Similarly, Bush carried white men with household incomes under $75,000 by 23 points, up from an 8 point Republican advantage in 1996.] The repeated pleas for national unity by Gore were an agenda presumably designed help Democrats on bipartisan committees to argue reasonable cases about a form of socialism that concentrates on distribution rather than control. While detailed technical work in policy committees will be an essential part of the struggle it can hardly be led by that. With the luxury of observing all this from outside the USA, my impression is that progressives should not be sectarianly opposed to the Democrats but should be making alliances that do not depend on the Democrats, to shift power structures in even a slightly more radical direction. Otherwise Bush will consolidate a bipartisan politics in Congress with flabby Democrats, and the radical right will be rampant again within a few years. Progressive campaigning needs to focus on issues, and include Democrats but not be restricted to Democrats. Meanwhile it is the job of the Democratic Party to get votes from poorly educated white males. Chris Burford London
