Re: Re: Gore's concession speech

[Chris Burford]

At 08:34 14/12/00 -0500, Nathan wrote:
>Gore's speech was pathetic- aimed at his own credibility although being the
>"good son", he probably believes a lot of that crap.
>
>So progressives need to just ignore Gore- the votes suppress belonged to the
>folks who were disenfranchised, not to Gore.  If he wants to write it all
>off as a good clean fight, that doesn't help but it doesn't stop
>progressives from organizing the fuck-you response for the future.


But with the embarrassed Jeb Bush moving as fast as anyone, to proclaim an 
agenda of constitutional reform, what chance is there of this sort of 
change being genuinely radical rather than reformist?

Jesse Jackson rang to congratulate George Bush, but does he speak for an 
effective movement which can insist that the USA's venerated democracy, 
really becomes more answerable to ordinary working people?

Chris Burford

London

Why Greenspan can cut interest rates

[Chris Burford]

I had meant to come back to Rob on his post of 7th December


Thought-provoking post, Chris!  (Although
I doubt you'll have convinced
Dennis)  I've been speculating Greenspan could quite soon reach a
point
where cutting interest rates would not be an available option (coz
he
couldn't afford all those helpful foreigners getting out of
dollars).  That
caught no-one's attention, and I'm beginning to suspect there's
something
about the greenback's power I don't understand.  

Greenspan of course has to calculate. But he has a significant wider
margin of error than Duisenberg and always will, because of the uneven
accumulation of capital on a world scale. That is what makes the
qualitative difference, even though arithmetically it is quite
marginal.

Because in any recession under capitalism, and the productive forces of
the world are operating far below their capacity, the rate limiting
factor is the limited purchasing power of the masses. So long as the US
economy has a relative advantage, which it does through a number of
factors, through shaking off the challenge to its technical lead, through
its plentiful supply of cheap labour, through the luxury of being able to
circulate its money throughout the world, at a cost borne by other
countries, not itself, then the USA will be gratefully seen as 

the purchaser of last resort.

So if the US is thinking of reducing interest rates, Duisenberg with a
more sluggish European economy, will be delighted to lower interest rates
too. The announcement will be made in bland, calming terms to suggest
this is all part of a wise consensus to manage the global system. Which
it is. The global system of capitalism, one of whose absolute laws, as
Marx emphasised in Volume I, is the uneven accumulation of capital.

Comments and criticisms appreciated.

Chris Burford

London 

Unemployment Rates in Japan

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

» The unemployment rate for October was 4.7%, unchanged from 
September.  The joblessness rate for men was 4.9% (+0.1), while that 
for women was 4.3% (-0.2).  The ratio of job openings to job 
applications was 0.64 (+0.02).

The national consumer's price index for October (1995=100) was 101.8, 
down 0.6 % from the corresponding month last year.  This is the 
largest deflation rate ever since the statistic was begun.  [Tada 
Taku, Tokyo; Dec 2000]


» The unemployment rate for December stood at 4.6 %, up 0.1 point 
from November.  The rate was 4.8 % (+0.1) for men and 4.3 % (+0.1) 
for women.  The average unemployment rate for 1999 was determined at 
4.7 %, up 0.6 point from 1998 and the record high since the 
statistics was started in 1953.

The Japanese joblessness rate exceeded the U.S. counterpart (4.2 %) 
for the first time.  The annual average ratio of job openings to job 
applications was determined at 0.48, down 0.05 from 1998 and a record 
low since the statistics was started in 1963.  [Tada Taku, Tokyo; 
February 2000]


» On Nov 28, the Ji-Kô-Ho [LDP, Kômei and Conservatives] ruling 
parties agreed to suspend 255 out of the 279 public works (including 
the reclaiming of the Naka-Umi inland sea) for which suspension had 
been recommended.  This will save 2.5 trillion yen in public 
expenditure.  14 of the public works will be continued despite the 
recommendation.  The decision on the enlargement of Fukui Airport was 
left with the judgment of the ruling parties, since Fukui Prefecture 
has demanded the continuation of the project in exchange for agreeing 
to the resumption of operations of a nuclear plant located in the 
prefecture.  [Tada Taku, Tokyo; Nov 2000]

Re: RE: reaching out

[Michael Perelman]

Yes, that is the very person.

On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 09:41:46PM -0800, Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
> John Breaux apologist for cancer alley.
> 
> Ian
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
> > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 8:58 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [PEN-L:6182] reaching out
> > 
> > 
> > Bush is interviewing John Breaux as Energy Secretary.  Isn't that a nice
> > form of reaching out to the other side, while allowing the Republican
> > governor to appoint a successor?
> >  -- 
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > Chico, CA 95929
> > 
> > Tel. 530-898-5321
> > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

European Parliament Backs Measures That May End Hostile Takeoversin EU

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

*   Financial Times (London)
December 14, 2000, Thursday USA Edition 1
SECTION: LEADER; Pg. 16
HEADLINE: LEADER: European parliament backs measures that may end 
hostile takeovers in EU
BYLINE: By DEBORAH HARGREAVES
DATELINE: STRASBOURG

The European parliament yesterday passed controversial changes to 
planned European Union legislation on company takeovers that could 
spell the end of hostile bids in the EU.

The changes would allow the management of a target company to take 
defensive action against a hostile bid without consulting 
shareholders.

They will be challenged by EU governments and the European 
Commission. But it is unclear what room there is for compromise.

The takeover directive has been under discussion for the past 10 
years. Without a compromise between EU governments and parliament in 
the formal conciliation period that follows, the Commission fears the 
measure will have to be abandoned.

"It is not the time for more political compromise. Everyone wants 
this directive, but there comes a point when it becomes much more 
damaging than none at all," said one financial services lobbyist.

The Commission had argued strongly against the changes. Officials say 
they defeat the main object of the directive, which is to protect 
shareholders and ensure that all investors are treated equally.

Frits Bolkestein, internal market commissioner, said he was 
disappointed. "The Commission will of course try to foster a 
compromise in the process of conciliation . .. but such fundamental 
changes from the text agreed by the council could put adoption of the 
proposal at risk."

Arlene McCarthy, a Labour MEP who voted against the changes, said: 
"We cannot accept 10 years' negotiation to be overturned and wrecked 
by a 10-minute debate in the European parliament."

Many of the changes were put forward by Klaus-Heiner Lehne, a German 
Christian Democrat MEP who was concerned that EU companies should 
have the chance to defend themselves against hostile bids from the US.

MEPs rejected a proposal that would have introduced more clarity into 
the compromise text reached among EU governments. This amendment 
would have specified the lead regulator in a hostile bid, while the 
current text says there should be shared responsibility between 
regulators on cross-border bids. Financial services representatives 
say the measure is unworkable.

Another amendment introduced by MEPs states that when a company has 
30 per cent of another's shares, it has effective control and must 
make a mandatory bid for the rest of the shares at the highest price 
over the past year. This is unlikely to be accepted by most 
governments.   *

*   The New York Times
December 14, 2000, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section W; Page 1; Column 6; Business/Financial Desk
HEADLINE: Europe Move On Hostile Takeovers Is Faulted
BYLINE:  By PAUL MELLER
DATELINE: BRUSSELS, Dec. 13

A ground-breaking law intended to speed up industrial integration in 
Europe was stymied today when the European Parliament approved a 
measure that would permit the managers of a European company to fend 
off a hostile takeover bid without the permission of the shareholders.

The Parliament also passed an amendment that would force companies to 
consult with unions or with their work forces before responding to a 
hostile bid and one that would oblige a target company to safeguard 
jobs when negotiating with an acquirer.

Members of the European Parliament have argued that empowering 
managers to fend off hostile approaches without the consent of 
shareholders is simply providing them with defensive measures similar 
to so-called poison pills that United States companies are allowed to 
use. They also argued that the measure would deter speculators from 
bidding up or down the price of the target company.

But those arguments were challenged by representatives of the 
investment industry, the European Commission and the British takeover 
watchdog, the Takeover Panel.

The measure was an amendment to a Europe-wide directive that had been 
approved by the European Council of Ministers to ease cross-border 
mergers and acquisitions in Europe.

"The European Parliament has adopted measures that would curb 
takeover activity in Europe, limit Europe's ability to adjust to 
becoming one single market, and in the long run harm the European 
economy" said Peter Montagnon, head of investment affairs at the 
Association of British Insurers, whose members together hold more 
than $1.6 trillion in investments around the world.

"It is deeply disappointing that the European Parliament has voted 
today to introduce fundamental changes to the long overdue takeovers 
directive" said the European Commissioner for the Internal Market, 
Frits Bolkestein.

By granting company managements the right to fend off hostile 
takeovers without shareholder approval, "management could act to 
defend their own, potentially narrower interests rather than being 
obliged 

Japan Confidence Index Ready to Fall

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

The New York Times
December 14, 2000, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section W; Page 1; Column 1; Business/Financial Desk
HEADLINE: Japan Confidence Index Ready to Fall, Study Says
BYLINE:  Reuters
DATELINE: TOKYO, Dec. 13

Confidence among Japanese executives has stalled and looks set to 
fall next year after two years of steady gains, a closely watched 
central bank survey showed today, signaling a slowdown in Japan's 
tepid recovery.

The main index in the Bank of Japan's quarterly survey, known as the 
tankan, showed confidence among large manufacturers at 10, unchanged 
from the previous reading in September and slightly worse than what 
economists had expected.

The index measures the percentage of companies that say business 
conditions are good minus those that say they are bad. A positive 
number means optimists outnumber pessimists. The survey, however, 
also found that executives expect sentiment to fall in the next 
tankan in March, which would be the first decline in two years.

"At the very least, the momentum is peaking out," said Peter Morgan, 
senior economist at HSBC Securities. "Whether we are going into 
recession is less obvious."

Economists said the survey of 9,010 companies, taken from Nov. 10 to 
Dec. 12, confirmed that an export-driven flurry of manufacturing 
activity was tapering off, while consumer spending, a major driver of 
the economy, continues to languish.

They said that the tankan showed capital spending still strong but 
that this would probably be scaled back in the next survey.

Finance Minister Kiichi Miyazawa said the result was no different 
from the government's own view.

"The tankan shows that company managers have a cautious outlook for 
the economy to next March," Mr. Miyazawa told reporters. "That is the 
same view the government has."

In another closely watched figure, the survey found big companies 
planned to increase spending on plant and equipment by 7.6 percent in 
the year to next March, revised up from a 6.0 percent rise in the 
previous tankan. That was the highest level for the December tankan 
since fiscal 1990, the Bank of Japan said.

Many economists say capital spending could be plowing ahead too fast 
given the increasingly grim outlook both at home and abroad.

"Capex expectations are very likely to be revised down in the next 
survey," said Ron Bevacqua, senior economist at Commerzbank 
Securities in Tokyo.

Japan's recovery has been led by rising corporate profits and capital 
spending on strong demand for information technology products, but a 
long-awaited recovery in personal consumption -- the biggest share of 
the economy -- has not occurred.

Economists said of particular concern was a drop in the index for big 
manufacturers of electrical machinery, whose profits have bulged from 
the global high-technology boom but who face uncertainty as American 
computer chip companies sound warnings on profits.

Still, most analysts doubted that the tankan would prompt the central 
bank to change course, and lower interest rates.

"A return to a zero-rate policy would require an economic collapse 
not just a cyclical slowdown and today's tankan just confirms a 
cyclical slowdown," said Hiromichi Shirakawa, chief economist at UBS 
Warburg in Tokyo.

RE: reaching out

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

John Breaux apologist for cancer alley.

Ian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 8:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:6182] reaching out
> 
> 
> Bush is interviewing John Breaux as Energy Secretary.  Isn't that a nice
> form of reaching out to the other side, while allowing the Republican
> governor to appoint a successor?
>  -- 
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> 
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

Orgasmic agriculture.

[Ken Hanly]

>From the Western Producer Dec. 7, p. 23

   The idea of growing crops without pesiticides is not new. What is new is
that farmers and researchers see an opportunity to market the concept of
pesitcide-free production.
   Proponents believe a market niche can be created somewhere between crops
grown organically and those grown conventionally.
 David Chapman, an independent broker who was formerly with United Grain
Growers said he is enthused:
"  'I think you have the world by the tail," he told the
workshop. "I get so excited when I think about pesticide free production I
nearly have an orgasm."


Further Comment by kh...Not all farmers were as turned on. One quarter of
the 37 farmers in the test project, got more excited by excessive weed
growth and began spraying before harvest. However 3 quarters made it
through. THe results are being evaluated and researchers are also trying to
determine if the pesticide free products can command a premium. Fertilizers
are still used as well as pre-emergent herbicides. Although some
participants see pesticide-free farming as a transition step towards organic
farming most are attracted by possible economic benefits. Herbicide costs
are skyrocketing averaging over 25 dollar (Canadian) an acre. With savings
of this magnitude even  with a reduced output per acre the practice could be
profitable.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

reaching out

[Michael Perelman]

Bush is interviewing John Breaux as Energy Secretary.  Isn't that a nice
form of reaching out to the other side, while allowing the Republican
governor to appoint a successor?
 -- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RE: Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Ken Hanly]

Well you are right there is certainly metaphor and simile as there is in the
later Wittgenstein but I do not see a literary purpose. For example W in the
Investigations imagines various language games. These have certain features
of  actual languages but lack others. The use of such a device is simply to
show that the logical structures of ideal languages are not the same as
those of ordinary lanuguage...and to counter the bewitchment of the
intelligence by models of how logical grammar must be...Are you seriously
suggesting that Hanson's work would be a good addition to an English lit
course?
I am just very upset  by the association of analytical philosophy with
English lit or Rhetoric. My remark about Rorty was a gratuitous insult...not
an ad hominem...I didnt say he is an ass hole therefore when he said x he
was wrong. That would be an ad hominem.
   CHeers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: Lisa & Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:41 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:6170] RE: Re: Re: analytical philosophy


>
> >
> > Well for many analytical philosophers interested in the philosophy of
> > science it is a type of conceptual analysis. What is a law in
> > science? What
> > is the subject matter of psychology? Mental events? What are they?
> > Happenings in the brain etc..etc. Nothing at all, like
> > phlogiston? What is a
> > cause? Is the concept important for science..etc.etc. What is a
positron?
> > Must basic particles exist or are they just useful constructs and
> > on and on.
> > Hardly the subject matter of English or rhetoric. Rorty is an ass
> > IMHO well
> > ok a pragmatist ass. Just read some analysts such as those I have
> > suggested.
> > It has bugger-all to do with rhetoric or English or interpretation of
> > textsRead anything by Norwood Russell Hanson.
> >  Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> ***
>
> Surely you don't mean to say there's no metaphor/simile/rhetoric in
Hanson's
> work? Why the ad hominem on Rorty? He's harmless enough that there's
little
> need to attack him.
>
> Ian
>
> "All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence
> you know."
> [Ernest Hemingway]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>

Re: Re: Question for the Lefties -- II

[Michael Perelman]

Maybe we should stop teaching David about Marxism until he makes good on
his promise to teach us more about bankruptcy.  Perhaps both areas of
expertise will become more valuable if the economy does in the direction
that the NASDAQ is pointing.
 -- Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question for the Lefties -- II

[Dennis Robert Redmond]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, David Shemano wrote:

> analysis?  In other words, if Marx and his successors were, as a theoretical
> and empirical matter, wrong about the contradictions of capitalism as an
> economic system, 

Which successors? I hope you realize that Marxism has *nothing* to do with
Stalin, Mao or the propagandists of *any* one-party state. Marx never put
a time-limit on the demise of capitalism; his point was that capitalism as
a system is amazingly productive, but also shockingly destructive, and
that this isn't because of a few bad people, but because accumulation for
accumulation's sake is problematic. He was a radical democrat, a supporter
of free association, a free press, free speech, trade unions and taxes on
the rich. 20th century Marxism featured Walter Benjamin, social democracy,
Theodor Adorno, J.P. Sartre, the civil rights movement, and many other
wonderful things.

-- Dennis

Re: Japan's unemployment

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Michael Perelman writes:

>I wonder how Japan's unemployment rate
>is trending over time.  I know when the
>bubble first burst of the bulk of the
>layoffs were confined to the smaller
>companies, while the large corporations
>sheltered their workers from
>unemployment.  That practice is now
>ceasing.  I tried to get Bill Tabb on
>board sometime ago, maybe I should try
>again.

It would be wonderful to have Bill Tabb here.

As for Japanese unemployment trends, the following article "Youth 
Employment and Parasite Singles" by Yuji Genda in _Japan Labor 
Bulletin_ 39.3 (March 1, 2000) tells us that increasing rates of 
unemployment are hidden under the cover of the bogus theory of youths 
lazily & voluntarily becoming "parasite singles" ("unmarried people 
who live with their parents even after graduation from university, 
and depend on their parents concerning basic living necessities," 
according to sociologist Masahiro Yamada, _Parasaito Singuru no Jidai 
[Days of the Parasite Single]_, Tokyo: Chikuma-shobo, 1999).

*   ...The employment situation of Japanese young people has been 
influenced by a major change in the unemployment rate among this age 
group since the latter half of the 1990s.  The unemployment rate for 
males under 25 years old has stayed around 10 percent for several 
consecutive months.  The Japanese unemployment rate has now overtaken 
that of the U.S., particularly for people in their 20s

 According to the Report on the Special Survey of Labour Force 
Survey in February 1999 (Statistics Bureau, Management and 
Coor-dination Agency), only 40,000 people who were unemployed but had 
previously been employed, had a university-level education and were 
aged between 45 and 54.  This figure accounts for a little more than 
one percent of the total number of three million unemployed people. 
Large proportions of the increased numbers of the unemployed are, in 
fact, young people and people aged 65 and older

... According to Yamada's calculations, based on figures from the 
national census, unmarried people aged 20-34 who live with their 
parents, the so-called parasite singles, total no less than 10 
million.  The number of such single people is most probably 
increasing across the country

... International comparisons show Japan has the highest ratio of 
single young adults living at home with their parents.  Where main 
sources of financial support in the advanced countries are concerned, 
post-adolescent young people in Sweden depend on the government, 
while their counterparts in the U.S. depend on no one in particular. 
In Japan's case, classified as unique, young people continue to rely 
on their parents

... Let us look at changes in the employment structure in the 1990s 
from a different viewpoint of trends in unemployment.  Figure 1 shows 
the ratios by age, of regular employees in the labor force.  While 
employment patterns are said to have diversified, the ratio of 
regular employees to the total labor force rose, although slightly, 
from 1991 to 1998.  In terms of age groups, however, the ratio for 
workers under 30 has fallen.  Regular employees make up less than 
half of the teenage labor force, while the ratio of regular employees 
for people aged 20-24 has declined by nearly seven percent.  On the 
other hand, all age groups of 30 or older saw an increase in the 
ratio.  In particular, the ratio for people aged 55-59 increased by 
seven percent

... There is one indication pointing to a change in labor demand: 
namely, trends in the ratio of newly graduated workers taken on by 
large companies.  This ratio is a barometer of how willing large 
companies - employers who generally offer higher wages - are to hire 
new employees.  The tendency for large companies to engage the 
younger generation is weaker.  Compared with the rate for the 
generation born in the latter half of the 1950s, that for the 
generation of teenagers in the first half of the 1980s is lower by 
more than 10 percent.  The rate for people aged 20-24 exceeded 20 
percent for a lengthy time, but it now has fallen far behind the rate 
for the generation born in the first half of the 1970s.  These trends 
imply that the employment situation for young people has been 
deteriorating due to a substantial drop in labor demand from large 
companies

... Japanese companies, particularly large ones, are seeing a rapid 
aging of their employees.  The ratio of employees 45 years old or 
over among full-time males at firms with 1,000 or more employees 
soared from 22 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 1998

... Although seniority is gradually losing its importance in Japanese 
firms, in large firms in particular, it continues to play a major 
role in determining wages.  While the seniority wage system is 
maintained, the further aging of employees will result in a 
substantial rise in labor costs.

While employment adjustment of middle-aged and elderly employees 
avoids the rise in labo

Japan's Profit Recovery

[Dennis Robert Redmond]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Peter Dorman wrote:

> Thanks, Dennis.  Can you provide some references?

The Nikkei Weekly has regular updates here; their November 27, 2000
issues, page one, says that net profits for 1,408 listed companies in
Japan's Nikkei index swung from a loss of 2.31 trillion yen in 1998 (about
$21 billion US) to a profit of 3.72 trillion in 1999, and then 7.83
trillion in 2000. Pretax profits are probably 50% higher than this,
judging from what I've seen in individual company accounts in the Toyo
Keizai Japan Company Handbook (available in most university libraries, or
see http://www.toyokeizai.co.jp/english/). Even Nissan is reporting record
profits these days.

-- Dennis

Re: Question for the Lefties -- II

[Ken Hanly]

Comments after numbered sections.
- Original Message -
From: David Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 8:01 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:6160] Question for the Lefties -- II


> Now that you have explained what capitalism is, please explain to me what
is
> wrong with capitalism.  The following questions come to mind:
>
> 1. Can you separate the economic analysis from the political/social
> analysis?  In other words, if Marx and his successors were, as a
theoretical
> and empirical matter, wrong about the contradictions of capitalism as an
> economic system, would that affect, in your view, the power of his
> criticisms of the effects of capitalism on human relations?  To put it
> another way, if Marx is wrong about the economics, what distinguishes Marx
> from say, John Ruskin?

Comment; This assumes you can separate out economic analysis but surely this
is just to reject the whole Marxist project which denies such separation.
This is not to deny that Marx underestimated the extent to which capitalism
could manage contradictions within the system. But managing contradictions
is not just "economics'" but includes managing relations of production,
keeping legitimacy within superstructural elements etc...


> 2. To the extent that your criticisms of capitalism are primarily
> political-social (e.g. capitalism generates inequality, competition is
> dehumanizing, etc.), to what extent is your argument dependent on a
specific
> understanding of human nature?  I am aware that lefties do not like
> sociobiology, because that field assumes/evidences a constant human nature
> that if true would call into question the possibility of the
> political/economic system that lefties seem to prefer.  Therefore, is it
> critical to your arguments that "bad" human behavior (competiveness,
greed,
> etc.) is a product of capitalist social/economic relations and such
behavior
> would not exist once social/economic relations were reconstituted?
>
Comment: No. It is not critical. HOwever some soviet Marxists did seem to
argue the sort of thing you suggest. Criminal behavior was always a result
of leftovers from capitalist upbringing and new socialist man (sic) in the
USSR had to be created...and bad behaviour would disappeaar. However, some
prime motives for criminal activity such as unmet basic needs would
presumably not exist under socialism. I can't for the life of me see why
crimes of passion etc. would not exist in socialist society.To think
otherwise is surely Utopian.

> 3. It appears to be a theme among many of you is that capitalism is
> problematic because the system produces goods and services based upon
> "demand" instead of "need."  As I understand it, the fundamental
> methodological assumption of neoclassical economics is radical
subjectivism,
> meaning that neoclassical economics is entirely neutral on what consumers
> demand and that "need" is an unintelligible concept -- if consumers demand
> an end to poverty and global warming, the market will eventually deliver
it.
> Is it your position that there is something inherently wrong with
capitalism
> that produces "incorrect" demand?  If so, doesn't that assume a prexisting

> ethical system that distinguishes "good demand" from "bad demand?"  If so,
> what is that ethical system?
>
Yes. And it is not just capitalism but any market system would do this;
however, market socialism would at least meet basic needs. I do not think
that one needs an ethical system to make the necessary distinction.
Surely people have basic needs for shelter, food, etc. as a necessary if not
sufficient condition of thriving or being happy---although of course certain
religous ascetics might deny this I assume you are not one of those. If nc
economics assumes that "need" is an unintelligible concept it just shows its
idiocy but nothing else  certainly not that the concept is unintellligbible.
A question for you. Are there no basic human needs? At the very least do we
not need some basic goods if we are going to thrive at all? Well if u admit
this why accept nc stupidity? When nc comes to welfare economics there
idiocy is self-evident..They have to launder preferences. After all some men
like to fuck little boys and we must be neutral about that...yeh sure But
then these are laundered, not counted...so there you go...

   The only relevant demand for nc economics is effective demand. Demand
backed up by bucks. If you dont have bucks you are fucked. Read all about it
in the section on the power of money in bourgeois society in Marx's
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts . The theology thus recommends
private charity to preserve the sanctity of free choice and prevent
redistribution as a means of feeding the hungry and housing the homeless.
You dont have to be a person who is lovable...you can buy it..etc. but
if you are lovable but not marketable you are shit out of luckjust
like me...I am in a bad mood tonight...Rorty is actually

Re: Question for the Lefties -- II

[Colin Danby]

Hello David,

Now you want us to fight each other.

But seriously, these *are* much-debated questions.  On (1), there are
many different ways to link the moral charge of Marx's writing to its
analytical content, many different ways and levels at which one may
accept or challenge the analysis.  Everyone on Pen-l has a different
take.  As for whether Marx was just another Victorian With An Opinion,
note that even conservatives like Schumpeter or Blaug who hate Marx's
politics affirm the analytical merit of his work.

On (2), as I think you grasp, the emphasis of at least the Marxian
tradition is structural  -- you start from the level of class; you do
not start with any category of human nature.  Individual behavior as
such simply is not the issue.  Some folks tack on human perfectibility
arguments; you don't need them.

There are also positions that affirm the importance of class and
capitalist exploitation, but deny it analytical and/or historical
primacy over systems of power and exploitation based on race or gender.
In that kind of framework, getting rid of capitalism wouldn't be enough.

(3) has been done to death.  I've argued in past weeks that the core
issue is not the content of one's desires but a system that gives some
people vastly disproportionate abilities to act on their desires, with
the result that a lot of people in the world are denied basic
well-being, dignity, and security.  In other words the ethical issues
exist on a social and indeed world scale, not at an atomistic individual
level.

While I can't channel Marx, I don't remember him arguing about wrong
preferences either.  As I emphasized in the last post,  the focus of his
critique is not on the composition of demand or on "the market," but on
how things are produced and who controls surplus.  People have tried,
but if you stuff Marxism into neoclassical categories the ginger goes
out of it.

Best, Colin

Japanese public works question

[Michael Perelman]

The problem is that while the appeal of
tax cuts is obvious, the benefits of
spending on infrastructure are more
vague until the system approaches a
total break down.  Once the system
reaches such a crisis the cost of repair
is greatly magnified.  As a result,
during the boom of the '90s which left
the majority of the people behind other
priorities have more popular appeal.

Public officials in the United States
still seem to be blissfully blind to the

importance of infrastructure in economic
performance.  In fact, in one case,
the United States is government is
behaving as if it believed that making
foreign nations spend more on
infrastructure would somehow give the
United
States a competitive edge.
 In 1989 during bilateral trade
negotiations, the United States
government
pressured the Japanese to agree to
increase its spending on
infrastructure.  In
fact, the Japanese spend a much greater
portion of their Gross National Product
on infrastructure, but because of high
population density, inadequate
infrastructure remains one of the
greatest weaknesses of the Japanese
economy.
 In the face of pressure from the
United States negotiators, the Japanese
acquiesced, promising to spend an
additional 0.8 per cent of their Gross
National Product on public works.  To
put this demand in perspective, the
United States only spends about 1 per
cent of its Gross National Product on
non-military public capital.
 The United States negotiators
mistakenly reasoned that, if the
Japanese
had to spend more money on
infrastructure, the Japanese saving rate
would
decline making their economy less
competitive.  Of course, this strategy
is
utterly self-destructive.  By demanding
that the Japanese devote more to public
works, while the United States continues
to neglect its own infrastructure, the
U.S. negotiators are all but
guaranteeing that the U.S. economy
become even
more uncompetitive relative to the
Japanese economy (Kanabayashi 1990).


--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Re: Re: Question for Lefties, and Left Green Synthesis

[Brian Milani]

>> 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.

***
>(Ian) Do you mean post-technological? If not, then what does
post-industrial mean?

I definitely don’t mean post-technological.  By postindustrial, I mean 
possibilities created by the industrialization of culture to replace
physical resources and cog-labour (the key elements of classical 
industrial development) with human creativity.  As people like Fred
Block (1979) and Martin Sklar (1969) have pointed out, a key threshold was 
in the twenties, when for the first time ever, there were declines in 
the person-hours even as output expanded.  Besides setting the scene 
for the structural overproduction crisis of the Great Depression and 
the chronic problems of effective demand since then, it signaled the
possibility of new forms of production geared to “higher” or nonmaterial
needs (something which capitalism has debased through its consumer 
economy). The rise of white collar and service work also signaled the
potential for freedom from cog-labour, and for growing cultural autonomy
of the working class.  As Radovan Richta wrote in 1968, the rise of
new productive forces based in knowledge, service, etc. also indicated
that the fastest way to achieve real material development is to focus
on the non-material dimensions of human creativity.
In the case of new possibilities for human work, for new levels 
nonmaterial-qualitative “consumption”, and even of providing for 
everyone’s material needs, capitalism, and its quantitative forms 
of development, have suppressed these potentials because capitalism,
like all class societies needs scarcity to exist.  That includes 
both the material/monetary scarcity that keeps people chained
to cog-labour or worse, and the cultural scarcity that keeps people
dependent on managers, politicians, experts, and even professional
artists.
An additional note: From an ecological point of view, another
way of looking at postindustrialism is John Lyle's insight that while
industrialism was a shift in prime productivity (and power) from the 
landscape to machinery, authentic postindustrialism would facilitate
a transition from machinery back to the landscape--but this time, in
the form of eco-infrastructure, living machines, distributed energy
generation, and (I would add) community-based production.   This is 
made possible by our knowledge of nature and increasingly 
decentralized technological forms--both of which are distorted by 
capitalism.

>(Ian):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.

No argument here.  Capitalism uses every means to keep things within
its property/commodity structure, even when it needs to use emerging
productive forces for its own purposes.  What’s important to understand,
though, is that for capitalism to do that in our current situation, it  
has to maintain a comprehensive suppression of productive forces.  It 
has to work against intrinsic potentials of postindustrialism. In an
earlier
period of industrial development--focused on primary needs for food, 
shelter, clothing, and basic infrastructure--capitalism still served 
to contribute to a massive development of productive forces.  It may
have been very unfair and exploitative, but the working class could
hardly argue with the nature of wealth at that time.  It was a very
material thing.
Today, and for the last many decades, the movement of 
industrialization into the realm of culture has changed everything, and 
capitalism has become an ever more reactionary system, since its 
survival depends on suppression of the primary productive forces of 
our era.  It seems somewhat of a paradox that keeping things defined
in a material way is capitalism’s means of perpetuating material  
scarcity --but it’s a fact.  Completing quantitative development means
embarking on qualitative 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.
 It’s 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

Re: Affirmative Action Plan Is Upheld at Michigan

[Justin Schwartz]

Good news. We will see what the Sixth Circuit does. In the meantime, I am 
certianly glad to be wrong in this way! --jks

>
>>It's virtually certain that affirmative action in public higher
>>education is doomed. I cannot imagine the 6th Circuit coming out in
>>favor of it. Even the normally liberal 1st Circuit rejected it.
>>
>>--jks
>
>What do you think of the news below?
>
>*   New York Times 14 December 2000
>
>Affirmative Action Plan Is Upheld at Michigan
>
>>Yoshie
>

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

Anyway, I think that philosophers can do everything they ever could; only,
they cannot set the bounds to knowledge or presume to dictate to scientists
what the scientists may do as far as science goes.

--jks
**

Better to leave that to the lawyers in the [in]Justice dept., the DEA, the
FBI, the CIA, the NSA etc. telling scientists what they can and cannot do
with creating/discovering, for example, neuromolecular tools for generating
novel cognitive and emotional dynamics. A fine tradition stretching back to
the founding of the Royal Society.

Ian

"Truth to be truth must be true of something, and this something itself is
not truth." [FH Bradley]

"The qubit is nature's way of hiding infinity in a coin-toss." [Gerard
Milburn]

RE: Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

>
> Well for many analytical philosophers interested in the philosophy of
> science it is a type of conceptual analysis. What is a law in
> science? What
> is the subject matter of psychology? Mental events? What are they?
> Happenings in the brain etc..etc. Nothing at all, like
> phlogiston? What is a
> cause? Is the concept important for science..etc.etc. What is a positron?
> Must basic particles exist or are they just useful constructs and
> on and on.
> Hardly the subject matter of English or rhetoric. Rorty is an ass
> IMHO well
> ok a pragmatist ass. Just read some analysts such as those I have
> suggested.
> It has bugger-all to do with rhetoric or English or interpretation of
> textsRead anything by Norwood Russell Hanson.
>  Cheers, Ken Hanly

***

Surely you don't mean to say there's no metaphor/simile/rhetoric in Hanson's
work? Why the ad hominem on Rorty? He's harmless enough that there's little
need to attack him.

Ian

"All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence
you know."
[Ernest Hemingway]









>

Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Justin Schwartz]

I would not speak for philosophers in general. I wouldn't be confident that 
even Anglo-American philosophers have all or mostly given up their Method 
Police badges. I am speaking for myself, and for an approach I picked up in 
no small part from Rorty; it was pretty common at the places where I studied 
and taught, influenced by neopragmatism. As far as when it came about, I'd 
say with the demise of logical empiricism, the somewhat more liberal 
successor to logical positivism, in the face of various attacks; maybe obe 
would date it somewhere between 1970a and 1980, earlier than 1980.

A few years back there was a lot of talk, largely provoked by Rorty's more 
grandiose claims, about what is left of philosophy if neopragamtism is 
right. Avner Cohn did a good anthology on the subject; I forget the title. 
Unsurprisingly, I do not go with Rorty's extreme skepticism. I think 
pragmatism is muchj more modest and less interesting than R thinks it is. In 
fact, I think pragmatism is consistent with hard-boiled scientific realsim 
(which I espouse), metaphysical truth of the correspondence sort (which I 
believe in), objectivity about morality (which I defend), and lots of stuff 
R thinks is baggage taht pragmatism has got rid of. It is also consistent 
with the rejection of those doctrines.

My own view is that R tries to set pragmatism up as a sort of Method Police 
himself. "Hey, you! Don't go there, corres[pondance truth is off bounds 
these days!" My own view is more like: show me what you got! See if you can 
make it walk and talk!

The relevance of thia to the question about what philosophy can be today is: 
whatever it ever was. Partly R is right that philosophers are ministers with 
travelling portfolios who can learn a little bit about a lot of things and 
see them from a middle distance taht practioners often can't; they are too 
close.

Partly philosophers are trained in a  literature and a textual tradition 
that others aren't and that addresses questions that interest others as well 
as only themselves. As such they know a lot of moves and pitfalls that 
people can learn more easily from them than having to disvover, painfully, 
for themselves. This doesn't giove us the ability to say,"Don't go there!" 
But in many cases we can say we know what happens if you DO go there.

Anyway, I think that philosophers can do everything they ever could; only, 
they cannot set the bounds to knowledge or presume to dictate to scientists 
what the scientists may do as far as science goes.

--jks

>Justin:
>
JKS: philosophers cannot tell scientistr What Is Good Method.
>>>
>>>JD They can tell them, but only a small number will listen.
>>
>>I was unclear. I meant: We _should_ not tell them. We have no
>>special knowledge. No one appointed us the method police.
>
>I think you're right, but philosophers used to think that they had
>special insight into the nature of knowledge production.  When do you
>think that philosophers decided that they really didn't?  Moreover,
>if philosophy is not the master of all disciplines, telling us the
>truth of truths as it were, what is philosophy & what is the job of
>the philosopher?  All is rhetoric, as Rorty says?  Should Philosophy
>be subsumed under English & Comparative Literature, which in turn
>should be subsumed under History?
>
>Yoshie
>

_
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

Japan's unemployment

[Michael Perelman]

I wonder how Japan's unemployment rate
is trending over time.  I know when the
bubble first burst of the bulk of the
layoffs were confined to the smaller
companies, while the large corporations
sheltered their workers from
unemployment.  That practice is now
ceasing.  I tried to get Bill Tabb on
board sometime ago, maybe I should try
again.

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Pessimism among Small Companies & Weak Household Spending in Japan

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Business Week
October 23, 2000
SECTION: BUSINESS OUTLOOK; JAPAN; Number 3704; Pg. 38
HEADLINE: STEADIER, BUT STILL WOBBLING
BYLINE: BY JAMES C. COOPER & KATHLEEN MADIGAN

A more optimistic corporate sector and a rising index of leading 
indicators offer some evidence that Japan's recovery is firming up. 
But pessimism among small companies and weak household spending point 
to large pockets of weakness. Until all sectors participate, Japan's 
recovery will continue to look fragile, although the economy should 
grow 2% this year.

The August leading index jumped to 71.4% from 55.6% in July. It was 
the index' third consecutive month above 50%, a signal that the 
economy is growing (chart). In other good news, the Tankan Survey for 
the third quarter showed that confidence among large manufacturers 
rose for the second quarter in a row. That optimism, as well as a 
better outlook for profits, is feeding a 13.8% planned increase in 
capital spending for the year ending March, 2001. The mood among 
smaller businesses, however, continued to show more pessimism than 
optimism, although the gap is a bit narrower than in the second 
quarter.

Consumers are beginning to feel more upbeat about the economy, but 
they aren't boosting their purchases yet. Real household spending 
dropped 2.3% in August, the fourth consecutive monthly decline. 
Compared with a year ago, spending is down 4.1%, continuing a 
three-year downtrend.

Part of the better household mood is the rise in jobs, thanks to 
government work programs. Japan's jobless rate in August fell to 4.6% 
from July's 4.7%. The rate had hit a record high of 4.9% in March. 
Pay gains, however, have been volatile. Wages grew from April to 
June, only to drop again in both July and August. To increase demand, 
the government is going ahead with a planned stimulus package later 
this year.

Certainly, policymakers must welcome the optimism among Japan's large 
corporations. However, keep in mind that large companies also turned 
upbeat in 1997 on the hopes for a sustainable Japanese recovery. But 
when consumers continued to cut back on their spending, the economy 
declined again in 1998. And business confidence tanked along with it.

Deflation Persists in Japan (was Japan's Debt)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Again to Jim D.:

>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.

This is old news, but

*   Financial Times (London)
October 20, 2000, Friday London Edition 1
SECTION: ASIA-PACIFIC; Pg. 13
HEADLINE: ASIA-PACIFIC: Japan puts up growth forecast to 1.5 per cent
BYLINE: By GILLIAN TETT
DATELINE: TOKYO

The Japanese government yesterday raised its forecast for growth, 
claiming its new stimulus package would boost the rate of expansion.

The revision came as the government confirmed the package would total 
Y3,900bn (Pounds 25bn) in terms of real spending, or Y11,000bn if all 
the additional measures are included that do not involve new spending.

This is the 10th package the government has announced in a decade. 
These packages have brought its stimulus spending to more than 
Y120,000bn, and helped raise Japan's debt to gross domestic product 
towards 130 per cent, the highest ratio in the industrialised world.

The Economic Planning Agency yesterday said that the latest round of 
spending would raise the overall rate of growth by 1.2 percentage 
points. Consequently, it raised its forecast for growth in fiscal 
2000 to 1.5 per cent from 1 per cent, slightly below most private 
sector forecasts.

However, in a move that indicates the problems still dogging the 
Japanese economy, the EPA also revised down its price forecast. It 
now expects consumer prices to fall by 0.3 per cent over the next 
year, instead of rising by 0.3 per cent, as earlier projected.

This price projection is in line with recent CPI data, though many 
economists suspect that this is understating the level of price 
decline: recent GDP deflator figures, for example, have suggested 
that prices are falling by almost 2 per cent a year.

However, the EPA price projection is embarrassing for the Bank of 
Japan, since the central bank has recently been suggesting that 
deflationary pressures are disappearing in the economy. Partly as a 
result of this, it raised overnight interest rates from around zero 
to 25 basis points in August.

And further falls in prices will make it even harder for Japan to 
tackle its debt problems, as nominal GDP is now growing at a much 
slower pace than real GDP. The EPA yesterday suggested that nominal 
GDP would be only 0.4 per cent this fiscal year, compared with an 
earlier projection of 0.8 per cent.

"It is now official - deflation persists," said Jesper Koll, 
economist at Merrill Lynch.

In spite of this, Kiichi Miyazawa, the finance minister, yesterday 
pledged that the government would try to make this year's stimulus 
package the last.

The government yesterday said the budget would be an "IT budget", 
since most funds are going to IT programmes, urban infrastructure, 
environment and services for the elderly. Of the Y3,900bn spending, 
Y2,500bn will be spent on so called "social infrastructure", Y100bn 
on promoting IT education, Y400bn on natural disaster measures, 
Y800bn to help small companies and Y100bn to combat unemployment. 
*

Yoshie

Invisible Men in Japan

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

The New York Times
December 3, 2000, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 6; Page 86; Column 1; Magazine Desk
HEADLINE: Invisible Man; The Pretenders
BYLINE:  By Howard French; Howard French is the Tokyo bureau chief 
for The New York Times.

Walking down a crowded street in Tokyo, it is impossible to know if 
that well-dressed man you just passed actually has a job or is just 
pretending to go to work. When Japan's economy collapsed in 1989, 
unemployment, unheard of in the country's postwar boom, hit hard, 
jumping from 1 percent then to 5 percent today. Though the saddest 
effect of the cataclysm is Japan's rising suicide rate, its strangest 
is the number of former salarymen who haunt the business districts of 
downtown Tokyo, unable to stay home or in their neighborhoods between 
the morning and evening rush hours. These men -- and they are all men 
-- are the newly unemployed. They are as elusive as body snatchers, 
rising early every day, donning white shirts and knotting their ties 
before setting out for jobs they no longer have. Some have not yet 
found a way to tell their wives and families the bad news. Others are 
afraid their neighbors will find out. Nearly all have given up hope 
of a better future: they are middle-aged in a country that hires 
young and, until recently, for life. This is not the land of second 
chances.

Invisible men are hard to find. But if you ask around enough, you 
inevitably find yourself in a small library on the edge of Tokyo's 
lush and tranquil Hibiya Park, a place of gurgling fountains, 
manicured formal gardens and beds of perfect tulips and crocuses. The 
library, a neat four-story brick structure vaguely reminiscent of an 
American public school building circa 1960, has become an 
air-conditioned asylum for the out-of-work, a resting place for the 
decommissioned foot soldiers of Japan's economic boom.

When I enter the building, I am struck by the number of men who sit, 
bowed, in the large, brightly lit reading rooms or secluded amid 
musty stacks. On the third floor, I pause to admire the newspaper 
racks, gorgeous wooden A-frames set up on the open, polished floor. A 
largish man in a blue suit and shiny black shoes stands nearby, 
savoring the Tokyo broadsheets, as unhurried as if he were enjoying a 
Sunday brunch. The morning's papers capture Japan's free fall in 
cinematic slow motion with headlines about an accidental mass food 
poisoning by a milk company; two deaths as a result of malpractice at 
a major hospital; and a raid on the construction ministry by 
prosecutors investigating kickbacks.

Slowly easing up to him, I excuse myself for disturbing his reading, 
and then pose the question. There is no other way. "Yes, I am out of 
work," he answers matter-of-factly. When I ask if he might spare a 
few minutes to talk about it, he suddenly grows jumpy, but then, 
almost hurriedly, accepts. "I'll meet you downstairs," he says. 
"There is a cafeteria in the basement." The library has a spiral 
staircase, and as I round the bend, I glance back at him. He looks up 
as he collects his belongings and says calmly, reassuringly, "Don't 
worry, I won't run away."

A score of other men at Hibiya Library were never willing to talk for 
more than an uncomfortable minute or two; the newspaper reader, 
though comparatively forthcoming, is nevertheless guarded -- speaking 
only on condition of anonymity and refusing to say with precision 
even where he lives. Still, in the stark cafeteria, he tells a story 
he has kept secret for two years.

In 1998, the huge commercial real estate firm the man worked for as a 
property appraiser announced that it was making some changes. "One 
day we came to work and learned that they had reshuffled all of the 
personnel and changed our pay system," he says. The moves, he adds in 
a monotone, "were intended to make sure that you never got another 
pay raise again. They began replacing experienced people with cheap 
hires. And they told us, 'If you don't like it, you can simply 
leave."'

At the same time this was happening, the appraiser learned that he 
was ill. "I was hospitalized for colon cancer," he says, taking a sip 
of tea. "And after I was discharged, I was told by my superiors that 
if your health is not good, that will be a problem. Finally, it 
seemed as if they had found a good enough reason to get rid of me. 
They said it would take too long for me to recover and return to work 
in good condition."

The man and the real estate firm parted ways. He stayed at home, 
where his mother cooked and cleaned for him. But the uneasiness began 
to mount. He was 48. He had no wife and no children. He had no 
hobbies and played no sports. He had few friends outside work, and no 
friends, like him, who were unemployed. Career and company had been 
everything. "Suddenly, I couldn't imagine what I would do next," he 
says, running his fingers through his thinning hair. "Income was not 
the problem. The question was, What c

If the US Economy Slows Down....

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Financial Times (London)
December 13, 2000, Wednesday London Edition 1
SECTION: COMMENT & ANALYSIS; Pg. 25
HEADLINE: COMMENT & ANALYSIS: It's not the end of the world: If the 
US economy slows down, the global economy would falter but a sensible 
international response could avert disaster

Think the unthinkable. Suppose the US economy were to fall into 
recession. The probability is uncertain, but bigger than zero. Since 
it is good to be forearmed, let us examine what this might mean for 
the world.

Assume that the US private sector financial deficit, now at a record 
level of almost 6 per cent of gross domestic product, went into 
reverse, as the share of investment in GDP fell and the savings rate 
rose. Over the long term, the private sector financial balance has 
averaged not a deficit, but a surplus of between 2 per cent and 3 per 
cent of GDP. A return to the historic mean would entail a huge 
reduction in demand. An overshoot, quite normal during recessions, 
would generate a still bigger fall.

If the shift happened quickly, a recession would be inevitable. But 
it would be cushioned by a weaker fiscal position and an improvement 
in the current account. A conceivable outcome would be elimination of 
the current account deficit, along with a big budget deficit.

What might this scenario mean for the world? This was examined in my 
article, "The mother of all meltdowns", referred to in my column last 
week (FT, December 6) on the risks of a hard landing.* The means by 
which a US recession would be spread to the world are four: trade; 
capital flows and exchange rates; commodity prices; and contagion.

Start with trade. Suppose that a US recession reduced imports of 
goods and services by 20 per cent in real terms and raised exports 5 
per cent, over just a few years. Such an adjustment would be the 
smallest needed to eliminate the current account deficit.

Direct demand for the rest of the world's output would be reduced by 
about 1.3 per cent over the relevant adjustment period. The effect 
would be biggest on Canada, Malaysia, Mexico and Thailand, where the 
direct impact of the shift in trade balances on GDP would be between 
3 per cent and 8 per cent of GDP.

Yet these are exceptional cases. The direct reduction in the GDPs of 
the western hemisphere and developing Asia would be about 2 per cent, 
although there would be a bigger effect on Hong Kong, South Korea, 
Singapore and Taiwan.

Central and eastern European countries in transition would not be too 
hard hit by the trade effect, since they do vastly more of their 
trade with the European Union: Poland exports as much to Denmark as 
it does to the US. The direct impact on the euro-zone, Japan and the 
UK would also be small - a little over minus 0.5 per cent of GDP. 
Only 2.3 per cent of the euro-zone's GDP is exported to the US; for 
the UK, this ratio is 2.8 per cent; for Japan, it is 3.1 per cent.

Thus, provided the US trade adjustment occurred over a few years, 
most countries should easily avoid recessions caused directly by 
changes in trade balances.

The second channel would be a weak dollar. If inward capital flows 
were interrupted, as seems probable, the dollar could fall by a 
third, or even more, against the yen and the euro. Similar declines 
have occurred in the past. The fall would be accelerated by the 
inevitable reduction in short-term US interest rates. The currencies 
of most emerging market economies would presum-ably weaken with the 
dollar. Argentina would be ecstatic.

A serious weakening of the dollar would create a big challenge for 
Japan. The Bank of Japan might be forced to support open-ended 
exchange-rate intervention. The euro-zone would also be squeezed by a 
falling dollar. But it is in a far more comfortable position than 
Japan. Provided the European Central Bank cut interest rates 
promptly, it could shield the euro-zone and help stabilise the world 
economy.

The third channel would be commodity prices, particularly oil. A big 
US slowdown would have a powerful effect. The oil market, in 
particular, is finely balanced, with price-elasticities of demand 
very low in the short term. Oil prices could weaken quickly. This 
would reduce inflationary pressure, making it easier for the Federal 
Reserve and other central banks to respond. Lower oil prices would 
also directly benefit many emerging market economies but damage the 
prospects of oil-exporting countries.

The last and almost certainly most important channel would be 
financial. The biggest danger is contagion, particularly via stock 
markets. With the exception of the Japanese stock market, markets 
have long tended to take their cue from Wall Street. Canada and the 
UK would be particularly hard hit because of their close links to 
Wall Street. But in 1999 the ratio of stock market value to GDP in 
the euro-zone was half that of the US or the UK. Moreover, most of 
these holdings are corporate, not personal. Thus, even a steep 
decline i

If the US Goes Down Sharply It Will Drag the Rest of the Worldwith It

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

The Independent (London)
December 8, 2000, Friday
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 22
HEADLINE: AMERICAN CONSUMERS KEY TO UK SOFT LANDING;
THE STOMACH SAYS THAT IF THE US GOES DOWN SHARPLY IT WILL DRAG THE 
REST OF THE WORLD WITH IT
BYLINE: Hamish Mcrae

IT IS one of those periods when the background noise tends to drown 
out the new signals. Hardly a day passes without some new evidence of 
a slowdown somewhere in the world. The list is relentless: poor 
computer sales in the US; a fall in German industrial output; even 
slower growth in Japan; new fears of bankruptcies in East Asia.

As so often there is too much information of too low a quality. But 
three things do seem to be quite new. First and most obvious has been 
the collapse of the New Economy dream. This has led, second, to a 
marked shift of opinion in the US about the possibility of recession. 
And third, also to some extent associated with worries about the 
hi-tech economy, there are growing concerns about the stability of 
the world banking system.

The US has become the focal point for worries about a hi-tech led 
slowdown. This sector has been driving the US economy during its 
recent growth spurt: take out hi-tech and the US would be growing at 
about 2 per cent a year, not 4 per cent plus. Put another way, all 
the hi-tech companies have to do is to grow at a normal rate - say 
5-10 per cent a year instead of 20- 30 per cent - and the US suddenly 
becomes a slow-growth economy.

The shift would be exacerbated were hi-tech companies forced to make 
sudden cuts in their own investment, for this would in turn undermine 
other parts of the hi-tech economy. The market for PCs has reached 
something close to saturation. Is it possible that the market for, 
say, servers will do the same in the next couple of years?

Until recently there was reasonable confidence that America could 
make that transition in an orderly way: in the jargon, to achieve a 
soft landing rather than a hard one. There still is confidence. A 
typical view is that of the bank JP Morgan, which has just increased 
the odds on a hard landing from 35 to 40 per cent. So, that is still 
a minority possibility but it is an uncomfortably large one. The more 
talk there is of recession the more likely there is to be one.

The Federal Reserve will meet these concerns by cutting interest 
rates. Its chairman, Alan Greenspan, said as much earlier this week. 
So the key question is whether cuts in rates will be sufficient to 
sustain the economy. Assume a couple of quarter-point cuts, one in 
the spring, one in the autumn, as Merrill Lynch does, and you can 
still see the US growing at more than 3 per cent next year. But if 
there were a more general loss of confidence in the New Year, then 
growth would ratchet down and US corporate profitability would be 
savaged. Merrill Lynch sees a squeeze on profitability, rather than a 
recession, as the key risk.

JP Morgan, by contrast, focuses on the rise in the number of jobless. 
US household savings are now negative. That is sustainable in the 
short-run, for there are plenty of historical examples in other 
countries where household savings have dipped below the waterline for 
a year or two. But it is only sustainable while people feel they can 
earn their way out of trouble. The threat is rising unemployment. On 
the graph, the JP Morgan team has plotted the rise in jobless numbers 
in the early 1980s and early 1990s recessions. If the 2000 line were 
to continue the US would be on track for a disagreeable 18 months.

How long before we know?

My guess would be that by about March we should have a very good feel 
for whether the US is heading into a recession akin to that of the 
early 1980s or early 1990s. They were different: the former was 
nasty, the latter pretty mild. For the moment the strong balance of 
probability is towards the milder end of the spectrum, if indeed 
recession does come.

If it does come, will it spread? To some extent of course it will. 
During the last few days the dollar has fallen sharply against the 
euro, reflecting the market expectation that next year could be the 
first for a decade when US growth is lower than European. But 
eurozone growth is slackening too and has in any case been dependent 
on the strong US market. Consumer confidence is in general still 
high, though not as high as it was last summer. The fundamental 
imbalances in Europe (including the UK) are less marked than they are 
in the US. So the mind says that barring accidents Europe ought to 
weather recessionary pressures better than the US. Trouble is the 
stomach says that if the US goes down sharply it will drag the rest 
of the world with it. The stomach also says that the UK will be in 
its usual midatlantic position, performing half way between the US 
and continental Europe - though the mind says that we ought to come 
through the next global slowdown in pretty good shape.

Recessions are usually associated with financial crises. As is

Japan Lacks Political Will to Save Ailing Economy

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

The Independent (London)
November 30, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 22
HEADLINE: JAPAN LACKS POLITICAL WILL TO SAVE AILING ECONOMY
BYLINE: Diane Coyle

IT IS HARD to argue that Yoshiro Mori, Japan's prime minister, 
deserved to survive the recent attempted no-confidence vote in his 
leadership. After all, he appears to have derailed the tentative 
economic recovery, wiped a fifth off the value of the stock market 
and nearly halved the country's trade surplus. The world's second 
-biggest economy has now suffered a decade of stagnation. As Paul 
Krugman, the eminent US economist, put it, even before Mr Mori made 
his own personal contribution to this calamity: "Japan's economic 
officials have subtracted value from their nation, and the world as a 
whole, on a truly heroic scale."

A year or six months ago, it was starting to look as though there was 
finally some light at the end of the tunnel. There were 
quarter-on-quarter increases in GDP after five straight quarters of 
falling output. Price deflation slowed down. Even negative indicators 
such as rising unemployment and an increased number of corporate 
bankruptcies could be read as a healthy sign, as they suggested 
necessary economic restructuring was starting to take place. 
Similarly, the fact the trade surplus started to fall at least 
suggested that Japan was becoming more open to imports from overseas 
and that domestic demand was robust enough for consumers and 
companies to continue buying imported goods.

However, the budding signs of a return to growth have since withered 
away. Figures earlier this week showed retail sales declined in 
October for the 43rd month running, reaching a level 2.4 per cent 
lower than a year earlier. And senior politicians from the ruling 
Liberal Democratic Party met earlier in the week to discuss what 
could be done about recent share price falls. The broad TSE300 index 
has declined 20 per cent since midsummer.

Some economists have raised their odds on Japan toppling back into 
technical recession. And this is despite the continuing painful 
process of cleaning mountainous bad debts off the balance sheets of 
the banking system, and an unprecedented series of expansionary 
budgets to keep stimulating the economy. The ratio of net government 
debt to GDP has doubled in two years, according to official figures. 
But these, showing a ratio of 40 per cent, exclude off-balance sheet 
liabilities which take the figure up to 120 per cent and rising fast.

That government debt is so high almost certainly makes any further 
fiscal stimulus counter-productive. Additional government borrowing 
will only put upward pressure on long-term interest rates. One of the 
lessons macroeconomists have learnt from the US and even UK 
experience during the 1990s is what a powerful economic stimulus 
reducing the level of government debt can be. High public sector 
borrowing does crowd more productive private sector borrowers out of 
the capital markets.

That leaves monetary policy as the only remaining macroeconomic tool. 
The Bank of Japan (BoJ) spent much of the early part of this year 
itching to push the zero short-term interest rate higher, finally 
doing so on 11 August, thereby rejecting a formal request from the 
government to postpone the decision.

However, the most expansionary monetary policy possible is a sine qua 
non for Japan's economic recovery. Professor Krugman has suggested 
the BoJ ought actually declare a positive inflation target in an 
attempt to prevent further deflation. The reason is that the economy 
needs radical structural reforms whose short-run effects will be to 
increase uncertainty, sap confidence and generally undermine growth. 
The most dynamic political system finds it difficult to accommodate 
such changes - watching the continental European economies undertake 
changes to pensions, employment laws, competition policy and so on 
makes that perfectly obvious. It can be even more difficult to be 
radical when there is simply no growth to cushion the pain.

For the problem in Japan is not so much one of economics as politics. 
There is a broad consensus among economists about the necessary 
policies. They include opening the country more to imports and 
investment from overseas, continuing banking restructuring, and the 
shake-up of the cosy old relationships in the corporate sector, 
introducing a more vigorous competition policy, deregulation, and, as 
all could harm growth short term, against a background of a loose 
monetary policy.

However, Mr Mori's opinion poll ratings have slumped to 18 per cent 
and he narrowly survived the no-confidence vote only because rebels 
in his own party abstained at the last minute. It is hard to see him 
deciding to go ahead with a more radical structural shake-up of the 
economy that would close businesses and put more people out of work.

There is some New Economy-style hope for Japan. The strongest element 
of demand growth this year has been i

Ian intervenes

[Jim Devine]

[was: Re: [PEN-L:6153] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 
Re:  analytical philosophy]

I wrote:
>  you don't think that issues such as "the nature of knowledge" is  a 
> subject  matter?

Ian writes:
>Your use of quotes gives you away, Jim. There have yet to be created, 
>amongst pragmatists and other schools, transhistorical, immediately given, 
>criteria for establishing knowledge claims. There is a long history of 
>argument about issues in the topics you list above but don't expect 
>agreement anytime soon.

I wasn't expecting any agreement.

I wrote:
>  It shouldn't be to someone who's studied philosophy. The philosophy 
> of  economics (meta-economics?) examines the unexamined premises 
> of  economists  (hidden in their models & empirical work) while we can 
> imagine that  "meta-economics" would itself require investigation.

Ian writes:
>Ad infinitum with the permanent possibility of dissensus. Disagreement as 
>a badge of honor...politics.

yup. meta-economics reveals ideology.

I wrote:
>Philosophers have no special knowledge? then shut the departments  down 
>and  force their members to go to law school! is there no contribution 
>that  philosophers have made?

Ian writes:
>Better yet, shut down the law schools too. They have no special "insight" 
>into knowledge nor are they more virtuous than the rest of us. So why the 
>fuck we let them tell us how to live while they wear black [lovers of 
>death and power, them judges]. ...

It would be nice to get rid of judges and lawyers. However, that doesn't 
seem feasible. At least in class society, they're inevitable, like death & 
taxes.

I wrote:
>  _Of course_, no one appointed the philosophers as "method police"  and I 
> was  NOT arguing that they should be. What I was trying to say was 
> that  philosophical insights can _help_ science and its interpretation.

Ian writes:
>...interpretationS. Just look at the interminable debate over the 
>Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. No sign of epistemic finality 
>on the horizon there. Multiply that type of intellectual controversy times 
>100,000 and you have "actually existing civilization".

I was using "interpretation" as a verb, which could be plural or singular.

I wrote:
>  scientists like Gould or Lewontin get some of the grist for 
> their  reflections from philosophy, methodology. They don't conjure their
>  philosophical reflections from measuring snails, etc.

Ian writes:
>Well, "where" do they get their grist for re-flection?

from Marx, though Gould seems to have moved away (and was never as close as 
Lewontin has been).

On this issue, I don't think Ian and I disagree.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Question for the Lefties -- II

[David Shemano]

Now that you have explained what capitalism is, please explain to me what is
wrong with capitalism.  The following questions come to mind:

1.  Can you separate the economic analysis from the political/social
analysis?  In other words, if Marx and his successors were, as a theoretical
and empirical matter, wrong about the contradictions of capitalism as an
economic system, would that affect, in your view, the power of his
criticisms of the effects of capitalism on human relations?  To put it
another way, if Marx is wrong about the economics, what distinguishes Marx
from say, John Ruskin?

2.  To the extent that your criticisms of capitalism are primarily
political-social (e.g. capitalism generates inequality, competition is
dehumanizing, etc.), to what extent is your argument dependent on a specific
understanding of human nature?  I am aware that lefties do not like
sociobiology, because that field assumes/evidences a constant human nature
that if true would call into question the possibility of the
political/economic system that lefties seem to prefer.  Therefore, is it
critical to your arguments that "bad" human behavior (competiveness, greed,
etc.) is a product of capitalist social/economic relations and such behavior
would not exist once social/economic relations were reconstituted?

3.  It appears to be a theme among many of you is that capitalism is
problematic because the system produces goods and services based upon
"demand" instead of "need."  As I understand it, the fundamental
methodological assumption of neoclassical economics is radical subjectivism,
meaning that neoclassical economics is entirely neutral on what consumers
demand and that "need" is an unintelligible concept -- if consumers demand
an end to poverty and global warming, the market will eventually deliver it.
Is it your position that there is something inherently wrong with capitalism
that produces "incorrect" demand?  If so, doesn't that assume a prexisting
ethical system that distinguishes "good demand" from "bad demand?"  If so,
what is that ethical system?

Thanks,

David Shemano

Re: The "famous" PEN-L debate

[Jim Devine]

At 07:27 PM 12/14/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello Jim,

Hi Gil!

>I was trolling through the Web when I came across this blurb from you
>extolling a new book, From Capitalism to Inequality:
>
>"Chapter three ... is crystal-clear. If we'd read this chapter
>beforehand, the famous PEN-L debate with Gil Skillman over
>volume I of Capital would not have happened."—Jim Devine
>
>Intrigued (and pleased to hear that the debate is "famous"), I shelled out
>the $20 to order a copy and waited anxiously to receive it.  But when I got
>the book and read Chapter 3, I found only a rehash of the very same
>arguments in Capital that I had been criticizing as logically incoherent,
>with no attempt at all to come to grips with that criticism.

I disagree that Marx's arguments were incoherent, though it is pointless to 
explain why at this point.

>Indeed, the
>rehash in this book had much less nuance than Marx's original argument, so
>it's very hard for me to see how the "crystal-clear" analysis you extol in
>Chapter 3 would have obviated the debate.  Could you please direct me to
>the points in the chapter that you believe successfully anticipate and
>address my argument?

I think that there are some basic methodological disagreements between us 
that prevent our agreement on this issue.

I thought that Andrews' book had a very clear explanation of Marx's 
presentation, but unfortunately that assumes that you understand Marx's 
method of presentation in CAPITAL and accept his entire method of analysis 
of capitalism. Since Andrews doesn't explain it, I think Bertell Ollman's 
ALIENATION presents a good discussion of Marx's method. Of course, he's not 
the only one.


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Japan's Debt

[Stephen E Philion]

> 
> (B) Nobuhito Kishi, "Lies, Damned Lies: The Real Story of 
> Unemployment in Japan," at 
> , a link to 
> Sogo Kenkyu Kaihatsu Kiko [National Institute for Research 
> Advancement].

oops

[Stephen E Philion]

Sorry about that folks, I sent off a section of Yoshie's last message to
the PEN list, thought i was forwarding it to a friend...

steve

Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
2424 Maile Way
Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
Honolulu, HI 96822

Affirmative Action Plan Is Upheld at Michigan

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>It's virtually certain that affirmative action in public higher 
>education is doomed. I cannot imagine the 6th Circuit coming out in 
>favor of it. Even the normally liberal 1st Circuit rejected it.
>
>--jks

What do you think of the news below?

*   New York Times 14 December 2000

Affirmative Action Plan Is Upheld at Michigan

By JODI WILGOREN

A federal judge upheld the University of Michigan's affirmative 
action program yesterday, ruling that diversity is a critical 
component of higher education and that colleges and universities can 
continue to consider race and ethnicity in admissions decisions.

The judge, Patrick J. Duggan of Federal District Court in Detroit, 
said the university had violated the United States Constitution from 
1995 to 1998 with a two-tiered admissions system that admitted white 
and minority applicants under different criteria. But he said 
Michigan's current policy, in which black and Hispanic applicants are 
given a 20-point boost on a 150-point scale, was perfectly legal.

"A racially and ethnically diverse student body produces significant 
educational benefits such that diversity, in the context of higher 
education, constitutes a compelling governmental interest," wrote 
Judge Duggan, a 1986 Reagan appointee. "Although fixed racial quotas 
and racial balancing are not necessary to achieving that goal, the 
consideration of an applicant's race during the admissions process 
necessarily is.

"In situations such as this," he added, "it is often a thin line that 
divides the permissible from the impermissible."

Most selective colleges and universities use race as a factor in 
admissions, a practice that has been under attack in recent years. 
Michigan's system was seen as vulnerable because it is explicit, 
whereas other institutions use more subtle and subjective approaches.

The case galvanized affirmative action advocates who produced 
sociological studies documenting how a diverse campus enhances the 
educational and long-term life experiences for all students. While 
many conservatives considered that evidence to be soft and 
inconclusive, Judge Duggan embraced it in his opinion.

The 50-page ruling, which preempted a trial by granting summary 
judgment motions, comes just 10 days after a federal appeals court in 
California upheld a now-defunct affirmative action program at the 
University of Washington. The twin opinions contradict a 1996 
appellate decision that eliminated affirmative action at the 
University of Texas Law School, laying the groundwork for review of 
the issue -- and, most likely, the Michigan case -- by the United 
States Supreme Court.

A separate case aimed at the University of Michigan Law School is 
scheduled for trial Jan. 16.

"This is the opening innings of a very long ball game here," said 
Terence J. Pell, chief executive officer of the Center for Individual 
Rights, the Washington group that challenged the programs at 
Michigan. "This game is far from over, and it's not clear that the 
Michigan system will survive judicial scrutiny."

Mr. Pell and one of his clients, Jennifer Gratz -- a 23-year-old 
white woman who was rejected from the university in 1995 -- welcomed 
the fact that the old admissions program, which was scrapped after 
the lawsuit was filed, was declared discriminatory. They will likely 
appeal the other aspects of the ruling, arguing that the current 
admission system is only cosmetically different from the one rebuffed 
by the judge, and may yet ask for monetary or other relief for those 
who were denied admission from 1995 to 1998.

"I'm excited that they were wrong and they're being told that they 
were wrong," said Ms. Gratz, who attended the university's 
less-prestigious Dearborn campus instead of the flagship at Ann 
Arbor. She now works for a software company and lives in San Diego.

Even as the plaintiffs declared victory, it was clear that the real 
celebration was reverberating throughout the higher education and in 
civil rights organizations.

"I am deeply gratified, but not just for the University of Michigan, 
really for higher education and for the country, broadly," said the 
university president, Lee C. Bollinger.

"Admissions is not and should not be a linear process of lining up 
applicants according to their grades and test scores and then drawing 
a line through the list," added Mr. Bollinger, a constitutional 
lawyer who replaced the now-illegal grids with the point system after 
he arrived in 1997. "It shows the importance of seeing racial and 
ethnic diversity in a broader context of diversity, which is 
geographic and international and socio-economic and athletic and all 
the various forms of differences, complementary differences, that we 
draw on to compose classes year after year."

Theodore M. Shaw, a lawyer for the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, said: "To the extent that the conservatives, the 
anti-affirmative action crowd, has been sounding the death knell for 
aff

Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Ken Hanly]

Well for many analytical philosophers interested in the philosophy of
science it is a type of conceptual analysis. What is a law in science? What
is the subject matter of psychology? Mental events? What are they?
Happenings in the brain etc..etc. Nothing at all, like phlogiston? What is a
cause? Is the concept important for science..etc.etc. What is a positron?
Must basic particles exist or are they just useful constructs and on and on.
Hardly the subject matter of English or rhetoric. Rorty is an ass IMHO well
ok a pragmatist ass. Just read some analysts such as those I have suggested.
It has bugger-all to do with rhetoric or English or interpretation of
textsRead anything by Norwood Russell Hanson.
 Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 6:02 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:6151] Re: analytical philosophy


> Justin:
>
> >>>JKS: philosophers cannot tell scientistr What Is Good Method.
> >>
> >>JD They can tell them, but only a small number will listen.
> >
> >I was unclear. I meant: We _should_ not tell them. We have no
> >special knowledge. No one appointed us the method police.
>
> I think you're right, but philosophers used to think that they had
> special insight into the nature of knowledge production.  When do you
> think that philosophers decided that they really didn't?  Moreover,
> if philosophy is not the master of all disciplines, telling us the
> truth of truths as it were, what is philosophy & what is the job of
> the philosopher?  All is rhetoric, as Rorty says?  Should Philosophy
> be subsumed under English & Comparative Literature, which in turn
> should be subsumed under History?
>
> Yoshie
>

Re: Japan's Debt

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Hola Jim:

>Yoshie writes:
>>You are right with regard to the Great Depression in the 30s, but 
>>today's Japan does not have "extreme unemployment," which has been 
>>one of the reasons why we haven't seen working-class revolts yet. 
>>Hardships have mainly hit new women college graduates, salarymen 
>>nearing the retirement age, small shop & factory owners & workers, 
>>etc., I think.
>
>of course, unemployment doesn't have to be overt (it can involve 
>hiring people not to work) while it doesn't always stimulate revolt 
>(since it might be sublimated into alcoholism, etc.) I've also heard 
>that Japanese unemployment stats are not strictly comparable to  US 
>stats, so that Japanese unemployment looks relatively good.

¡Ay Caramba!  You're supposed to be the Economist who should explain 
to me arcane mysteries of comparative statistics, with a big butch 
talk on The Method!

Anyway, here's what I found on the net:

(A) Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Comparative Civilian Labor Force 
Statistics, Ten Countries, 1959-1996," at 
, 
a link to the International Labour Organization's International 
Training Centre;

(B) Nobuhito Kishi, "Lies, Damned Lies: The Real Story of 
Unemployment in Japan," at 
, a link to 
Sogo Kenkyu Kaihatsu Kiko [National Institute for Research 
Advancement].

Looking at A, the picture doesn't look so bad; B, in contrast, gives 
you a horror story (with thrills & chills for Rob).

Which is right?  Tell me what you think.

>In any event, do you know about the unemployment and/or destruction 
>of _fixed capital_, which is a crucial part of the Depression 
>situation. It's unused fixed capital which discourages private 
>accumulation.

A gives you "Civilian Employment by Economic Sector, 1960-1996" & 
"Percent Distribution of Civilian Employment by Economic Sector, 
1960-1996."  I want newer stats, but I haven't found good & readily 
available ones yet.

Yoshie

RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

Pardon the incursion:


 >>It seems to me that philosophy has several special subject
 matters, such as
 >>metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, logic, ethics, and "human nature."
 >
 >No, those are just course classifications. They are not subject matters
 >the way the economy is a subject matter for economists or the
 behavior of
 >fundamental quantities to physicists.

 you don't think that issues such as "the nature of knowledge" is
 a subject
 matter?

Your use of quotes gives you away, Jim. There have yet to be created,
amongst pragmatists and other schools, transhistorical, immediately given,
criteria for establishing knowledge claims. There is a long history of
argument about issues in the topics you list above but don't expect
agreement anytime soon.

 >The
 >>way I've always seen philosophy is more _directional_, however: that is,
 >>philosophy involves looking into propositions and theories more
> _deeply_,
 >>to examine the premises, definitions, logic, and completeness.
 >
 >That's pretty vague.

 It shouldn't be to someone who's studied philosophy. The philosophy of
 economics (meta-economics?) examines the unexamined premises of
 economists
 (hidden in their models & empirical work) while we can imagine that
 "meta-economics" would itself require investigation.

Ad infinitum with the permanent possibility of dissensus. Disagreement as a
badge of honor...politics.

 >>>JKS: philosophers cannot tell scientists What Is Good Method.
 >>
 >>JD They can tell them, but only a small number will listen.
 >
 >I was unclear. I meant: We _should_ not tell them. We have no special
 >knowledge. No one appointed us the method police.

 Philosophers have no special knowledge? then shut the departments
 down and
 force their members to go to law school! is there no contribution that
 philosophers have made?

*

Better yet, shut down the law schools too. They have no special "insight"
into knowledge nor are they more virtuous than the rest of us. So why the
fuck we let them tell us how to live while they wear black [lovers of death
and power, them judges]. Actually, there are lots of folks trying to shut
down philosophy departments; better not let too many folks know there is no
god etc. Too many Socratic personality types running around will make it
hard for those with authoritarian personality disorder to tell the rest of
us how to live.

 _Of course_, no one appointed the philosophers as "method police"
 and I was
 NOT arguing that they should be. What I was trying to say was that
 philosophical insights can _help_ science and its interpretation.

...interpretationS. Just look at the interminable debate over the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum theory. No sign of epistemic finality on the
horizon there. Multiply that type of intellectual controversy times 100,000
and you have "actually existing civilization".

 And as I
 said:

 >>scientists who reflect on their method (rather than cranking out
 >>"science" following convention) are likely to be the better scientists.

 scientists like Gould or Lewontin get some of the grist for their
 reflections from philosophy, methodology. They don't conjure their
 philosophical reflections from measuring snails, etc.

 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

**

Well, "where" do they get their grist for re-flection?

As John Wheeler says: "there's no accounting for differences in taste"


Ian

The "famous" PEN-L debate

[Gil Skillman]

Hello Jim,

I was trolling through the Web when I came across this blurb from you
extolling a new book, From Capitalism to Inequality:

"Chapter three ... is crystal-clear. If we'd read this chapter
   beforehand, the famous PEN-L debate with Gil Skillman over
   volume I of Capital would not have happened."—Jim Devine 

Intrigued (and pleased to hear that the debate is "famous"), I shelled out
the $20 to order a copy and waited anxiously to receive it.  But when I got
the book and read Chapter 3, I found only a rehash of the very same
arguments in Capital that I had been criticizing as logically incoherent,
with no attempt at all to come to grips with that criticism.  Indeed, the
rehash in this book had much less nuance than Marx's original argument, so
it's very hard for me to see how the "crystal-clear" analysis you extol in
Chapter 3 would have obviated the debate.  Could you please direct me to
the points in the chapter that you believe successfully anticipate and
address my argument?

In curiosity, Gil

 

Re: analytical philosophy

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Justin:

>>>JKS: philosophers cannot tell scientistr What Is Good Method.
>>
>>JD They can tell them, but only a small number will listen.
>
>I was unclear. I meant: We _should_ not tell them. We have no 
>special knowledge. No one appointed us the method police.

I think you're right, but philosophers used to think that they had 
special insight into the nature of knowledge production.  When do you 
think that philosophers decided that they really didn't?  Moreover, 
if philosophy is not the master of all disciplines, telling us the 
truth of truths as it were, what is philosophy & what is the job of 
the philosopher?  All is rhetoric, as Rorty says?  Should Philosophy 
be subsumed under English & Comparative Literature, which in turn 
should be subsumed under History?

Yoshie

Re: Re: Japan's Debt

[Jim Devine]

At 06:30 PM 12/14/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Jim D.:
>
>>Yoshie quotes Jan Kregel saying>Clearly, 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.

Yoshie writes:
>You are right with regard to the Great Depression in the 30s, but today's 
>Japan does not have "extreme unemployment," which has been one of the 
>reasons why we haven't seen working-class revolts yet. Hardships have 
>mainly hit new women college graduates, salarymen nearing the retirement 
>age, small shop & factory owners & workers, etc., I think.

of course, unemployment doesn't have to be overt (it can involve hiring 
people not to work) while it doesn't always stimulate revolt (since it 
might be sublimated into alcoholism, etc.) I've also heard that Japanese 
unemployment stats are not strictly comparable to  US stats, so that 
Japanese unemployment looks relatively good.

In any event, do you know about the unemployment and/or destruction of 
_fixed capital_, which is a crucial part of the Depression situation. It's 
unused fixed capital which discourages private accumulation.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Jim Devine]

>>It seems to me that philosophy has several special subject matters, such as
>>metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, logic, ethics, and "human nature."
>
>No, those are just course classifications. They are not subject matters 
>the way the economy is a subject matter for economists or the behavior of 
>fundamental quantities to physicists.

you don't think that issues such as "the nature of knowledge" is a subject 
matter?

>The
>>way I've always seen philosophy is more _directional_, however: that is,
>>philosophy involves looking into propositions and theories more _deeply_,
>>to examine the premises, definitions, logic, and completeness.
>
>That's pretty vague.

It shouldn't be to someone who's studied philosophy. The philosophy of 
economics (meta-economics?) examines the unexamined premises of economists 
(hidden in their models & empirical work) while we can imagine that 
"meta-economics" would itself require investigation.

>>>JKS: philosophers cannot tell scientistr What Is Good Method.
>>
>>JD They can tell them, but only a small number will listen.
>
>I was unclear. I meant: We _should_ not tell them. We have no special 
>knowledge. No one appointed us the method police.

Philosophers have no special knowledge? then shut the departments down and 
force their members to go to law school! is there no contribution that 
philosophers have made?

_Of course_, no one appointed the philosophers as "method police" and I was 
NOT arguing that they should be. What I was trying to say was that 
philosophical insights can _help_ science and its interpretation. And as I 
said:

>>scientists who reflect on their method (rather than cranking out 
>>"science" following convention) are likely to be the better scientists.

scientists like Gould or Lewontin get some of the grist for their 
reflections from philosophy, methodology. They don't conjure their 
philosophical reflections from measuring snails, etc.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

The Republicans and Democrats compared

[Louis Proyect]

"The Republican Party - justly discredited for its abuse of power; arrogant 
intolerance; excessive tax contributions; bad distribution of surplus riches 
and public lands; systematic falsification of votes; complicity with powerful 
enterprises...would undoubtedly lack the capacity to re-establish itself in 
power, if the Democratic Party had not demonstrated its confusion in 
resolving urgent affairs; lack of foresight; indifference in important 
matters that alarm the nation; and its eagerness, like that of the 
Republicans, of seizing public positions."

Jose Marti, 1886

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/

Re: Japan's Debt

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Hi Jim D.:

>Yoshie quotes Jan Kregel saying>Clearly, 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.

You are right with regard to the Great Depression in the 30s, but 
today's Japan does not have "extreme unemployment," which has been 
one of the reasons why we haven't seen working-class revolts yet. 
Hardships have mainly hit new women college graduates, salarymen 
nearing the retirement age, small shop & factory owners & workers, 
etc., I think.

>[*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.

*   Public Information Notice (PIN) No. 00/64
August 11, 2000

International Monetary Fund
700 19th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20431 USA

IMF Concludes Article IV Consultation with Japan

On August 4, 2000, the Executive Board concluded the Article IV 
consultation with JAPAN.1

...Economic growth, as shown in the national accounts, has been 
uneven over the past year and a half.  In the first half of 1999, GDP 
expanded by 3? percent (annual rate), driven by a rebound in 
confidence and fiscal stimulus measures.  The economy contracted 
again in the second half of 1999, reflecting renewed weakness in 
private consumption and a sharp contraction in public investment, 
though business investment surged in the fourth quarter, as 
profitability recovered and sentiment improved.  GDP figures for the 
first quarter of 2000 suggest growth of 10 percent at an annual rate, 
with strong contributions from private consumption, business 
investment, and net exports.  However, the confluence of a number of 
temporary factors -- including the delay in the end-1999 bonus 
payment, the leap-year effect, as well as the unwinding of the 
pre-Y2K buildup of import stocks -- seems to have accounted for about 
half the first quarter rise of 2.4 percent. The recent pickup in 
activity appears heavily concentrated in "high-tech" sectors 
[The full article is at 
.]   *

*   Monthly Report of Recent Economic and Financial Developments 
(October 2000) 1
(The Bank's View 2)*

(English translation prepared by the Bank staff based on the Japanese original)

1 This report was written based on data and information available 
when the Bank of Japan Monetary Policy Meeting was held on October 
13, 2000.
2 The Bank's view on recent economic and financial developments, 
determined by the Policy Board at the Monetary Policy Meeting held on 
October 13 as the basis of monetary policy decisions.

October 16, 2000
Bank of Japan

* The English translation of the full text will be available on October 24.

Japan's economy is recovering gradually, with corporate profits and 
business fixed investment continuing to increase.

With regard to exogenous demand, public investment is starting to 
decrease since the implementation of the supplementary budget for 
fiscal 1999 has peaked out.  Net exports (real exports minus real 
imports) continue to follow a moderate upward trend due to steady 
developments in overseas economies. As regards domestic private 
demand, 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>but you said that "there is no single point to philosophical study of
>science or any other human activity." Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning
>of "single" here, so that what you're saying is that there are _many_
>points to the philosophical study of science.

That's right.
>
>It seems to me that philosophy has several special subject matters, such as
>metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, logic, ethics, and "human nature."

No, those are just course classifications. They are not subject matters the 
way the economy is a subject matter for economists or the behavior of 
fundamental quantities to physicists.

The
>way I've always seen philosophy is more _directional_, however: that is,
>philosophy involves looking into propositions and theories more _deeply_,
>to examine the premises, definitions, logic, and completeness.

That's pretty vague.

>>JKS: philosophers cannot tell scientistr What Is Good Method.
>
>JD They can tell them, but only a small number will listen.

I was unclear. I meant: We _should_ not tell them. We have no special 
knowledge. No one appointed us the method police.

I, for one,
>say
>that scientists who reflect on their method (rather than cranking out
>"science" following convention) are likely to be the better scientists.

Agreed.

--jks
_
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

Artists vs. Dot-Coms: Fighting San Francisco's Gold Rush

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

New York Times  14 December 2000

Artists vs. Dot-Coms: Fighting San Francisco's Gold Rush

By BILL HAYES

SAN FRANCISCO -- ON the evening of Dec. 2, AK Press, an anarchist 
book publisher, held an eviction party, an increasingly common 
occasion here. Four years after moving into an unheated warehouse in 
the Mission District, it had fallen victim to spiraling rents. "Dress 
warm," the invitation warned. A few blocks away, on newly fashionable 
Valencia Street, restaurants offered valet parking. But AK Press's 
guests -- a mix of graying bohemians and magenta-haired young 
activists -- arrived mostly by bike or by bus.

"We need to live in a neighborhood of political writers, activists 
and artists," said Craig Gilmore, 50, an AK editor in a waist-length 
braid and a "Class War!" T-shirt. "Until now, that's been the Mission 
District. But when our lease is up, our rent will triple, which makes 
it impossible to stay."

When AK Press moved into the warehouse in 1996, the Mission was still 
a predominantly Latino and working-class neighborhood, dotted with 
tacquerias and auto- body shops. Today, more than 400 Internet firms 
are based there and in the adjacent South of Market district, an area 
which, along with nearby Potrero Hill, has come to be known as 
Multimedia Gulch.

The dot-com gold rush is blamed for introducing Manhattan-style 
traffic jams and unwanted development into San Francisco's famously 
picturesque neighborhoods, while skyrocketing rents drive out 
artists, cultural groups and working-class families. According to the 
California Association of Realtors, the median price of a 
single-family home in San Francisco is now $463,990, a 25.9 percent 
increase since October 1999. Meanwhile, there are 7.5 evictions a 
day, according to the San Francisco Tenants Union, an advocacy group.

During the summer, a citywide coalition of artists, activists and 
nonprofit groups collected 30,000 signatures, 10,000 more than was 
required, to place an antidevelopment referendum called Proposition L 
on the November ballot. While the measure would have actually 
increased the amount of new office space that could be built in the 
city, it would have banned such development from the Mission and 
other largely residential neighborhoods. It would also have closed a 
loophole that allows Internet companies to occupy and construct 
"live/work lofts," meant for artists, that are exempt from certain 
development taxes.

Proposition L was defeated by a paper- thin margin of 0.4 percent. A 
less restrictive slow-growth measure backed by Mayor Willie Brown 
also failed, leaving San Francisco's current regulations unchanged.

Antidevelopment activists staged more than three dozen rallies in the 
days leading up to the Nov. 7 election. In one of the campaign's more 
enduring images, a group of demonstrators calling themselves Art 
Strikes Back smashed a computer with a baseball bat outside city 
hall. Oddly enough, many supporters of Proposition L work for 
dot-coms, and their campaign relied heavily on the Internet to 
organize meetings and reach voters and the news media.

Mara Brazer, the president of the San Francisco Partnership, a 
pro-business nonprofit group, defended the dot-com industry, saying 
that the slow-growth advocates unfairly vilify an industry that 
helped pull San Francisco out of a punishing recession in the 1990's 
and created some 40,000 local jobs. "The Internet industry has become 
a scapegoat," she said, "partly due to a mythology that's built up 
about young, latte-swilling, S.U.V.-driving dot-com millionaires."

Ms. Brazer predicted that the slowdown in the nation's economy and 
deflation of the dot-com boom that appear already to be under way 
will curb city growth. Across the country, dot-com layoffs in 
November were up 55 percent from October, according to a survey 
conducted by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a national employment 
service.

The slow-growth movement is particularly ardent in San Francisco, Ms. 
Brazer said, because of its geography. The city is just 47 square 
miles, and it is bordered on three sides by water, so there is 
limited room for growth. "Everybody wants to see the city preserved 
just as it was when they fell in love with it," she said.

Proposition L's defeat does not appear to have ended the movement. 
Organizers of the measure have been working with sympathetic members 
of the Board of Supervisors to draft legislation that would 
accomplish what Proposition L had proposed. "And if that all fails," 
said Debra Walker, a Mission District painter and co-chairwoman of 
the "Yes on L" committee, "we're ready to get new signatures and go 
back as soon as we can on a special election."

On the night of AK Press's eviction party, Susan Schwartzenberg, 49, 
a photographer, stood on its warehouse's back patio, projecting her 
photographs of demolished neighborhood landmarks and artists' studios 
on a cement wall. The images illustrated the book "Hollow City" 
(Ver

Redirecting post-WTO energy at....energy

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

http://www.platts.com/index.html
Global Energy Business May/June 2000 Special Report
The 15th Annual Global Power Markets Conference
>>
But even if that huge sum can be borrowed, isn't there a danger that Nimby
syndrome, which has made it nearly impossible to build new transmission
lines, will have a similar impact on prospective pipeline projects? Yes and
no, Dean feels. "It's interesting to note," he said, "that oil and gas
drilling and construction of pipelines and transmission lines--and even the
recent siting of gas turbine plants closer to load/population
centers--engendered less opposition from the public and environmental
activists during the 1990s than was the case in the 1970s. But on the other
hand, I'm beginning to wonder if the recent anger at the WTO, IMF, and World
Bank could be redirected at our industry."

Regardless of how public sentiment turns on that issue, Dean said he's
certain of one thing: "As the gas industry builds out, there will be
demand/supply mismatches, and these mismatches could be really significant
to electricity generators. Why? Because in different markets, the
correlation between gas and electricity prices will vary widely; in other
words, as gas prices go up in a region, you may not necessarily see a
corresponding rise in electricity prices there."

The final panelist to discuss trends that may not yet be on the industry's
radar screen was F. Reed Wills, vice president for project development at
United American Energy Corp., Woodcliff, N.J. Wills said that traditional
ways of looking at the intersection of business and technology issues could
be rendered obsolete by a development whose impact could be felt on the
demand side.

"If information technology solutions end up being applied to the problems of
storage, that would allow consumers to react to pricing dynamically," he
said. That would be a big change, he explained, because "in most cases,
investors in energy suppliers continue to anticipate that consumer behavior
will remain static. But if IT brings more precision, flexibility, and
options to the use of energy storage systems, that would have a very big
impact on the way that suppliers are investing and the way they realize
their returns." *

Re: Japan's Debt

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Hi Mat:

>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.

Please do.  I'm very interested.  Though it's too late for the next 
quarter, I might assign _All She Was Worth_ in one of my courses in 
the future (if it's well translated).

>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.

My impression was based upon old information & blue-collar 
working-class experience, so I must correct myself.  I just heard 
that Japanese consumer credit as a percentage of disposable income 
passed the American level in 1989!!!  Can it be true?

Here's detailed info on Japanese consumer credit that I've found on the net:

*   Japan Economic Institute--JEI
July 16, 1993
-ti- THRIFTY JAPAN DISCOVERS CONSUMER CREDIT
by Arthur J. Alexander

SUMMARY

The combination of financial market deregulation and a smaller 
corporate appetite for household savings to fund business investment 
has unloosed the bonds on Japan's use of consumer credit.  Between 
1976 and 1991 consumer credit rocketed from 6.7 percent to 23 percent 
of disposable income, while the absolute value increased 15 percent 
annually.  In contrast, consumer credit in the United States began 
and ended this 15-year period at about 18.5 percent of disposable 
income.

At the beginning of the credit takeoff in Japan moneylenders 
(sarakin) were well-placed among the variety of lenders to take 
advantage of the latent demand for loans, but their growth fizzled in 
the early 1980s as sales finance companies rode the wave of credit 
expansion.  For the last seven years, however, banks have dominated 
the field.  Banks' strengths lie in their low-cost access to large 
amounts of funds and their ability to manage millions of transactions 
efficiently.

All types of lending organizations have used credit cards to expand 
their operations.  In the 10-year period ending in 1992 the number of 
credit cards increased by almost four times to 203 million, or 1.6 
cards for every Japanese.  By the end of 1991 outstanding credit card 
debt averaged almost $220 per person.  Estimating the equilibrium 
levels of Japanese consumer credit, the country is probably now at or 
slightly above the long-run sustainable level.  Therefore, the heady 
expansion of consumer credit seen in the past 15 years most likely is 
over.

The boom in consumer credit appears to have had only a small effect 
on household savings, reducing the ratio of savings to disposable 
income by about 1 percentage point from 1976 to 1991.  If that 
expansion is now at an end, savings will increase by a similar amount.

[The full article is at 
.] 
*

What do you think?

>The book also goes into the whole issue of family
>registers and legal identity, also focusing on bureaucracy.

Intriguing.

>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.)?

I'm not into mystery books & jidai shosetsu ("historical" novels), so 
until you mentioned Miyabe, I had never thought of reading her works. 
By _Tampopo_ you mean the film directed by Juzo Itami?  I don't 
recall seeing her name in the writing credits section, though.  FYI, 
I think the Japanese title of the novel _All She Was Worth_ is 
_Kasha_ (1993), which received the prestigious Yamamoto Shugoro award.

Yoshie

New List: RWWATCH (Right Wing Watch)

[Nathan Newman]

A good list created by Rich Cowan, a long-time peace and justice activist,
who recently launched the Organizer's Collaborative to assist activists in
using the Internet and other technology -- Nathan

- Original Message -
From: "Rich Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  cut here -

This email is to let you know about RWWATCH, a low-volume email
list established in 11/2000 to monitor and expose tactics the
Right* is using in its attempts to control the judiciary,
reverse gains in civil rights, privatize social security and
public schools, increase military spending, and prevent
workers from exercising their right to organize.

In its first 4 weeks, RWWATCH attracted over 750 participants
and researchers.  We have exposed many of the groups behind the
antidemocratic tactics used in Florida.  RWWATCH is a source not
only on the Right's agenda but also on the right wing and corporate
foundations funding that agenda at the federal and state level.

We HAVE NOT subscribed you to anything; this is only an invitation
to join.

Please not that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is low-volume, averaging only 4
messages per week.  An archive is available to subscribers only.

To subscribe, just send a blank e-mail message to:

   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks for your interest, and feel free to forward this message!

-Rich Cowan, facilitator


Note: RWWATCH is a project of the Organizers' Collaborative (OC), a
national membership organization that promotes online communication
and resource sharing among activist groups working for social and
economic justice.  Contributions to OC are tax-deductible.


*for a definition of the "Right", see www.cco.org/right/intro.html.

Organizers' Collaborative  PO Box 400897, Cambridge MA  02140
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.organizenow.net

California energy crunch...

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

[full article at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Americas/2000-12/calif141200.shtml


Emergency powers to prevent Californian blackouts

By Patrick Connole


14 December 2000

President Bill Clinton's administration took the rare action yesterday of
invoking emergency powers to stave off electricity blackouts in the nation's
most populated state, California.

The state's huge thirst for electricity combined with tight supplies and
repairs at some utilities pushed California to the brink of a crisis that
threatened to trigger blackouts.

The US Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson, said the federal government would
step in to require power generators and marketers to ship electricity to
California to prevent imminent blackouts.

"Our objective is keep the lights on in California," said Mr Richardson
after meeting a US senator, Dianne Feinstein of California, as well as
California's Governor, Gray Davis, and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission chief, James Hoecker.

Mr Richardson said he invoked the government's rarely used authority under
the Federal Power Act to require out-of-state generators and marketers to
sell power to California immediately.

Günter Grass on the Colonization of East Germany

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

New York Times  14 December 2000

Günter Grass on His New Book and His 'Strenuous Homeland'

By ALAN RIDING

CASAIS, Portugal - As a late autumn sun warms the red tiles of Günter 
Grass's getaway here, northern Germany could not seem farther away. 
Yet even in this isolated corner of southern Portugal, where the 
author escaped a year ago to prepare his Nobel address to the Swedish 
Academy, where he vacations every summer with his grandchildren, 
where he now fills his afternoons painting watercolors, Mr. Grass 
never quite leaves Germany.

His "strenuous homeland," as he likes to call it, is the principal 
theme of his literature. It is his favorite topic of conversation. It 
is also the frequent target of his wrath.

Germany, of course, is no less haunted by Mr. Grass. Since the 
publication of "The Tin Drum" in 1959 turned him into a household 
name at the age of 32, he has gone out of his way to lecture, even 
hector, his fellow Germans on their past and present failings. He has 
done so in novels, plays and essays as well as in political speeches 
and newspaper articles. And all too often he has said what many 
people did not want to hear.

When his latest novel, "Ein Weites Feld," was published in German in 
1995, he provoked a fresh scandal by portraying German unification in 
1990 as West Germany's de facto occupation of East Germany. 
Naturally, Mr. Grass was unrepentant. Indeed, attacks on the book - 
including a photograph on the cover of Der Spiegel, the mass 
circulation news weekly, showing a well-known literary critic tearing 
up the novel - helped sales reach 350,000 in one year.

Five years later, with the book finally appearing in the United 
States under the title "Too Far Afield" (Harcourt), this 1999 Nobel 
laureate in literature feels further vindicated: he believes that 
time has proved him right.

"The reality is much darker than I presented it," said Mr. Grass, 73, 
peering over half-moon glasses and puffing on his trademark pipe. 
"The wall has gone, but Germany is still divided. People in the East 
were happy in 1989 when the wall came down, but then the West Germans 
arrived like colonizers. They didn't accept that the East Germans had 
a different biography, that they had gone from Hitler to Stalin, that 
they had never had a democratic experience."

"They had to live their own lives," he went on. "But West Germans 
said: `Forget about it. It was all a mistake. Now do as we did in the 
West and you will be happy.' But we didn't know each other and we 
still don't know each other. The ignorance in the West makes it very 
difficult. Further, West Germany now owns East Germany. This is a 
terrible kind of colonization, and it will go on. So what I try to 
show in my novel is how it began, its criminal beginnings."

In its central political message, the 658-page book targets Treuhand, 
the government body charged with privatizing or shutting down 
thousands of East German companies after unification. Translated in 
English as the Handover Trust, it is presented in "Too Far Afield" as 
a heartless instrument of capitalism that put millions of East 
Germans out of work and handed over the economic remnants of the 
Communist regime to avaricious West German investors.

"Treuhand worked for four years without any democratic control," Mr. 
Grass said.

The novel's literary embrace, however, is far wider. At one level, it 
tells its story through two former East German government workers: 
Theo Wuttke, erudite, eccentric and dreamy, who had been a guide and 
a lecturer at the Cultural Union; and Ludwig Hoftaller, Wuttke's 
"day- and-night shadow," who had worked as a spy for the Stasi. Both 
now 70, they end up with jobs in the Handover Trust.

But the novel also works on other levels. Wuttke, for instance, is 
not only an expert on the 19th-century historian and novelist Theodor 
Fontane (who is referred to here only as "The Immortal"), but he also 
identifies with Fontane to the point of being known as Fonty and of 
frequently reliving this writer's life. Hoftaller's personality, on 
the other hand, merges with that of Tallhover, a 19th-century spy for 
the Prussian empire and its successor, the Second Reich.

Mr. Grass, in turn, uses Fontane- Wuttke and Tallhover-Hoftaller and 
their collective memories to lead readers through Germany's convulsed 
history from its first unification in 1871 to its second unification 
in 1990. Some of this is symbolized by the Treuhand headquarters in 
former East Berlin. Built for the Nazis' Air Ministry, it was called 
the House of Ministries under Communism and, after Treuhand had done 
its work, it became the country's new Finance Ministry

...At center stage throughout the book is Berlin, a city that was 
home to Mr. Grass for 35 years until he moved to Lubeck, a northern 
city, in 1995. During his long years in West Berlin, he rarely 
visited the East: he was declared persona non grata there after the 
publication of his 1966 play, "The Pleb

EU trying to save the little fishies

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

[full article at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Europe/2000-12/fish141200.shtml

Europe  EU debates big cuts in fish catches
14 December 2000

European Union fisheries ministers were today debating plans to cut catch
quotas by up to 74 per cent next year to prevent stocks from being fished
into commercial extinction.

Ministers from the 15 nations meet every December to fix the catch limits
and usually try to talk up quotas for their fishermen, but this year the
EU's head office warned of disastrous consequences unless governments accept
stringent cuts.

"If no action is taken, the stocks already at biological risk are likely to
collapse," the European Commission said in a statement ahead of the talks.

For the most threatened species, the Commission has proposed lowering hake
quotas by 74 percent in waters from the Bay of Biscay to the mouth of the
Baltic Sea; reducing cod catches off western Scotland by up to 56 percent;
and halving the anchovy catch in the Atlantic waters off Spain and Portugal.

Substantial cuts are also recommended for monkfish, haddock and whiting.

EU officials acknowledged the proposed cuts would have a severe impact on
fishing communities, but said there was no other choice.

"There's no way round it: to have a fishing industry we need fish ... stocks
need to be rebuilt," Franz Fischler, the EU fisheries commissioner said when
the Commission announced its proposed cuts this month.

In the North Sea, where the quota cuts are linked to an EU agreement with
Norway, the total cod catch is set to fall from 81,000 tons this year to
48,600 tons in 2001.

Scientists believe North Sea cod is one of the species under greatest
threat.

They say drastic protection measures are needed to prevent fishing
communities there from facing a similar fate to those on Canada's Atlantic
seaboard, where the government imposed a moratorium on fishing in the early
1990s because of depleted stocks, throwing thousands out of work.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Jim Devine]

At 07:22 PM 12/14/00 +, you wrote:
>Of course philosophy has a reason to be interested in science. Of course I 
>do not think that disciplines should be hermetically sealed off from each 
>other. Of course I think that social scientists should discuss how to do 
>social science with philosophers and other scientists. This is so obvious 
>that I should not have to say it...

but you said that "there is no single point to philosophical study of 
science or any other human activity." Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning 
of "single" here, so that what you're saying is that there are _many_ 
points to the philosophical study of science.

> I also don't believe that philosophy has a special subject matter, 
>such as "method," into which it has special insight.

It seems to me that philosophy has several special subject matters, such as 
metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, logic, ethics, and "human nature." The 
way I've always seen philosophy is more _directional_, however: that is, 
philosophy involves looking into propositions and theories more _deeply_, 
to examine the premises, definitions, logic, and completeness. Of course, 
this kind of probing can go on indefinitely, which is where pragmatism 
comes as a limit.

>The subject matter of philosophy is philosophical writings and (in the 
>case of phil of science), scientific writing and practice. All 
>philosophers can do is comment, more or less informedly, on what 
>scientists do. They cannot tell them What Is Good Method.

They can tell them, but only a small number will listen. I, for one, say 
that scientists who reflect on their method (rather than cranking out 
"science" following convention) are likely to be the better scientists. 
(Lewontin is more likely to be a better scientist than Dawkins or Wilson, 
or at least philosophy can help settle disputes amongst them.) Further, as 
I've said, the philosophy can inform us lay-people, helping us understand 
the various debates amongst scientists, perhaps ferreting out all of the 
hidden value-judgements that can be hidden in scientific jargon.

To my mind, saying that scientists won't listen to philosophical reflection 
is part of a _critique_ of science.

>... Maybe you want to find ammo from philosophers of science to deploy 
>against the narrow-mindedness of mainstream economists. I think that is a 
>worthy goal and purpose. If you come up with a specific concrete example, 
>either a non-Mainstream idae ora pproach you want to defend in some 
>specific way by reference to Kuhn or Lakatos, etc., I would be happy to 
>discuss it. Likewise if K oe L provided you with ammo to attack mainstream 
>economics in some particular way. But windy discussions of method unmoored 
>to any concrete matter in dispute are too abstract for me to get 
>a  purchase on.

I think that "windy discussions" of _anything_ "unmoored to any concrete 
matter in dispute" are anathema. That's why I try to link abstractions to 
representative concrete examples, where possible.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[J.A. Hernandez]

please unsubscribe me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Justin Schwartz]

Of course philosophy has a reason to be interested in science. Of course I 
do not think that disciplines should be hermetically sealed off from each 
other. Of course I think that social scientists should discuss how to do 
social science with philosophers and other scientists. This is so obvious 
that I should not have to say it. If you find yourself interpreting what 
someone says to deny things taht are this obvious, it should suggest to you 
that (a) you have misunderstood, and (b) he's likely to take offense because 
he thinks you think he's an idiot.

Not everything is in dispute. Of course it is a pragamtist platitude that we 
might wrong about anything. But unless someone offers a reason for doubt, 
there is no point agonizing about the things that no one in fact doubts, 
e.g., that grass is green, that freedom is better than slavery, and that any 
human activity has more than one point.

I don't believe in hard disciplinary boundaries. Disciplines are just 
collections of texts and academic practices for teaching them, discussing 
them, and generating them. I also don't believe that philosophy has a 
special subject matter, such as "method," into which it has special insight. 
The subject matter of philosophy is philosophical writings and (in the case 
of phil of science), scientific writing and practice. All philosophers can 
do is comment, more or less informedly, on what scientists do. They cannot 
tell them What Is Good Method.

I cannot prove this in the abstract. What I can do is demolish by argument 
or counterexample any purported philosophical attempt to establish an a 
priori criterion for scientific Okayness. I wrote my dissertation doing 
this, and I wrote a number of papers out of it. I sort of gave up on doing 
philosophy of science when I realized that I did not find it very 
interesting to spend time refuting bad philosophical reasons why scientists 
could not do what they were or were not going to do anyway.

Maybe you want to find ammo from philosophers of science to deploy  against 
the narrow-mindedness of mainstream economists. I think that is a worthy 
goal and purpose. If you come up with a specific concrete example, either a 
non-Mainstream idae ora pproach you want to defend in some specific way by 
reference to Kuhn or Lakatos, etc., I would be happy to discuss it. Likewise 
if K oe L provided you with ammo to attack mainstream economics in some 
particular way. But windy discussions of method unmoored to any concrete 
matter in dispute are too abstract for me to get a  purchase on.

--jks







>From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:6134] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy
>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:33:36 -0800
>
>At 05:24 PM 12/14/00 +, you wrote:
>>Some propositions are so obviosu taht they do not require support unless
>>reasons for doubt arise. Among these are that there is no single point to
>>philosophical study of science or any other human activity. It was you who
>>put forward the controversial, but to me uninteresting, claim that _the_
>>point of it was tp tell scientists what good science was.
>
>If it's uninteresting, why reply? In any case, that wasn't my claim. My
>claim is that philosophy does have a use for science, which I illustrated
>with examples.
>
>I read what people write as I see 'em. If I misinterpret what you say
>(which happens a lot), it helps if you tell me how. I do _not_ assume that
>just because I disagree with someone on something that he or she is a
>"moron" or anything else that's bad. In e-mail discussions, I focus on what
>people say, not what they are. If someone says something that doesn't make
>sense from my perspective (like appeals to authority in lieu of
>discussion), then I say so.
>
>I wonder if it is true that there is no single point to the _economic_
>study of any human activity? After all, the capitalists are going to do
>what they do, come hell or high water. What if I were to say that it is so
>obvious that there's no point in studying economics that this proposition
>does not require support? would anyone be willing to accept by
>self-appointed authority on this matter?
>
>But the idea of self-evident propositions (those that are so obvious that
>they do not require support unless there are reasons for doubt) seems
>absurd beyond some very banal statements, such as "you are reading this
>statement." Further, following Rosa Luxemburg, it's also a good idea to
>"doubt all" when analyzing important issues. So there are always potential
>reasons for doubt.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>

_
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

Neo-Classical Elegance in Pumps

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Saith Ian:
>>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.
>
>In my experience, most female academics have totally been 
>acculturated. Maybe as the female/male ratio rises, the nature of 
>academia will change, but I haven't seen that yet. Maybe I'm 
>excessively pessimistic.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

I can only imagine more Deidre McCloskeys.  Neo-classical elegance in 
pumps, so to speak.  The nature of Departments of Economics won't 
change, but more professors will be more colorfully dressed.

Yoshie

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Jim Devine]

At 05:24 PM 12/14/00 +, you wrote:
>Some propositions are so obviosu taht they do not require support unless 
>reasons for doubt arise. Among these are that there is no single point to 
>philosophical study of science or any other human activity. It was you who 
>put forward the controversial, but to me uninteresting, claim that _the_ 
>point of it was tp tell scientists what good science was.

If it's uninteresting, why reply? In any case, that wasn't my claim. My 
claim is that philosophy does have a use for science, which I illustrated 
with examples.

I read what people write as I see 'em. If I misinterpret what you say 
(which happens a lot), it helps if you tell me how. I do _not_ assume that 
just because I disagree with someone on something that he or she is a 
"moron" or anything else that's bad. In e-mail discussions, I focus on what 
people say, not what they are. If someone says something that doesn't make 
sense from my perspective (like appeals to authority in lieu of 
discussion), then I say so.

I wonder if it is true that there is no single point to the _economic_ 
study of any human activity? After all, the capitalists are going to do 
what they do, come hell or high water. What if I were to say that it is so 
obvious that there's no point in studying economics that this proposition 
does not require support? would anyone be willing to accept by 
self-appointed authority on this matter?

But the idea of self-evident propositions (those that are so obvious that 
they do not require support unless there are reasons for doubt) seems 
absurd beyond some very banal statements, such as "you are reading this 
statement." Further, following Rosa Luxemburg, it's also a good idea to 
"doubt all" when analyzing important issues. So there are always potential 
reasons for doubt.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: (no subject)

[Jim Devine]

I wrote:
> >>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.<<

Saith Ian:
>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.

In my experience, most female academics have totally been acculturated. 
Maybe as the female/male ratio rises, the nature of academia will change, 
but I haven't seen that yet. Maybe I'm excessively pessimistic.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy

[Justin Schwartz]

My professors were very good and many of them were rather good people. My 
comments on the discipline derive from years of total experience in it, notw 
ith idiosyncrasies of my own education.

Some propositions are so obviosu taht they do not require support unless 
reasons for doubt arise. Among these are that there is no single point to 
philosophical study of science or any other human activity. It was you who 
put forward the controversial, but to me uninteresting, claim that _the_ 
point of it was tp tell scientists what good science was.

For the rest, Jim, your misunderstandings are so perverse, systematic, and 
willful that I have to conclude athtr this discussion should be ended; you 
seem to have no interest in what I might be saying, but only to put the 
worst construction on it and to make me out as a moron. It's too bad you 
couldn't find a (former) professional philosopher of science to talk to who 
had a brain.

--jks


>From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:6122] Re: Re: Re: Re: analytical philosophy
>Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:42:12 -0800
>
>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
>

_
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

Re: Gore's concession speech

[Tom Walker]

Nathan Newman wrote:

>Gore's speech was pathetic-

I'm gratified to see Nathan's reaction to Gore's speech. My own reaction is
that while I am appalled at the supreme court/florida mafia coup d'etat and
can take no comfort from Bush's obligatory homilies, I also can't find any
regret that Gore will not preside over the next four years. Had the union,
black and latino Democrating activists actually succeeded in dragging Gore's
corpse across the finish line (and getting the result certified by Kathryn
Harris, Antonin Scalia and Just Our Bill Rehnquist) I have no doubt a Gore
administration would have repayed them with the same patrician patronizing
Gore displayed in his speech.

Images of vegetation and nakedness abound. Emperor Shrub will wear the Gored
olive branch as a fig leaf at his unauguration to conceal the nakedness
uncovered by his magnificent, invisible new clothes that only a fool could
fail to see were woven of the finest judicial gold and twenty pieces of
silver. How fitting that Chief Just Our Bill will administer the Oaf of Orifice.


Tom Walker
Sandwichman and Deconsultant
Bowen Island, BC

BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2000

RELEASED TODAY:  The U.S. Import Price Index increased 0.2 percent in
November.  The increase was largely attributable to a rise in imported
petroleum prices.  The Export Price Index was unchanged in November. ...

On-the-job injuries and illnesses declined another 4 percent in 1999, and
the nation's injury and illnesses rate -- 6.3 cases for every 100 workers --
was the lowest since the federal government began reporting annual injury
figures, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Some 5.7 million
total nonfatal injuries and illnesses were counted for 1999, compared with
6.1 million in 1998.  Most of the injuries and illnesses counted for 1999 --
some 5.3 million -- were injuries, BLS reports. ...  The overall rate of 6.3
cases per 100 workers in 1999 is evidence of a consistent decline in the
nation's injury and illness rate from the 1973 high of 11.0 per 100 workers
in the bureau's first survey. ...  Manufacturing continues to report the
highest injury and illness rate of 9.2 cases per 100, BLS says. ...  (Daily
Labor Report, page D-1).

The nation's purchasing managers say it is getting harder to pass along
increases in wages and commodity prices to customers, offering evidence that
the spur in energy prices and the tight labor market aren't sparking a new
round of inflation.  Only 13 percent of purchasing managers in manufacturing
and 25 percent of those outside manufacturing told the National Association
of Purchasing Management that their companies are able to pass along all or
most cost increases.  A year earlier, 17 percent of manufacturers and 36
percent of the nonmanufacturers said they were able to do so. ...  (Wall
Street Journal, page A2)_Manufacturers are less optimistic about the
business outlook for 2001 than they were for 2000, with the strong U.S.
dollar, high energy prices, foreign competition, slower economic growth at
home and abroad, and higher interest rates expected to curb activity.
Manufacturing firms' growth will continue next year, with activity in the
second half outpacing activity in the first 6 months. ...  (Daily Labor
Report, page A-8).

Recent volatility in wholesale energy markets is undermining the credit
ratings and may eventually crimp the borrowing ability of some of the
nation's biggest utilities, long regarded in the credit markets as some of
the safest bets around.  It is the worst out West, where the price of power
to be delivered today hit a new high of $1,182 per megawatt hour on
California's state sanctioned auction, a benchmark for the entire region.
That compared with $30 a year ago. ...  (Wall Street Journal, page A2).

Customers will face record natural gas prices all winter because of soaring
demand and a dwindling supply, energy experts told Congress. ...  (Wall
Street Journal, page A2).

Skittish retailers are still waiting for the buying rush.  Even though most
merchants have set sales-growth targets lower than last year's, several
major chains so far are having trouble meeting even those targets during the
critical holiday shopping period, according to the investment firm UBS
Warburg.  Retailers and retail analysts have said all along that this year's
shopping season would be less spectacular than last year's and would get off
to a slow start because there are more days than usual between Thanksgiving
and Christmas.  But the snapshots taken by organizations that track retail
sales and traffic suggest that even those cautious forecasts may have been
too optimistic. ...  (Washington Post, page E3).

Microsoft agreed to pay $97 million yesterday to settle an 8-year-old
class-action lawsuit  in which thousands of temporary employees accused the
company of improperly denying them benefits.  Microsoft reached this
settlement, one of the largest ever received by a group a temporary
employees, after the workers had sued the company, maintaining that they
were actually permanent employees, not temporaries, and therefore deserved
the same benefits as regular workers.  This lawsuit, originally filed in
December 1992, was by far the most prominent lawsuit in the nation attacking
a popular practice in which many companies hired workers as temps, kept them
for a year or more, and did not provide them with regular permanent employee
benefits.  In recent years, partly in reaction to the lawsuit, Microsoft has
taken several major steps to change its employment policies. ...  (New York
Times, page C1; Washington Post, page E1; Wall Street Journal, page C10;
Daily Labor Report, page AA-1).

DUE OUT TOMORROW:  Producer Price Indexes -- November 2000


 application/ms-tnef

Re: Gore's concession speech

[Nathan Newman]

Gore's speech was pathetic- aimed at his own credibility although being the
"good son", he probably believes a lot of that crap.

So progressives need to just ignore Gore- the votes suppress belonged to the
folks who were disenfranchised, not to Gore.  If he wants to write it all
off as a good clean fight, that doesn't help but it doesn't stop
progressives from organizing the fuck-you response for the future.

Gore was an incredibly bad candidate and it is a testament to the power of
grassroots progressive Dems that his corpse was almost dragged across the
finish line by union, black and latino election activists.   If our folks
could do it for Gore, we sure as hell should be able to do it for a real
progressive in the primaries in four years and push for a win in the general
election.

-- Nathan Newman

- Original Message -
From: "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 2:29 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:6128] 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