Electricity Deregulation.

[Ken Hanly]

The Washington Post January 28, 2001

Put the Deregulation Genie Back in the Bottle

by Gregory Palast

Cambridge, England -- As the lights go out over California, state
politicians are in a Henny Penny panic that the two big local power
companies, Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric
Co. (PG&E), will collapse into bankruptcy. Not me: I can't think of
anything that would more joyously combine historical justice and good
public policy.
Why justice? Because SCE and PG&E executives, eager to reap the
profits of deregulation, were in the forefront of the army of industry
lobbyists fighting to establish the system that got California into this
mess.
And why good public policy? Because letting the utilities go bankrupt
could be the first step toward returning California to the system of
government price regulation that has given America some of the cheapest
and most reliable electricity in the world. Regulation may be politically
unfashionable, but it works.
Over the past three decades, as a consultant to 19 state
governments, I've seen electricity price regulation from the inside. The
U.S. process is unique in the world. In open hearings, consumer groups,
competitors or anyone off the street can pore over a utility company's
account books, cross-examine the company's executives and question
the regulators' staff. Based on that evidence, public utility commissions
set a price per kilowatt hour based on verified costs plus a small, tightly
controlled profit for shareholders. It's a litigious, messy business, prone
to
political manipulation, just as its critics say. But that's true of any
democratic process.
The so-called deregulation movement seeks to replace this open,
participatory, American system -- one that's been astonishingly effective
for nearly a century -- with something conceived and designed in
Margaret Thatcher's England and launched there in 1990. (Sorry,
California, this is one fad you didn't think of first.) A number of
countries,
including Brazil and Chile, mimicked the British system. And California
swallowed it whole.
This is how the British system works. First, electricity businesses are
split into "generators" and "distributors" -- the first owning the power
plants, the second the wires transmitting the power. (During this part of
the deregulation process, SCE and PG&E gleefully sold off many of their
generating plants -- built with ratepayers' money -- and pocketed the
proceeds.) Then something called a "power pool" is established. Every
day, generators bid the price at which they will supply electricity to the
pool at a certain hour of the next day, say 2 cents per kilowatt hour at 4
p.m.
In Britain, it didn't take long for the handful of power sellers and
traders to learn how to "game" the pool, essentially turning the daily
auction into a fixed casino. Last year, Britain's Office of Electricity and
Gas Markets concluded that collusion and manipulation of the pool had
become standard business practice.
So it's not surprising that in Britain -- as well as in every one of its
imitators -- the public has suffered higher prices, decayed service and
blackouts. In the 1990s, as America's electricity prices fell with the price
of oil, Britain's stayed stratospheric, on average 70 percent higher than in
the States. (Don't confuse this with the taxes that keep gasoline prices
high in Britain; profits account for the higher electricity prices. U.K.
utilities
commonly earn five times the return on capital permitted to regulated U.S.
utilities.)
And this is the system that the free-market fanatics foisted on
California. Notably, three of the four biggest power generators controlling
the California market -- AES, Southern and Dynergy -- and the biggest
U.S. power trader, Enron, are also big players in Britain.
Manipulated or not, on a hot summer's day, when a pool needs all the
juice it can find, the handful of sellers can name their price. And in
California, they do. For example, this past June 29, sellers demanded 52
cents per kilowatt hour; on June 29, 1999, they had accepted 5 cents, a
price better reflecting their true costs.
I first came to Britain in 1996, to help the incoming Labor government
try to fix the nation's new -- but already broken -- electricity market. It
didn't work. Year after year, the fixes failed, as they will fail in
California
and other states that think they can design a deregulated system. There
is no fix: Free markets in electricity go berserk because they aren't really
markets, aren't free and can't be. Electricity isn't like a dozen bagels; it
can't be frozen, stored or trucked where needed. And while you can skip
your daily bagel, homes and industry will not do without their daily
electricity.
As a result, deregulation is never really deregulation but an unhappy
mish-mash of rules belatedly chasing runaway prices generated by each
week's new trading game. To salvage their imploding market, the
California power pool's economists busily craft one w

intersting transnational corporation web site

[Michael Perelman]

http://www.transnationale.org/anglais/
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

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

Re: CA & Greenspan

[Nathan Newman]

- Original Message -
From: "Margaret Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-The only problem with using a reasonable (?) solution to California's
problems
-as a way to tout democrats over republicans is that it was the democrats
who can
-be blamed for creating the problem in the first place.

No, California's deregulation strategy was bipartisan and created under a
GOP governor who would have vetoed any progressive approach.  My point is
that divided government makes real responsibility unclear, since all results
are based on what is possible given the check and veto of the opposing
party.

California right now has a small amount of check in the form of
initiative-based rules forcing two-thirds votes for many revenue decisions,
thereby giving the GOP in the legislature some leverage, but in general the
Dems now have a pretty free hand and therefore responsibility for what
happens.  This is a rather remarkable reality that has not really existed in
any large state for quite a number of years, since all the large states have
had some branch of government controlled by the GOP.  Now, we have
California controlled fully by the Dems and we can see the results.

In the past two years, the Dems have actually passed some remarkably
progressive legislation: free university tuition for almost all students,
banning almost all strike injunctions, expanded health care rights, agency
fees for all public employees in unionized sectors, the recognition of
graduate student employees, restored benefits for immigrants and a number of
even more progressive bills passed but vetoed by Davis.

But utility reform is the first real crisis with real capital conflict
dimensions, so the results will be instructive.   I've never claimed that
the Dems are socialist or an unconflicted good, but I hope the results are
strong enough to justify my lesser-evilism faith.   We shall see.

==  Nathan Newman

Re: Re: Korean news

[Michael Perelman]

Brad, you have to stop arguing by insult!!!  The whole thread is
peripheral to this list.

I wish that you would contribute more about the economy and less about
your anticommunism.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 08:36:18PM -0800, Brad DeLong wrote:
> >Brad, you need to learn to read. Apparently being a big shot at 
> >Berkeley doesn't guarantee that you can can. I never said what you 
> >attribute to me. I didn't comment on the wisdom or lack of of LBJ's 
> >decision. I did say that that the evidence Brad himself cited shows 
> >is that Brezhnev asked the US's permission to go ahead with the 
> >Czecho invasion, and the permission was granted. --jks
> >
> >>
> >>Yep. Hence Justin Schwartz needs to think before he posts. When he
> >>doesn't think, he makes claims like the one that LBJ's unwillingness
> >>to risk nuclear World War III to protect Dubcek demonstrates that the
> >>U.S. government was always hostile to "reform communism".
> >>
> >>Brad DeLong
> >>
> 
> 
> 
> "Wrong again, Brad. Brezhnev was not about to try to face down the US 
> in a nuclear confrontation like the Cuban Missile Crisis, which had 
> led to Khrushchev being iced (by B himself and some pals); he was 
> basically asking LBJ's permission. Which LBJ, being happily involved 
> in Vietnam, was willing to give; he saw no advantage in letting 
> reform communism develop..."
> 
> 
> 
> I can read: you apparently cannot remember what you wrote. Pathetic.
> 
> It is not the case that LBJ saw "no advantage in letting reform 
> communism develop." In fact, LBJ saw great advantage in letting 
> reform communism develop. If you went to the CIA or the NEC in the 
> 1960s and asked people how they expected to win the Cold War, the 
> answer would have been "reform communism."They expected the countries 
> on the other side of the Iron Curtain to move over time toward more 
> decentralized economies--imitation of the more successful Yugoslavian 
> and Hungarian models. And over time they expected the countries on 
> the other side of the Iron Curtain to move toward more democratic 
> politics--at least within the party. So they expected Poland, 
> Hungary, and Russia after a decade of reform communism to look a lot 
> like Sweden: an economy with a large role for the market (albeit with 
> strong "planning" elements), and politics that was effectively 
> democratic (albeit probably with a very limited (though open) 
> franchise). In that case, the Cold War would have been over: there 
> would be no point in having a Cold War with a country that was close 
> in politico-economic structure to Palme's Sweden or Brandt's West 
> Germany.
> 
> This is an important point in this context because of this view--I'm 
> not certain whether it is a vulgarization of E.P. Thompson's view or 
> whether E.P. Thompson was himself vulgar--that the Cold War was a 
> shadow play: that both Russia and America were much less concerned 
> with struggling against each other than with maintaining control over 
> their respective empires.
> 
> This view is false: both Russian and American leaders took their 
> multi-level struggle with the other very seriously, seriously enough 
> to disrupt and destroy attempts at detente. One of the most 
> interesting things to come out of the Cold War International History 
> Project is the negotiations over Angola in the mid-1970s. When 
> Kissinger protests that the Soviet Union has no interests at stake in 
> Angola, that it benefits a great deal from economic links with 
> America, and that Soviet support of the MPLA in Angola will anger 
> Congress enough to destroy detente, the Soviets reply: "Tough. The 
> Cubans are our socialist brothers, and they wish to support our 
> socialist brothers in the MPLA. We cannot sacrifice their interests 
> for our own material advantage."
> 
> To deny that the Cold War was overwhelmingly about 
> *ideology*--different roads to utopia--is to commit an error of 
> historical judgment as bad as denying that Naziism was overwhelmingly 
> about the mass murder of the populations of Eastern Europe and their 
> demographic replacement by Germans...
> 
> 
> Brad DeLong
> 

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

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

Re: Korean news

[Brad DeLong]

>Brad, you need to learn to read. Apparently being a big shot at 
>Berkeley doesn't guarantee that you can can. I never said what you 
>attribute to me. I didn't comment on the wisdom or lack of of LBJ's 
>decision. I did say that that the evidence Brad himself cited shows 
>is that Brezhnev asked the US's permission to go ahead with the 
>Czecho invasion, and the permission was granted. --jks
>
>>
>>Yep. Hence Justin Schwartz needs to think before he posts. When he
>>doesn't think, he makes claims like the one that LBJ's unwillingness
>>to risk nuclear World War III to protect Dubcek demonstrates that the
>>U.S. government was always hostile to "reform communism".
>>
>>Brad DeLong
>>



"Wrong again, Brad. Brezhnev was not about to try to face down the US 
in a nuclear confrontation like the Cuban Missile Crisis, which had 
led to Khrushchev being iced (by B himself and some pals); he was 
basically asking LBJ's permission. Which LBJ, being happily involved 
in Vietnam, was willing to give; he saw no advantage in letting 
reform communism develop..."



I can read: you apparently cannot remember what you wrote. Pathetic.

It is not the case that LBJ saw "no advantage in letting reform 
communism develop." In fact, LBJ saw great advantage in letting 
reform communism develop. If you went to the CIA or the NEC in the 
1960s and asked people how they expected to win the Cold War, the 
answer would have been "reform communism."They expected the countries 
on the other side of the Iron Curtain to move over time toward more 
decentralized economies--imitation of the more successful Yugoslavian 
and Hungarian models. And over time they expected the countries on 
the other side of the Iron Curtain to move toward more democratic 
politics--at least within the party. So they expected Poland, 
Hungary, and Russia after a decade of reform communism to look a lot 
like Sweden: an economy with a large role for the market (albeit with 
strong "planning" elements), and politics that was effectively 
democratic (albeit probably with a very limited (though open) 
franchise). In that case, the Cold War would have been over: there 
would be no point in having a Cold War with a country that was close 
in politico-economic structure to Palme's Sweden or Brandt's West 
Germany.

This is an important point in this context because of this view--I'm 
not certain whether it is a vulgarization of E.P. Thompson's view or 
whether E.P. Thompson was himself vulgar--that the Cold War was a 
shadow play: that both Russia and America were much less concerned 
with struggling against each other than with maintaining control over 
their respective empires.

This view is false: both Russian and American leaders took their 
multi-level struggle with the other very seriously, seriously enough 
to disrupt and destroy attempts at detente. One of the most 
interesting things to come out of the Cold War International History 
Project is the negotiations over Angola in the mid-1970s. When 
Kissinger protests that the Soviet Union has no interests at stake in 
Angola, that it benefits a great deal from economic links with 
America, and that Soviet support of the MPLA in Angola will anger 
Congress enough to destroy detente, the Soviets reply: "Tough. The 
Cubans are our socialist brothers, and they wish to support our 
socialist brothers in the MPLA. We cannot sacrifice their interests 
for our own material advantage."

To deny that the Cold War was overwhelmingly about 
*ideology*--different roads to utopia--is to commit an error of 
historical judgment as bad as denying that Naziism was overwhelmingly 
about the mass murder of the populations of Eastern Europe and their 
demographic replacement by Germans...


Brad DeLong

RE: Re: Re: Rumsfeld falsifies Rational Choice

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

He could be playing what Thomas Ferguson calls 'the investment theory of
politics and party competition'; tiny sacrifice now big gains down the road.
Although he's kind of old ain't he?

Ian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Devine
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 7:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:7504] Re: Re: Rumsfeld falsifies Rational Choice
>
>
> At 09:40 PM 01/29/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > >January 29, 2001  Single-Page Format
> > >Rumsfeld to Pay Big Price to Avoid Conflicts
> > >By STEVEN LEE MYERS
> > >
> > >WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 — As he returns to the Pentagon for a second tour as
> > >secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld is being required to divest
> > himself of
> > >an array of stocks, partnerships and other holdings at what one of his
> > financial
> > >advisers called "a significant loss."
> > >
> >Well, Rumsfeld's behavior isn't consistent with at least a simple-minded
> >economistic version of rational choice theory--i.e., one that says people
> >are always motivated by the desire to maximize their economic gains.
>
> I don't think Rumsfeld [my old congresscritter, BTW] is going to suffer at
> all. It seems like a good time to sell stocks (if only to switch to a
> highly diversified portfolio in a blind trust), while he'll be well
> supported by his GOP friends. He'll be able to make lotzabux on the
> speaker's platform, the way Colin Powell has.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
>

AIDS, Drugs, Patents, & the Empire

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

The New York Times
January 28, 2001, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 6; Page 26; Column 1; Magazine Desk
HEADLINE: Look at Brazil

BYLINE:  By Tina Rosenberg...

...Until a year ago, the triple therapy that has made AIDS a 
manageable disease in wealthy nations was considered realistic only 
for those who could afford to pay $10,000 to $15,000 a year or lived 
in societies that could.  The most that poor countries could hope to 
do was prevent new cases of AIDS through educational programs and 
condom promotion or to cut mother-to-child transmission and, if they 
were very lucky, treat some of AIDS's opportunistic infections.  But 
the 32.5 million people with H.I.V. in the developing world had 
little hope of survival.

This was the conventional wisdom.  Today, all of these statements are false

...Since 1997, virtually every AIDS patient in Brazil for whom it is 
medically indicated gets, free, the same triple cocktails that keep 
rich Americans healthy.  (In Western Europe, no one who needs AIDS 
treatment is denied it because of cost.  This is true in some 
American states, but not all.)  Brazil has shredded all the excuses 
about why poor countries cannot treat AIDS.  Health system too 
fragile?  On the shaky foundation of its public health service, 
Brazil built a well-run network of AIDS clinics.  Uneducated people 
can't stick to the complicated regime of pills?  Brazilian AIDS 
patients have proved just as able to take their medicine on time as 
patients in the United States.

Ah, but treating AIDS is too expensive!  In fact, Brazil's program 
almost certainly pays for itself.  It has halved the death rate from 
AIDS, prevented hundreds of thousands of new hospitalizations, cut 
the transmission rate, helped to stabilize the epidemic and improved 
the overall state of public health in Brazil.

Brazil can afford to treat AIDS because it does not pay market prices 
for antiretroviral drugs -- the most controversial aspect of the 
country's plan.  In 1998, the government began making copies of 
brand-name drugs, and the price of those medicines has fallen by an 
average of 79 percent.  Brazil now produces some triple therapy for 
$3,000 a year and expects to do much better, and the price could 
potentially drop to $700 a year or even less.

Brazil is showing that no one who dies of AIDS dies of natural 
causes.  Those who die have been failed -- by feckless leaders who 
see weapons as more alluring purchases than medicines, by wealthy 
countries (notably the United States) that have threatened the 
livelihood of poor nations who seek to manufacture cheap medicine and 
by the multinational drug companies who have kept the price of 
antiretroviral drugs needlessly out of reach of the vast majority of 
the world's population

In other words, the debate about whether poor countries can treat 
AIDS is over. The question is how

The drug companies are wrong...on how to make AIDS drugs affordable. 
Their solution -- limited, negotiated price cuts -- is slow, grudging 
and piecemeal.  Brazil, by defying the pharmaceutical companies and 
threatening to break patents, among other actions, has made drugs 
available to everyone who needs them.  Its experience shows that 
doing this requires something radical: an alteration of the basic 
social contract the pharmaceutical companies have enjoyed until now.

By the terms of that contract, manufacturers, in return for the risks 
of developing new drugs, receive a 20-year monopoly to sell them in 
some nations at whatever prices they choose.  The industry has 
thrived under this contractPoor countries, it is now clear, must 
violate this contract if they are to save their people from AIDS.

Brazil has been able to treat AIDS because it had what everyone 
agrees is the single most important requirement for doing so: 
political commitment.  At the beginning of 1999, Brazil's economy was 
skidding into crisis.  President Fernando Henrique Cardoso was under 
great pressure to cut the budget by abandoning the AIDS program.  He 
rejected that advice, deciding that treating AIDS was a priority.

Such commitment has its roots in the gay community.  Although AIDS is 
now a disease of the poor in Brazil, the first Brazilians infected 
were gay men.  In a country famously open about matters sexual, gays 
were much more activist and better organized than in most other 
nations, and AIDS carried less of the stigma that has elsewhere led 
people simply to deny its existence.

Then the movement found an unlikely ally in Jose Sarney, Brazil's 
first civilian president after the country emerged from military rule 
in 1985 and a conservative who led a pro-military party during the 
dictatorship.  In 1996, scientists at the world AIDS conference in 
Vancouver announced that triple therapy with a protease inhibitor 
could reduce viral load to undetectable levels.  Finally, there was a 
treatment for AIDS.  "A doctor friend informed me about what was 
going

Re: Re: Rumsfeld falsifies Rational Choice

[Jim Devine]

At 09:40 PM 01/29/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >January 29, 2001  Single-Page Format
> >Rumsfeld to Pay Big Price to Avoid Conflicts
> >By STEVEN LEE MYERS
> >
> >WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 — As he returns to the Pentagon for a second tour as
> >secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld is being required to divest 
> himself of
> >an array of stocks, partnerships and other holdings at what one of his 
> financial
> >advisers called "a significant loss."
> >
>Well, Rumsfeld's behavior isn't consistent with at least a simple-minded 
>economistic version of rational choice theory--i.e., one that says people 
>are always motivated by the desire to maximize their economic gains.

I don't think Rumsfeld [my old congresscritter, BTW] is going to suffer at 
all. It seems like a good time to sell stocks (if only to switch to a 
highly diversified portfolio in a blind trust), while he'll be well 
supported by his GOP friends. He'll be able to make lotzabux on the 
speaker's platform, the way Colin Powell has.

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: CA & Greenspan

[Jim Devine]

At 08:19 PM 01/29/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>The only problem with using a reasonable (?) solution to California's problems
>as a way to tout democrats over republicans is that it was the democrats 
>who can
>be blamed for creating the problem in the first place.

It was bipartisanship at its worst.The legislature went unanimously for the 
"deregulation" plan, which was written by the power companies and pushed by 
GOP gov. Pete Wilson.

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: CA & Greenspan

[Eugene Coyle]

It is true that a significant part of California's "electricity shortage" can be
traced to three years of below average rainfall in Washington and Oregon.  For
decades power has been traded seasonally -- shipped south in the summer, north in
the winter.  But there is less to come south because of the lack of water behind
the dams.  Plus the new emphasis on saving Salmon, which calls for water by-passing
the turbines and thus not generating electricity.  And it is true that other states
have increased electricity consumption faster than Calif in the 90s.
The deregulation in California was driven (at the political level) by 5 out of
5 Republican PUC commissioners, and then signed and sealed in the Republican
governor's office -- Pete Wilson.  But the Dems in the legislature were aggressive
in supporting deregulation as well.

Gene Coyle

Margaret Coleman wrote:

> The only problem with using a reasonable (?) solution to California's problems
> as a way to tout democrats over republicans is that it was the democrats who can
> be blamed for creating the problem in the first place.  On another note,
> according to recent articles in the Wash Post, most of the energy shortage is
> due to growth in other western states who have increased their demand at a much
> greater rate than California in recent years, and, to a drought.  Is this true?
> maggie coleman
>
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > At 12:48 PM 01/29/2001 +, you wrote:
> > >California's politicians have decided to issue bonds to publicly repay the
> > >utilities' debt, with taxpayers gaining stock in the assets of the bailed
> > >out corporations.
> >
> > -though it will probably work out poorly in practice in California (given
> > -the political balance), it's a good idea in theory: when corporations get
> > -government subsidies, they should have to give equity in return. Goodbye to
> > -corporate welfare?
> >
> > I'll go out on a limb (without promising heaven) and note that the whole
> > utility debacle in California is a good test of the proposition that Dems
> > are in fact a better alternative to the GOP.  California is one of the only
> > states in the country right now where Dems control both houses of the
> > legislature and the Governor's office.  So if they do deliver a moderately
> > progressive solution - such as gettig equity in exchange for subsidies - it
> > does support us lesser-evil proponents.  And if they end up selling us out
> > for the corporate boys completely, Nader does begin to look more attractive.
> >
> > So we will see - a nice real world experiment in political opportunity and
> > results.
> >
> > -- Nathan Newman

Re: Rumsfeld falsifies Rational Choice

[Jeffrey L. Beatty]

At 09:58 AM 1/29/01 -0800, Ian Murray wrote:

>
>
>January 29, 2001  Single-Page Format
>Rumsfeld to Pay Big Price to Avoid Conflicts
>By STEVEN LEE MYERS
>
>WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 — As he returns to the Pentagon for a second tour as
>secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld is being required to divest himself of
>an array of stocks, partnerships and other holdings at what one of his financial
>advisers called "a significant loss."
>
>[snip]
>
>
>


Well, Rumsfeld's behavior isn't consistent with at least a simple-minded economistic version of rational choice theory--i.e., one that says people are always motivated by the desire to maximize their economic gains.  

The most general statement of the rationality assumption, as discussed by Herbert Simon (1985), is simply the notion that there exists some correspondence between the goals of individuals and the actions they take to achieve their goals.  We can attribute all kinds of goals to individuals.  Economists of the neoclassical school claim individuals attempt as a goal to maximize their utility measured in terms of consumption of material goods and services.  Political scientists of the so-called "realist" school in international relations claim that states (statesmen in some formulations) seek to maximize their interests conceived of in terms of power in the international system).  Simon believes it is these specifications of individuals' goals, rather than the rationality assumption as such, that provides "rational choice theories" with their predictive power.

Returning to the example of Mr. Rumsfeld, a rational choice theorist could simply argue that Mr. Rumsfeld's behavior indicated that his utility for holding the office of Defense Secretary was greater than his utility for making profits from his financial and business assets.  Note, however, the circularity of the argument as I've stated it.  Mr. Rumsfeld behaved as he did because of his utility function and we know what his utility function is because of his behavior.  Such circularity is a potential pitfall in many rational choice arguments, including those from the Austrian economics camp that hold that the only way we know what people's preferences are is to observe their behavior in a market setting.  Generally, I and other social scientists would argue that it is fallacious to infer preferences from observed behavior.  

Problems like these should cause us to raise the question of whether many rational choice arguments can be properly falsified at all, even in principle.  If not, they clearly cannot be considered "scientific theories" in the good old reliable positivist sense.

REFERENCES

Simon, Herbert A.  "Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science."  The American Political Science Review 79, No. 2. (June 1985):  293-304.



--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567

Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__   
If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest common denominator of human achievement-- President Jimmy Carter

Re: [Fwd: manifesto]

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Deregulation is good is good, but it didn't go far enough.  Sort of 
>like Vietnam again.  We were doing everything right, but we
>just needed a few more troops.  Or, during the wonderful Reagan 
>years, when problems cropped up, we heard were doing everything
>right, except that we didn't go back on the gold standard.  You can 
>never prove a market solution wrong.
>
>Michael Perelman

I'm almost tempted to say, "why not let them go _far_ enough?"  A 
fully deregulated market can never surviveThe dominant ideology 
will never acknowledge this fact (unless rich nations plunge again in 
the Great Depression), but _in practice_ the California debacle will 
put a damper on deregulation (hence the urgency of the Manifesto 
writers), I think.

*   The New York Times
January 26, 2001, Friday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 2; National Desk
HEADLINE: California Gets Scant Sympathy From Neighbors
BYLINE:  By SAM HOWE VERHOVEK
DATELINE: SEATTLE, Jan. 25

...Meanwhile, while no other Western state is as far along with 
deregulation as California is, the recent woes seem to be putting the 
brakes on any movement toward deregulating.  Several Oregon 
officials, including Mayor Vera Katz of Portland, have called for 
postponing a limited deregulation plan in that state.

And earlier this week, Gov. Kenny Guinn of Nevada, said in his State 
of the State speech that he would delay a plan there that had been 
set to begin this fall.

"I cannot and will not support deregulation until I am assured that 
power supplies are secure," Governor Guinn, a Republican, said 
*

*   The New York Times
January 27, 2001, Saturday, Late Edition - Final
NAME: S. DAVID FREEMAN
SECTION: Section A; Page 8; Column 1; National Desk
HEADLINE: PUBLIC LIVES;
California's Leader in Singing the Praises of Public Power
BYLINE:  By TODD S. PURDUM
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES

...To the praise of politicians, power company executives and 
consumer groups alike, he [S. David Freeman] was tapped this week by 
Gov. Gray Davis as the point man in negotiating new long-term 
electricity contracts, to keep the lights burning and the state's 
major private utilities afloat.

The only question was what took so long.  As the head of the Los 
Angeles Department of Water and Power, the municipal utility whose 
all-powerful reach made the modern city possible, Mr. Freeman has 
been a holdout against deregulation or divestiture of the 
department's generators.  The result is that Los Angeles is insulated 
from the blackouts threatening the rest of the state, and the D.W.P. 
(as it is known) issues daily news releases detailing just how many 
surplus megawatts it has for sale.

You look at where the lights are on in California, and you look at 
the municipal utilities, Mr. Freeman said in a brief interview as he 
shuttled between negotiations in Sacramento. "There are a lot more 
detailed reasons, too, but I do think it's fair to say that the 
public power agencies continue to feel responsible for providing the 
power.  Deregulation kind of leaves it up to Elvis Presley."

Mr. Freeman, who initially supported deregulation but came to believe 
it was a mistake, added: "It's time the words 'public power' are 
pronounced again in public.  It was public power that turned the 
lights on in rural America.  Not too many people are alive today who 
know that.  We've had electricity in the whole country for 50 years, 
but not much more than that."...

...What Mr. Freeman must do now is negotiate the best prices possible 
for the state to buy energy, and pass it along to the state's major 
shareholder-owned utilities.  The state would float bonds to finance 
the deal, in exchange for some kind of equity stake in the utilities, 
and ratepayers, too, would face extension of recent increases to help 
pay off the utilities' debts.

Mr. Freeman said that "nobody'll know" his strategy until the deals 
were done.  He rejects any suggestion that the power crisis has been 
artificially sparked by profiteering wholesalers and utilities in an 
effort to raise rates.

"The stupidity theory explains most things; the conspiracy theory 
doesn't," he said.  "We were just stupid in not thinking through the 
way deregulation would work in a shortage."

"That's not to say you couldn't have a surplus and still have people 
gaming the market," he added.  "But that's not the reason we have 
this problem.  It's because we have a shortage."

To that end, Mr. Freeman is also pressing for a sweeping program of 
incentives for energy conservation and creation of a state power 
authority that could buy transmission lines and finance the 
construction of power plants.

Even now, a lesson from his father's old store is not lost on him. 
"His favorite expression was any fool can buy an umbrella on a rainy 
day," Mr. Freeman said in his Tennessee twang.  "It takes a wise man 
to buy an umbrella on a sunny day."   *

*   The New York Times
January 29, 2001, Mo

Re: Buck Fush

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Michael Perelman says:

>Doesn't kerala do a better job of educating young girls?  Isn't that very
>important?

Yes, Kerala does.  And educational equality is even more important 
than income equality, as far as reproductive choices of women are 
concerned.

>But then, I have read about family planning being important for empowering
>women vis a vis their husbands.

Yes, family planning is important.  The question is who runs family 
planning programs.  I don't like the idea of "international family 
planning organizations" running them.  I'd rather see Indian women's 
movement or Indian leftist movement (like the CP) running them.  The 
same goes for women of any other poor nation.

There's nothing more empowering than women running programs that help 
themselves.  It's a virtuous circle, which never -- well, seldom ever 
-- happens with international charity.

Yoshie

Re: CA & Greenspan

[Michael Perelman]

If the Dems don't figure out the energy crisis, they will go the way of
Jimmy Carter.  Just after I put down the overemphasis on politics, I will
add that Davis makes Clinton look like a leftist radical.

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

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

Re: nsubbing

[Michael Perelman]

Just send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

unsub pen-l

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 05:42:34PM -0800, Mike Zellefrow wrote:
> Hello-
>  How do I unsub from this list please?
> 

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

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

Re: Re: Buck Fush

[Michael Perelman]

Doesn't kerala do a better job of educating young girls?  Isn't that very
important?

But then, I have read about family planning being important for empowering
women vis a vis their husbands.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 08:49:44PM -0500, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Maggie says:
> 
> >I think what we need to do is support pro-CHOICE, which is not the same as
> >pro-abortion, though abortion is a very important part of choice.
> 
> Well, the question is, though, if the "international family planning 
> organizations" have had a measurable impact of expanding women's 
> choices in poor nations.  I don't think Kerala has a lower birth rate 
> than the rest of India because the former has more "international 
> family planning organizations" than the latter.
> 
> Charity never solves any problem, even if it's truly charitable (and 
> it often isn't).
> 
> Yoshie
> 

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

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

Re: Buck Fush

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Maggie says:

>I think what we need to do is support pro-CHOICE, which is not the same as
>pro-abortion, though abortion is a very important part of choice.

Well, the question is, though, if the "international family planning 
organizations" have had a measurable impact of expanding women's 
choices in poor nations.  I don't think Kerala has a lower birth rate 
than the rest of India because the former has more "international 
family planning organizations" than the latter.

Charity never solves any problem, even if it's truly charitable (and 
it often isn't).

Yoshie

Re: Re: Re: Paul P is right...

[Mike Zellefrow]

Hello-
 How do I unsub from this list please?
--- Margaret Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, not just Germany, but England, France,
> Italy, Switzerland, all those
> countries who had baby booms after WWII and who have
> retirement plans like social
> security will be in the same boat as the USA
> beginning in about 15 years.  In fact,
> Italy will be the worst because they have the lowest
> fertility rate of any industrial
> country, 0.6 children per fertile woman.  And the
> home country to the Catholic Church,
> my my.  maggie coleman
> 
> Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
> 
> >  Actually, I have recently taken to pointing
> > to Germany whenever I am talking with someone who
> > starts hyperventilating about how the US must do
> > something about its "social security crisis"
> > (usually meaning some kind of privatization/
> > cutbacks).  After all, Germany's demographics
> > are now about what they will be in the US in 2030
> > when supposedly all hell will break loose unless
> > "something is done soon!!!"  Only now do the
> Germans
> > seem to feel that they maybe have to do something
> > and their system is far more generous than that in
> > the US.  Of course, it is true that they have
> higher
> > taxes in Germany than in the US, with that gap
> likely
> > to widen substantially more in the near future...
> > Barkley Rosser
> > On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:30:26 -0800 Lisa & Ian
> Murray
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > full article at:
> > >
> > >
>

> > >
> > >
> > > Germany breaks taboo to defuse its pensions
> timebomb
> > >
> > > By Imre Karacs in Berlin
> > >
> > >
> > > 27 January 2001
> > >
> > > A much-trimmed blueprint for the overhaul of
> Germany's stretched state pension
> > > system was passed by the lower house of
> parliament yesterday.
> > >
> > > Hailed by the government as "the greatest social
> reform since the war", the Bill
> > > breaks a taboo by cutting benefits and
> encouraging workers to make up the
> > > difference through private pensions. The changes
> have become necessary because
> > > individual as well as state contributions were
> heading for an explosion.
> > >
> > > Under the new system, state pensions will
> gradually fall to 67 per cent of final
> > > salary from the current 70 per cent over the
> next 30 years. Though that will
> > > still leave German senior citizens the envy of
> the world, in a country that has
> > > taken index-linked pensions for granted, the
> small cut has provoked deep
> > > anxiety.
> > >
> > > According to a poll conducted yesterday, 77 per
> cent of Germans feared that
> > > their pensions were unsafe.
> > >
> > > Unlike almost everywhere in the industrial
> world, Germans have had no need for
> > > private or company pensions, so generously has
> the state treated them until now.
> > > Few Germans have bothered to save forretirement,
> even though the state pension
> > > is taxed.
> > >
> > > But the population is shrinking and ageing. Over
> the next decades, there will be
> > > fewer workers to pay for an ever- larger number
> of the idle rich.
> > >
> > > The need for reform has been recognised for
> decades, but previous attempts at
> > > reform were scuppered by powerful lobbies.
> Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's
> > > government has also been forced to rein in its
> early ambition, after vehement
> > > protests from trade unions.
> > >
> > > Now it is the opposition's turn to force through
> further amendments before it
> > > allows the Bill's passage through the upper
> house, the Bundesrat. It faces
> > > further tinkering before becoming law after a
> vote expected on 16 February.
> > >
> > > But modest as the reform may be, German business
> is generally relieved that the
> > > government is at last pruning a little bit of
> the bloated wage bill.
> > >
> > > Yesterday's debate was poisoned by a dispute
> over an opposition poster depicting
> > > the Chancellor as a criminal guilty of "pension
> fraud". The leader of the
> > > centre-right Christian Democrats, Angela Merkel,
> stopped short of apologising
> > > outright for the poster, which was scrapped on
> Wednesday, the day after it was
> > > unveiled.
> > >
> > > "We didn't want to criminalise the Chancellor,
> but in effect that happened," Ms
> > > Merkel said. "I regret that it could have been
> understood that way."
> > >
> > > Ms Merkel, who broadly favours liberal reforms,
> called the end result of much
> > > haggling a "bureaucratic monster".
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 


__
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Re: Paul P is right...

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Actually, not just Germany, but England, France, Italy, Switzerland, all those
>countries who had baby booms after WWII and who have retirement 
>plans like social
>security will be in the same boat as the USA beginning in about 15 
>years.  In fact,
>Italy will be the worst because they have the lowest fertility rate 
>of any industrial
>country, 0.6 children per fertile woman.  And the home country to 
>the Catholic Church,
>my my.  maggie coleman

And not because Italy has a stronger feminist movement than elsewhere 
or Italian feminists have advocated fewer childbirths more vocally 
than other feminists either:

*   Patrizia Romito's "Damned If You Do and Damned If You Don't: 
Psychological and Social Constraints on Motherhood in Contemporary 
Europe" is a case in point. Italy, Romito's country of origin, is 90% 
Catholic. While the populace seems to easily coexist with a Church 
and Pope who oppose birth control and abortion, many of Italy's women 
are quietly -- passively -- resisting motherhood. Indeed, as Romito 
points out, the birthrate in Italy is among the world's lowest: "If 
we take the generation of women who are now around 40, one in five is 
childless; in northern Italy the proportion is one in four." In order 
to address this issue, anti-abortion and pro-natalist groups have 
increased their activities in recent years. So what's going on? Is 
the anti-natalist trend a response to a feminist movement that has 
emphasized women's non-maternal contributions to society?

According to Romito, the answer is no. While feminists have mobilized 
when abortion has come under direct attack, for the most part 
activists have been shockingly reticent about choice. In fact, 
feminists have appeared reluctant to take up the abortion rights 
banner; much of the writing that has been done on the subject treats 
abortion as a tragedy, albeit a necessary one. Instead, "much more 
energy has been invested in the subject of childbirth, with 
theorizing, conferences, books and ever-increasing activity on the 
part of groups involved in home births, water births, sweet births 
and so on."

Are feminists to blame for growing anti-abortion sentiment in Italy? 
Of course not. But Romito's essay is a clear indicator of what is at 
stake if feminists remain silent on issues of reproduction. By siding 
with those who extol the maternal, Romito writes, organized feminists 
have lost touch with their constituents, and are playing into the 
hands of conservative movements that are virulently opposed to 
altering those traditional family structures that have historically 
oppressed women. In Italy today, organized feminist groups are 
apparently less willing to question those structures than are average 
Italian women.    
*

It's sad to hear that Italian feminists are out of touch with Italian 
women's quiet refusal of motherhood

Yoshie

Re: Re: Re: CA & Greenspan

[Margaret Coleman]

The only problem with using a reasonable (?) solution to California's problems
as a way to tout democrats over republicans is that it was the democrats who can
be blamed for creating the problem in the first place.  On another note,
according to recent articles in the Wash Post, most of the energy shortage is
due to growth in other western states who have increased their demand at a much
greater rate than California in recent years, and, to a drought.  Is this true?
maggie coleman

Nathan Newman wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 12:48 PM 01/29/2001 +, you wrote:
> >California's politicians have decided to issue bonds to publicly repay the
> >utilities' debt, with taxpayers gaining stock in the assets of the bailed
> >out corporations.
>
> -though it will probably work out poorly in practice in California (given
> -the political balance), it's a good idea in theory: when corporations get
> -government subsidies, they should have to give equity in return. Goodbye to
> -corporate welfare?
>
> I'll go out on a limb (without promising heaven) and note that the whole
> utility debacle in California is a good test of the proposition that Dems
> are in fact a better alternative to the GOP.  California is one of the only
> states in the country right now where Dems control both houses of the
> legislature and the Governor's office.  So if they do deliver a moderately
> progressive solution - such as gettig equity in exchange for subsidies - it
> does support us lesser-evil proponents.  And if they end up selling us out
> for the corporate boys completely, Nader does begin to look more attractive.
>
> So we will see - a nice real world experiment in political opportunity and
> results.
>
> -- Nathan Newman

Re: Fwd: faith based services

[Margaret Coleman]

h, Along with Scientology, how would the bushies react to Wiccan members
demanding a desk in the white house?  inquiring minds want to know.
maggie coleman

Jim Devine wrote:

> >To: "Editors, Los Angeles TIMES" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: faith based services
> >
> >To the editors of the L.A. TIMES:
> >
> >I wonder about President Bush's advocacy of taxpayer-subsidized provision
> >of services (such as drug rehabilitation) by religious organizations. How
> >will he and his conservative Christian friends respond when the
> >Scientology Church, a legally-recognized religious organization, steps up
> >to volunteer?
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Re: Re: Paul P is right...

[Margaret Coleman]

Actually, not just Germany, but England, France, Italy, Switzerland, all those
countries who had baby booms after WWII and who have retirement plans like social
security will be in the same boat as the USA beginning in about 15 years.  In fact,
Italy will be the worst because they have the lowest fertility rate of any industrial
country, 0.6 children per fertile woman.  And the home country to the Catholic Church,
my my.  maggie coleman

Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:

>  Actually, I have recently taken to pointing
> to Germany whenever I am talking with someone who
> starts hyperventilating about how the US must do
> something about its "social security crisis"
> (usually meaning some kind of privatization/
> cutbacks).  After all, Germany's demographics
> are now about what they will be in the US in 2030
> when supposedly all hell will break loose unless
> "something is done soon!!!"  Only now do the Germans
> seem to feel that they maybe have to do something
> and their system is far more generous than that in
> the US.  Of course, it is true that they have higher
> taxes in Germany than in the US, with that gap likely
> to widen substantially more in the near future...
> Barkley Rosser
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:30:26 -0800 Lisa & Ian Murray
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > full article at:
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > Germany breaks taboo to defuse its pensions timebomb
> >
> > By Imre Karacs in Berlin
> >
> >
> > 27 January 2001
> >
> > A much-trimmed blueprint for the overhaul of Germany's stretched state pension
> > system was passed by the lower house of parliament yesterday.
> >
> > Hailed by the government as "the greatest social reform since the war", the Bill
> > breaks a taboo by cutting benefits and encouraging workers to make up the
> > difference through private pensions. The changes have become necessary because
> > individual as well as state contributions were heading for an explosion.
> >
> > Under the new system, state pensions will gradually fall to 67 per cent of final
> > salary from the current 70 per cent over the next 30 years. Though that will
> > still leave German senior citizens the envy of the world, in a country that has
> > taken index-linked pensions for granted, the small cut has provoked deep
> > anxiety.
> >
> > According to a poll conducted yesterday, 77 per cent of Germans feared that
> > their pensions were unsafe.
> >
> > Unlike almost everywhere in the industrial world, Germans have had no need for
> > private or company pensions, so generously has the state treated them until now.
> > Few Germans have bothered to save forretirement, even though the state pension
> > is taxed.
> >
> > But the population is shrinking and ageing. Over the next decades, there will be
> > fewer workers to pay for an ever- larger number of the idle rich.
> >
> > The need for reform has been recognised for decades, but previous attempts at
> > reform were scuppered by powerful lobbies. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's
> > government has also been forced to rein in its early ambition, after vehement
> > protests from trade unions.
> >
> > Now it is the opposition's turn to force through further amendments before it
> > allows the Bill's passage through the upper house, the Bundesrat. It faces
> > further tinkering before becoming law after a vote expected on 16 February.
> >
> > But modest as the reform may be, German business is generally relieved that the
> > government is at last pruning a little bit of the bloated wage bill.
> >
> > Yesterday's debate was poisoned by a dispute over an opposition poster depicting
> > the Chancellor as a criminal guilty of "pension fraud". The leader of the
> > centre-right Christian Democrats, Angela Merkel, stopped short of apologising
> > outright for the poster, which was scrapped on Wednesday, the day after it was
> > unveiled.
> >
> > "We didn't want to criminalise the Chancellor, but in effect that happened," Ms
> > Merkel said. "I regret that it could have been understood that way."
> >
> > Ms Merkel, who broadly favours liberal reforms, called the end result of much
> > haggling a "bureaucratic monster".
> >
>
> --
> Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Re: Korean news

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

Obviously, after watching it go on amongst multiple participants for a couple of
years, "we" can't; hey, we're just like everyone else :-) who can't debate all
that well. "Proof" the economy is much too important to be left to economists.

Ian



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 4:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:7488] Re: Korean news
>
>
> You need to read.  No, you need to think.  We can do better than that.
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 12:14:28AM -, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> > Brad, you need to learn to read. Apparently being a big shot at Berkeley
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Re: Re: Korean news

[Justin Schwartz]

OK, let's focus on the substantive issues. Which in this case are? Actually, 
it isn't clear, beyond Brad's substext that everything in US nuclear and 
foreign policy during the cold war was wise and just and necessary to 
contain communism--and my subtext that this is false, and that the US is a 
great power that acts in its amoral national interest like any other. But 
more specifically, we seem to be short on substantive disagreements. --jks

>
>You need to read.  No, you need to think.  We can do better than that.
>
>On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 12:14:28AM -, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> > Brad, you need to learn to read. Apparently being a big shot at Berkeley
>
>--
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

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

Re: Korean news

[Michael Perelman]

You need to read.  No, you need to think.  We can do better than that.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 12:14:28AM -, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> Brad, you need to learn to read. Apparently being a big shot at Berkeley 

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

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Justin Schwartz]

Brad, you need to learn to read. Apparently being a big shot at Berkeley 
doesn't guarantee that you can can. I never said what you attribute to me. I 
didn't comment on the wisdom or lack of of LBJ's decision. I did say that 
that the evidence Brad himself cited shwos is that Brezhnev asked the US's 
permission to go ahead with the Czecho invasion, and the permission aws 
granted. --jks

>
>Yep. Hence Justin Schwartz needs to think before he posts. When he
>doesn't think, he makes claims like the one that LBJ's unwillingness
>to risk nuclear World War III to protect Dubcek demonstrates that the
>U.S. government was always hostile to "reform communism".
>
>Brad DeLong
>

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Justin Schwartz]

Sure, or anyway, maybe, but thsi was after Tito had made it clear that he 
was not going to go quietly into that good night, as originally agreed by 
Staklin and Churchill. --jks

>
>Again, the same sorts of accusations about who has done the most/best 
>thinking.
>Cheryl Payer, in her book on the World Bank, does a good job of the showing 
>that
>the U.S. thought that the success of Yugoslavia would undermine Stalin, and 
>so
>it attempted to promote worker self-management in Yugoslavia.
>
>
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

The Internet Anti-Fascist: Friday, 26 Jan 2001 -- 5:5 (#507)

[Paul Kneisel]

OmniSky introduces the infinite possibilities of wireless 
web access. Send email, shop online, view robust content-it's
the entire Internet for your PDA.  OmniSky-Think it. Do It.
http://click.topica.com/aaabgUbz8SnrbAjwjxa/OmniSky


__

 The Internet Anti-Fascist: Friday, 26 January 2001
   Vol. 5, Number 5 (#507)
__

Book/Movie Reviews:
Robert Rozett and Shmuel Spector (ed.), "Encyclopedia of the Holocaust,"
   in association with Yad Vashem, The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes'
   Remembrance Authority
Rightwing Crime In the News:
Charles Feldman and Stanley Wilson (CNN), "Man charged in Jewish
   community center shootings to plead guilty today," 24 Jan 01
David Rosenzweig (Los Angeles Times), "Furrow to Plead Guilty in
   Slaying, Anti-Semitic Attack: The deal, expected to be finalized at a
   hearing today, would let the white supremacist avoid the death
   penalty for the murder of mail carrier Joseph Ileto," 24 Jan 01
Jill Serjeant (Reuters), "White supremacist pleads guilty to shooting
   spree," 24 Jan 01
What's Worth Checking: 10 stories

--

BOOK/MOVIE REVIEWS:

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust
Robert Rozett and Shmuel Spector (ed.)
in association with Yad Vashem, The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes'
Remembrance Authority

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust is a comprehensive, authoritative one-volume
reference that provides reliable information on this ignoble and
frightening episode of modern history.

It features eight essays on the history of the Holocaust and its
antecedents, as well as coverage of such topics as the history of European
Jewry, Jewish contributions to European culture, and the rise of
antisemitism and Nazism. The essays are followed by more than 650 entries
on significant aspects of the Holocaust, including people, cities and
countries, camps, resistance movements, political actions, and outcomes.

More than 300 black-and-white photographs from the archives at Yad Vashem
bear witness to the horrors of the Nazi regime and at the same time attest
to the invincibility of the human spirit. Coverage includes * Essays, such
as "The Contribution of European Jewry to Modern Culture," "Nazi Ideology
and Its Roots," "The Nazi Rise to Power and the Nature of the Nazi Regime,"
"The Destruction of the Jews," "On Being a Jew in the Holocaust," "The
Allies and the Holocaust," and "The Aftermath of the Holocaust and Its
Influence on Present-Day Society' * People, including Adolf Hitler, Adolf
Eichmann, Joseph Goebbels. Oskar Schindler, Raoul Wallenberg, Anne Frank,
Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Elie Wiesel, and David Ben-
Gurion, among others * Places, such as Poland, France, Hungary, Germany,
the Soviet Union, and Denmark * Camps, such as Auschwitz, Dachau.
Treblinka, Bergen-Beisen, and Buchenwald * Events, such as the Warsaw
Ghetto Uprising, the Death Marches. the Eichmann Trial, the Bermuda
Conference, and the Slovak National Uprising * Organizations, such as the
Gestapo, the War Refugee Board, the World Jewish Congress, the
International Red Cross, and the United Nations War Crimes Commission In
addition, there are entries on such topics as American Jewry and the
Holocaust, Denial of the Holocaust, Films on the Holocaust, the Holocaust
in Music, Nazi Propaganda, Youth Movements, Museums and Memorials.

Hardback; 276 x 219 mm; 528 pages 300 illustrations 1-57958-307-5; November
2000; £65.00

See http://www.fitzroydearborn.com/holocaust.htm for full details and an
order form.

--

RIGHTWING CRIME IN THE NEWS

Man charged in Jewish community center shootings to plead guilty today
Charles Feldman and Stanley Wilson (CNN)
24 Jan 01

LOS ANGELES, California -- Buford O. Furrow Jr., the accused shooter in  a
hate crime that left a postal carrier dead and five others wounded at a
Jewish community center in 1999, will plead guilty to murder and other
charges Wednesday, U.S. Attorney spokesman Thom Mrozek said.

Because of the plea agreement, Furrow will not face the death penalty but
will serve a term of life in prison without parole, a law enforcement
source  told CNN.

Furrow, a 38-year-old avowed white supremacist, was indicted by a federal
grand jury last year on charges of murder and firearms violations stemming
from the killing of U.S. Postal carrier Joseph Santos Ileto.

Furrow expressed no regrets

According to the indictment, Furrow expressed no regrets over the August
1999  shooting death of Ileto and the wounding of five people at the North
Valley  Jewish Community Center.

In the 61-page indictmen

Re: Sacher-Masoch in the Age of Shock Therapy

[Michael Perelman]

Ah, you are correct, Barkeley.  But it is not so much Eastern European
politics, but rather politics in general.

To be more precise, I would prefer that we try to understand issues, such
as the tax cut, such as to questions, such as whether California make
temporarily overshoot and create too much energy, whether a recession is
unfolding.

I would like to understand more about the future of the Asian economy and
even the East European economies.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 01:44:15PM -0500, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
> Michael,
>  Actually this just looks again you not liking
> any discussions of Eastern European politics
> Barkley Rosser
> -Original Message-

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

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

Re: [Fwd: manifesto]

[Michael Perelman]

Deregulation is good is good, but it didn't go far enough.  Sort of like Vietnam 
again.  We were doing everything right, but we
just needed a few more troops.  Or, during the wonderful Reagan years, when problems 
cropped up, we heard were doing everything
right, except that we didn't go back on the gold standard.  You can never prove a 
market solution wrong.

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: Re: Re: CA & Greenspan

[Jim Devine]

>I'll go out on a limb (without promising heaven) and note that the whole
>utility debacle in California is a good test of the proposition that Dems
>are in fact a better alternative to the GOP.  California is one of the only
>states in the country right now where Dems control both houses of the
>legislature and the Governor's office.  So if they do deliver a moderately
>progressive solution - such as gettig equity in exchange for subsidies - it
>does support us lesser-evil proponents.  And if they end up selling us out
>for the corporate boys completely, Nader does begin to look more attractive.

In social science terms, the Democrats running California are a dependent 
variable, whereas the various political forces (the people, the 
corporations, all the divisions in the two) are independent variables. Gray 
Davis is only responding in a mildly progressive way because the people are 
up in arms (though in an incoherent way) and he has to _prove himself_ to 
the people if he wants to use his gigantic war chest to run for reelection 
in 2002 and for higher office in 2004. But the pressure from the 
corporations is to be the more normal Gray Davis, to sell us out to the 
corporate boys and girls. After the crisis, the latter pressure is likely 
to win out.

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

European GM strikes

[Charles Brown]

GM workers strike across Europe

January 26, 2001

By SCOTT MILLER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

FRANKFURT -- General Motors Corp.'s European managers
agreed to meet with union representatives after thousands
of its employees throughout Europe temporarily stopped
work on Thursday to protest against the auto giant's plans
to slash up to 5,000 jobs.

Both GM and union officials confirmed that they would meet
to discuss a list of worker grievances which union
representatives drew up on Thursday. No concrete date for
a meeting was set, but union officials said the first
talks could take place as early as next week.

The union officials claimed that 40,000 workers across
Europe put down their tools for up to several hours in a
show of solidarity for GM workers who stand to lose their
jobs, especially those in the U.K. where GM plans to lay
off 2,000 employees.

"It is unique that so many workers in so many European
nations could hold such a protest," said Thomas Klebe, who
represents European metal workers on GM's European
Employee Forum, a group of workers and executives.

deregulation again

[Michael Perelman]

The Washington Post January 28, 2001

Put the Deregulation Genie Back in the Bottle

by Gregory Palast

Cambridge, England -- As the lights go out over California, state
politicians are in a Henny Penny panic that the two big local power
companies, Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric
Co. (PG&E), will collapse into bankruptcy. Not me: I can't think of
anything that would more joyously combine historical justice and good
public policy.
Why justice? Because SCE and PG&E executives, eager to reap the
profits of deregulation, were in the forefront of the army of industry
lobbyists fighting to establish the system that got California into this
mess.
And why good public policy? Because letting the utilities go
bankrupt
could be the first step toward returning California to the system of
government price regulation that has given America some of the cheapest
and most reliable electricity in the world. Regulation may be
politically
unfashionable, but it works.
Over the past three decades, as a consultant to 19 state
governments, I've seen electricity price regulation from the inside. The

U.S. process is unique in the world. In open hearings, consumer groups,
competitors or anyone off the street can pore over a utility company's
account books, cross-examine the company's executives and question
the regulators' staff. Based on that evidence, public utility
commissions
set a price per kilowatt hour based on verified costs plus a small,
tightly
controlled profit for shareholders. It's a litigious, messy business,
prone
to
political manipulation, just as its critics say. But that's true of any
democratic process.
The so-called deregulation movement seeks to replace this open,
participatory, American system -- one that's been astonishingly
effective
for nearly a century -- with something conceived and designed in
Margaret Thatcher's England and launched there in 1990. (Sorry,
California, this is one fad you didn't think of first.) A number of
countries,
including Brazil and Chile, mimicked the British system. And California
swallowed it whole.
This is how the British system works. First, electricity
businesses are
split into "generators" and "distributors" -- the first owning the power

plants, the second the wires transmitting the power. (During this part
of
the deregulation process, SCE and PG&E gleefully sold off many of their
generating plants -- built with ratepayers' money -- and pocketed the
proceeds.) Then something called a "power pool" is established. Every
day, generators bid the price at which they will supply electricity to
the
pool at a certain hour of the next day, say 2 cents per kilowatt hour at
4
p.m.
In Britain, it didn't take long for the handful of power sellers
and
traders to learn how to "game" the pool, essentially turning the daily
auction into a fixed casino. Last year, Britain's Office of Electricity
and
Gas Markets concluded that collusion and manipulation of the pool had
become standard business practice.
So it's not surprising that in Britain -- as well as in every
one of its
imitators -- the public has suffered higher prices, decayed service and
blackouts. In the 1990s, as America's electricity prices fell with the
price
of oil, Britain's stayed stratospheric, on average 70 percent higher
than in
the States. (Don't confuse this with the taxes that keep gasoline prices

high in Britain; profits account for the higher electricity prices. U.K.

utilities
commonly earn five times the return on capital permitted to regulated
U.S.
utilities.)
And this is the system that the free-market fanatics foisted on
California. Notably, three of the four biggest power generators
controlling
the California market -- AES, Southern and Dynergy -- and the biggest
U.S. power trader, Enron, are also big players in Britain.
Manipulated or not, on a hot summer's day, when a pool needs all
the
juice it can find, the handful of sellers can name their price. And in
California, they do. For example, this past June 29, sellers demanded 52

cents per kilowatt hour; on June 29, 1999, they had accepted 5 cents, a
price better reflecting their true costs.
I first came to Britain in 1996, to help the incoming Labor
government
try to fix the nation's new -- but already broken -- electricity market.
It
didn't work. Year after year, the fixes failed, as they will fail in
California
and other states that think they can design a deregulated system. There
is no fix: Free markets in electricity go berserk because they aren't
really
markets, aren't free and can't be. Electricity isn't like a dozen
bagels; it
can't be frozen, stored or trucked where needed. And while you can skip
your daily bagel, homes and industry will not do without their daily
electricity.
As a result, deregulation is never really deregulation but an
unhappy
mish-mash of rules belatedly chasing runaway price

Re: Korean news

[Michael Perelman]

In a generic sense, everyone needs to think before the post, but it is
flaming to accuse someone of posting without thinking.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:43:04AM -0800, Brad DeLong wrote:
> >Again, the same sorts of accusations about who has done the 
> >most/best thinking.
> >Cheryl Payer, in her book on the World Bank, does a good job of the 
> >showing that
> >the U.S. thought that the success of Yugoslavia would undermine Stalin, and so
> >it attempted to promote worker self-management in Yugoslavia.
> 
> Yep. Hence Justin Schwartz needs to think before he posts. When he 
> doesn't think, he makes claims like the one that LBJ's unwillingness 
> to risk nuclear World War III to protect Dubcek demonstrates that the 
> U.S. government was always hostile to "reform communism".
> 
> Brad DeLong
> 

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

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

RE: Re: Come Join the Capitalist Class

[Max Sawicky]

I found it in a Bazooka bubble gum wrapper . . .

mbs


hey, that looks like the stuff that appears on our (Loyola Marymount 
University economics department's) web-site! . . .

Max quoted:
>" . . . A bachelor's degree in economics is excellent preparation for many
>entry-level positions . . .

Re: Re: Re: Gloomy Sunday

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Jm,
 Not much.  We are not that far into the Deep South.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2001 5:10 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7473] Re: Re: Gloomy Sunday


>At 01:56 PM 1/29/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>Max is going to be coming to JMU in
>>a month to tout his proposals, home of the largest
>>Young Republican club in the country.  OTOH, last
>>week some students here who were demoing against
>>Bush at the inauguration burned a flag on the main
>>quad of the campus to protest Bush's inauguration.
>>Unsurprisingly that has inaugurated a firestorm on this
>>mostly conservative campus in this mostly conservative
>>community, big surprise.
>
>what would have happened if they had instead burned the Confederate flag?
>
>(I think the biggest group on the LMU campus is the "right to life" group.)
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
>

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Jim Devine]

At 10:26 AM 1/29/01 -0800, you wrote:
>>At 07:00 AM 01/29/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>>That Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Kim Il Sung's 
>>>Korea were far indeed from Utopia is one of the principal features of 
>>>twentieth-century history, after all...
>>
>>so they should be nuked? that seems a Pol Pot-type solution, which may 
>>explain why the US supported Pol Pot...
>>
>>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
>
>You've lost track of the context.

yes, as I noted in the correction that I posted to pen-l.

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

BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2001

RELEASED TODAY:  The Employment Cost Index (not seasonally adjusted) for
December 2000 was 150.6 (June 1989=100), an increase of 4.1 percent from
December 1999.  The Employment Cost Index (ECI) measures changes in
compensation costs, which include wages, salaries, and employer costs for
employee benefits.  On a seasonally adjusted basis, the 3-month increase in
compensation costs for civilian workers was 0.8 percent during the
September-December 2000 period, following a gain of 0.9 percent in
June-September 2000. ...

Reflecting the overall economic slowdown, personal income grew by 1.3
percent in the third quarter after rising by 1.7 percent in the first half
of 2000, according to new figures by the Commerce Department's Bureau of
Economic Analysis.  Slower job growth contributes to the more modest income
gain. ...  (Daily Labor Report, page D-1).

While many recent government reports and private surveys show a slowdown,
top bank economists predict that the U.S. economy will avoid recession this
year, according to forecasts presented by the American Bankers Association's
economic advisory committee. ...  (Daily Labor Report, page A-8).

Signals are mixed on spending; open wallets may block recession. ...  Never
mind that corporate profits are falling or that high-tech stock options are
under water, that business investment has been slashed and the output of the
nation's factories is now declining.  After some hesitation late last year,
American consumers are showing signs of spending again, providing a crucial
last line of defense against economic recession. ...  At this point, most
analysts acknowledge it's simply not possible to predict whether the economy
is heading toward recession.  The leading economists on Wall Street say the
likelihood of a mild recession this year is somewhere between 40 percent and
50 percent -- which is nothing more than equivocation dressed in statistical
clothing. ...  (Washington Post, page A1).

With one-third of the world's work force unemployed or underemployed, at
least 500 million new jobs will be needed over the next 10 years to
accommodate new arrivals in the job market and help reduce global
unemployment by half, the International Labor Office, headquarters of the
International Labor Organization, a United Nations affiliate, says in a
report.  It points out that sweeping advances in information technology and
communications offer the most promising solution for creating work.  Still,
its World Employment Report 2001 warns that "the global employment situation
remains deeply flawed" because inequalities in access to technology and
education are leaving many developing countries behind the industrialized
world. ...  (New York Times, page A13).

The number of nannies in the United States has gone up 25 percent in 5
years, to more than a million, according to estimates by the International
Nanny Association, a 16-year-old group.  But there's still a nanny gap.  The
result is fierce competition among moms who want on-call care -- and are
willing to pay top dollar -- and a demanding new work force. ...  (New York
Times, page D1).

>From talk show hosts to Wall Street traders, many Americans believe that
Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, almost single-handedly
controls the U.S. economy.  But the roots of stable expansion date to 1984,
says Virginia Postrel, editor at large of Reason Magazine, in "Economic
Scene" (New York Times, page C2). ...  As companies have incorporated new
technologies that have given them greater control over production and
inventories, volatility in the economy has moderated, says an article in the
December issue of The American Economic Review by two economists from the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York and one from the European Central Bank. ...
(A nontechnical article is at www.ny.frb.org/rmaghome/curr_iss/ci5-13.html)



 application/ms-tnef

Re: Re: Gloomy Sunday

[Jim Devine]

At 01:56 PM 1/29/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Max is going to be coming to JMU in
>a month to tout his proposals, home of the largest
>Young Republican club in the country.  OTOH, last
>week some students here who were demoing against
>Bush at the inauguration burned a flag on the main
>quad of the campus to protest Bush's inauguration.
>Unsurprisingly that has inaugurated a firestorm on this
>mostly conservative campus in this mostly conservative
>community, big surprise.

what would have happened if they had instead burned the Confederate flag?

(I think the biggest group on the LMU campus is the "right to life" group.)

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

Re: Re: RE: Re: Gloomy Sunday

[Jim Devine]

At 02:01 PM 1/29/01 -0500, you wrote:
>  One key on the estate tax has been the
>very successful effort to label it the "death
>tax."   Sounds awful.  Who could possibly
>support such a thing...  ???

it's amazing how well the GOPsters are organized. All of their leadership 
started calling it the "death tax" in the media and pretty soon it stuck. 
The effective political use of politically correct terminology...

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

Re: Come Join the Capitalist Class

[Jim Devine]

hey, that looks like the stuff that appears on our (Loyola Marymount 
University economics department's) web-site! it's written by a colleague 
from Bangladesh (or what I almost typed as "Bankladesh"). I may have 
corrected the grammar but it's not my job to make our propaganda 
politically correct. Heck, anything which allows us to do more than 
"service" the business program (teaching intro econ.) by bringing in more 
suckers -- I mean majors -- is a good thing.

Max quoted:
>" . . . A bachelor's degree in economics is excellent preparation for many
>entry-level positions as researchers and administrative or management
>trainee. In addition, the skills that economics students bring to the labor
>market will help them find jobs as financial managers and financial analysts
>in management consulting firms, actuaries, securities and financial service
>sales workers, credit analysts, loan officers, and budget officers.
>Economics majors can also find jobs as financial planners, stockbrokers,
>urban planners, and in of investment banking. Economics careers in
>government include those with the Federal Reserve System, the Department of
>Commerce, and state and local administration. Students interested in world
>issues can find jobs with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund,
>and United Nations agencies. . . .
>
>[Anonymous]

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

BLS Daily Report

[Richardson_D]

BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, JANUARY 26, 2001

__Compensation costs of private industry employers moderated somewhat in the
fourth quarter of last year, but total pay rose 4.4 percent for all of
2000-- more than it has since 1991--according to BLS.  Analysts were pleased
with the slight easing of pay pressures at the end of last year, as the
employment cost index showed a 0.7 percent increase for private industry
employers.  That increase was down from a 1.0 percent advance in the third
quarter.  However, the trend over the course of last year was one of
acceleration, a development that prompted some economists to suggest that
the Federal Reserve may find itself constrained as it tries to support a
weakened economy by lowering interest rates further. ...  (Pam Ginsbach in
Daily Labor Report, page D-1).
__Wage and benefit costs remained contained in the last quarter, good news
for inflation watchers.  Meanwhile, a jump in unemployment claims in
California could portend weakness in the country's largest state.  The
employment cost index for the fourth quarter of 2000 rose 0.8 percent on a
seasonally adjusted basis.  That was down from a 0.9 percent increase in the
third quarter and below consensus expectations of a 1.1 percent rise.  It
marked the third-straight deceleration in the ECI, a broad survey of labor
costs that measures wages and benefits, since it jumped 1.4 percent in the
first quarter of 2000.  Overall, Americans' wages and benefits grew by 4.1
percent for the year, the biggest increase since a 4.3 percent rise in 1991.
Inflation rose more slowly, meaning workers saw real gains in compensation
relative to the cost of living. ...  (Nicholas Kulish in Wall Street
Journal, page A2).
The wages and benefits of United States workers rose solidly in the fourth
quarter, wrapping up a year that posted the biggest annual gain in
compensation costs since 1991.  The employment cost index, a closely watched
gauge of inflation, rose a seasonally adjusted 0.8 percent in the last three
months of 2000, down from a 0.9 percent rise in the third quarter.  That
reflected a job market that cooled late in the year from a red-hot pace. ...
(AP story in New York Times, page C4).

Labor Department tells Congress the best means of improving the gathering of
federal prevailing wage and benefit data for construction workers under the
Davis-Bacon Act is to apply new technologies and processes to the existing
survey program rather than rely on BLS data as the primary basis for wage
determinations. ...  (Daily Labor Report, page A-12).

Initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits filed with state agencies
increased by 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 316,000 in the week ended Jan.
20, the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration announced.
The four-week moving average decreased 13,750 from the previous week's
revised average.  Economic analysts use the four-week moving average as a
more accurate measure because it smoothes out data subject to weekly
fluctuations. ...  (Daily Labor Report, page D-15).

The U.S. housing market, which helped buoy a sagging economy earlier this
winter, took it on the chin in December as home sales tumbled.  Sales of
existing homes fell 7.4 percent in December, 5.3 percent below the pace in
December 1999. ...  For the full year, home sales were down 3.2 percent from
1999, which was a record year for home sales. ...  (Wall Street Journal,
page A2).

The Conference Board reports that the volume of help-wanted advertising in
major newspapers grew in five out of nine U.S. regions, boosting the
help-wanted advertising index 4 points in December. ...  (Daily Labor
Report, page A-3).

Temporary employment is gaining momentum in all regions and industries
across California, according to the first in a three-part series of reports
by California's Center on Policy initiatives. ...  The number of temporary
jobs more than doubled from 1991 to 1998, from 156,000 jobs to 334,000 jobs,
while the total number of permanent jobs in the same region climbed by only
10 percent, according to the study. ...  (Daily Labor Report, page A-9).

A survey conducted by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, the Washington Business Group
on Health, and the Healthcare Financial Management Association predicts a
10.3 percent increase in employers' health care costs and a 14.6 percent
rise in prescription drug costs in 2001. ...  (Daily Labor Report, page
A-13).

Senate Majority Leader Lott will bring the nomination of Elaine Chao as
secretary of labor before the full Senate on Jan. 30. ...  (Daily Labor
Report, page A-13).


 application/ms-tnef

[Fwd: manifesto]

[Eugene Coyle]

Some of the signers have been consultants to the utilities on
deregulation.

The Oakland paper on Saturday, reporting on the economists' meeting,
quoted one participant as saying that the people of California have to
realize that electricity isn't free anymore.


Gene Coyle



Is this a case of those who caused the problem now recommending that those who didn't 
pay for it?

   1/26/2001

   MANIFESTO ON THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS 
   
   





   Generated and endorsed by an ad-hoc
   group of concerned professors, former 
   public officials, and consultants. 



   Convened under the auspices of the
   Institute of Management, Innovation,
   and Organization at the University of
   California, Berkeley. 



PREAMBLE 

 We, the undersigned, an ad-hoc group of professionals with 
experience in regulatory and energy
   economics, share a desire to help end the current crises, and to do so 
by using public policy solutions
   that enhance consumer welfare and economic well-being. 

 We have convened under the auspices of the Institute of 
Management, Innovation and Organization
   at the University of California, Berkeley, and embrace faculty from 
other universities, former public
   officials, and consultants. We put forward our own ideas. We do not 
pretend to be "representative;"
   nevertheless we cut across a wide range of backgrounds and expertise. 
Our common goal is to see
   California solve its current energy crisis and develop a 
well-performing electricity sector. 

 We have come together quickly because we are alarmed. A financial 
crisis caused by extremely
   high wholesale prices compounded by concerns about ability to pay has 
exacerbated already tight
   supplies and led inevitably to rolling blackouts. Rolling blackouts 
impose tremendous social and
   economic costs on California society and threaten to wreck its economy. 
The situation is very serious
   and endangers the livelihoods of many citizens in and out of state. The 
situation does not appear to be
   well understood. 

 Electricity has now become a political commodity, not an economic 
one. As a consequence, we
   no longer have just an electricity crisis; we have a serious financial 
crisis as well. If not managed
   astutely, the collateral damage to other industries and states could 
well be quantitatively more
   significant than the direct damages to California electricity consumers 
and distributors. 

 This manifesto endeavors to provide a clear, fair and effective 
way out of the current
   financial-energy crisis. 


MANIFESTO ON THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS 

   The Crisis 

 California is confronting an unprecedented electricity crisis 
which threatens to wreck its economy
   and cause collateral damage throughout the West. The initial causes of 
the high wholesale market
   prices reflect a complex mixture of a faulty restructuring plan, faulty 
regulation, environmental
   regulations, and unanticipated reductions in the supply and increases 
in the demand for electricity.
   These problems have now been compounded by the potential financial 
insolvency of the investor-owned
   utilities. The financial crisis must be solved immediately. 
Accomplished properly, there will then be the
   opportunity to develop and apply long-term solutions that enhance 
supply, reduce prices and
   encourage conservation. 

 The crisis had its origins in mistakes and miscalculations at the 
time the electricity sector was
   restructured. Two of many shortcomings stand out at the present time. 
First, utilities were strongly
   encouraged to divest a substantial portion of their generation, while 
being blocked by CPUC
   regulations from entering into stable long-term contracts. Put 
differently, the utilities were forced to
   procure their unmet needs on the spot market where extreme price 
volatility has been realized,
   especially in the past year. Second, California froze retail rates at 
low levels and banked on low
   wholesale prices to support a profit margin high enough to enable the 
utilities to pay off historical,
   

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Brad DeLong]

>Again, the same sorts of accusations about who has done the 
>most/best thinking.
>Cheryl Payer, in her book on the World Bank, does a good job of the 
>showing that
>the U.S. thought that the success of Yugoslavia would undermine Stalin, and so
>it attempted to promote worker self-management in Yugoslavia.

Yep. Hence Justin Schwartz needs to think before he posts. When he 
doesn't think, he makes claims like the one that LBJ's unwillingness 
to risk nuclear World War III to protect Dubcek demonstrates that the 
U.S. government was always hostile to "reform communism".

Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Brad DeLong]

>At 07:00 AM 01/29/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>That Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Kim Il 
>>Sung's Korea were far indeed from Utopia is one of the principal 
>>features of twentieth-century history, after all...
>
>so they should be nuked? that seems a Pol Pot-type solution, which 
>may explain why the US supported Pol Pot...
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine


You've lost track of the context.

The context was a claim that U.S. hostility toward "reform communism" 
was shown by LBJ's *failure* to extend the American nuclear 
deterrence umbrella to cover Dubcek.

Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Brad DeLong]

>Just as I feared! Here we are back in trying to debate the same old stuff with
>the same old tone.  In an earlier note, Brad wrote something like, think
>before you post.  We don't need to sort of dialogue here.
>
>Brad DeLong wrote:
>
>>  >Some time ago, the Monthly Review published a list of the nuclear threats
>>  >that the United States made.  I sure hope that this doesn't degenerate
>  > >into one of those threads about how bad the Communists are.
>>

When the evacuation of U.S. Jupiter missiles from Turkey is termed a 
"nuclear threat," and when Reagan is claimed to have had control over 
U.S. nuclear weapons eleven months before he was inaugurated, then 
yes, people do need *badly* to think before they post.

Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gloomy Sunday

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

  My guess would be that those coming back
as hippies with long hair, etc., would have been
less likely to get spit on than those coming back
looking like the spitting image of the classic Marine,
so to speak, which I suspect was the case with my
cousin, as I already said, a gungho rightwing type.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2001 4:06 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7464] Re: Re: Re: Gloomy Sunday


>  One of my best friends, grew up in the same town as I (he is about ten
>years older) joined the Marines in '66, fought in Khe Sanh, came back from
>'nam a long haired druggie hippie with a 'tude. I've asked if he was spit
>at. Nope. Though his frame of mind in the early 70's sounds like he would
>have spat at pro-war relatives and friends. I never got to ask a late
leader
>of VVAW, I knew a few years back slightly about this. Jack McCloskey
>
>--- http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/shwv/archives/sh96-049.htm  (Index:  4901
>Reference:  From: "Joseph T. Miller"
>Subject: Jack McCloskey Passes Date: 17 Feb 1996 18:56:20 -0500 ) ---
>
> was another Viet vet that became a hippie. On VVAW, btw see a newish book
>from NYU Press on them. "The Turning: A History of Vietnam Veterans against
>the War, " by
>Andrew E. Hunt ; " Passing Time: Memoir of a Vietnam Veteran against the
>War, " by
>W. D. Ehrhart  Foreword by H. Bruce Franklin, Univ. of Massachusets Press ;
>"Winter Soldiers: An Oral History of the Vietnam Veterans against the War,
"
>by
>Richard Stacewicz  & Vietnam Veterans Against The War., published by
>Macmillan. (Beacon Press had a pb. on the Winter Soldier tribunal/hearings
>in the early 70's. Did Ron Dellums hold those hearings or was it a VVAW
>affair only?)
>   Maybe Stan Goff, who was a Marine (contributed a great piece to Robert
>Parry's Consortium website on fighting for the Empire ala Smedley Butler,
>would have some words on this? A while back he was on the M-Fem list at
csf.
>He might be a bit irascible on this and other subjects. From Scott Marshall
>of the CPUSA, a a while back, I heard that Stan was thrown out of the CPUSA
>down South for being a bit of a free lancer. Being a leninist is hard work.
>Even for a ex-Marine.)
>  Last litle factoid. See the website of VVAW-AI, for the
"anti-imperialist"
>RCP split from VVAW. Guess those Social Imperialists at VVAW were too much
>for the RCP!
>  Michael Pugliese
>
>-Original Message-
>From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Monday, January 29, 2001 11:05 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:7458] Re: Re: Gloomy Sunday
>
>
>> Just for the record, I have a cousin who
>>joined the Marines and fought in Vietnam.  He
>>is a real gungho rightwing type.  Anyway, he
>>claims to have been literally spat upon when he
>>returned to the US and regularly mentions this
>>with great bitterness, although I do not communicate
>>with him a whole lot and cannot independently
>>vouch for his claim.
>>Barkley Rosser
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: Progressive Economists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 12:29 PM
>>Subject: [PEN-L:7403] Re: Gloomy Sunday
>>
>>
>>>max>We talked a little while ago about the spitting on
>>>Viet Vets mythology.  I noted at the time I had never
>>>seen such a thing.  Well I did see it on J20, when
>>>the helicopters and military bands went by.  No
>>>spitting, but the same simple-minded 'you suck
>>>because you're military.'  So life follows myth.
>>>
>>>Jerry Lembcke has a book from Oxford Univ. Press on this. "The Spitting
>>>Image." Also, see a new book by H. Bruce Franklin on the war. (Heh,
wonder
>>>how he feels about his edited collection from Doubleday circa '72, "The
>>>Essential Stalin, " now. Wonder how many copies it sold?)
>>>Michael Pugliese
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Re: Gloomy Sunday

[Michael Pugliese]

   Hmm, another book on VVAW. Also see the URL at the bottom of ther bookzen
pg. for, _VOICES FROM THE UNDERGROUND:
Vol.1-Insider Histories of the Vietnam Era Underground Press
Vol.2-A Directory of Resources and Sources on the Vietnam Era Underground
Press_
reviewed by Gerald Nicosia.
http://www.bookzen.com/books/0812991036.html
_HOME TO WAR: A History of the Vietnam Veterans' Movement_ by Gerald
Nicosia.

Michael Pugliese

Re: Re: Re: Gloomy Sunday

[Michael Pugliese]

  One of my best friends, grew up in the same town as I (he is about ten
years older) joined the Marines in '66, fought in Khe Sanh, came back from
'nam a long haired druggie hippie with a 'tude. I've asked if he was spit
at. Nope. Though his frame of mind in the early 70's sounds like he would
have spat at pro-war relatives and friends. I never got to ask a late leader
of VVAW, I knew a few years back slightly about this. Jack McCloskey

--- http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/shwv/archives/sh96-049.htm  (Index:  4901
Reference:  From: "Joseph T. Miller"
Subject: Jack McCloskey Passes Date: 17 Feb 1996 18:56:20 -0500 ) ---

 was another Viet vet that became a hippie. On VVAW, btw see a newish book
from NYU Press on them. "The Turning: A History of Vietnam Veterans against
the War, " by
Andrew E. Hunt ; " Passing Time: Memoir of a Vietnam Veteran against the
War, " by
W. D. Ehrhart  Foreword by H. Bruce Franklin, Univ. of Massachusets Press ;
"Winter Soldiers: An Oral History of the Vietnam Veterans against the War, "
by
Richard Stacewicz  & Vietnam Veterans Against The War., published by
Macmillan. (Beacon Press had a pb. on the Winter Soldier tribunal/hearings
in the early 70's. Did Ron Dellums hold those hearings or was it a VVAW
affair only?)
   Maybe Stan Goff, who was a Marine (contributed a great piece to Robert
Parry's Consortium website on fighting for the Empire ala Smedley Butler,
would have some words on this? A while back he was on the M-Fem list at csf.
He might be a bit irascible on this and other subjects. From Scott Marshall
of the CPUSA, a a while back, I heard that Stan was thrown out of the CPUSA
down South for being a bit of a free lancer. Being a leninist is hard work.
Even for a ex-Marine.)
  Last litle factoid. See the website of VVAW-AI, for the "anti-imperialist"
RCP split from VVAW. Guess those Social Imperialists at VVAW were too much
for the RCP!
  Michael Pugliese

-Original Message-
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2001 11:05 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:7458] Re: Re: Gloomy Sunday


> Just for the record, I have a cousin who
>joined the Marines and fought in Vietnam.  He
>is a real gungho rightwing type.  Anyway, he
>claims to have been literally spat upon when he
>returned to the US and regularly mentions this
>with great bitterness, although I do not communicate
>with him a whole lot and cannot independently
>vouch for his claim.
>Barkley Rosser
>-Original Message-
>From: Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Progressive Economists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 12:29 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:7403] Re: Gloomy Sunday
>
>
>>max>We talked a little while ago about the spitting on
>>Viet Vets mythology.  I noted at the time I had never
>>seen such a thing.  Well I did see it on J20, when
>>the helicopters and military bands went by.  No
>>spitting, but the same simple-minded 'you suck
>>because you're military.'  So life follows myth.
>>
>>Jerry Lembcke has a book from Oxford Univ. Press on this. "The Spitting
>>Image." Also, see a new book by H. Bruce Franklin on the war. (Heh, wonder
>>how he feels about his edited collection from Doubleday circa '72, "The
>>Essential Stalin, " now. Wonder how many copies it sold?)
>>Michael Pugliese
>>
>>
>

Re: Re: Re: Fwd: NEWS: Shaky Start

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Doug,
 Probably some of both.
Barkley
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:21 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7462] Re: Re: Fwd: NEWS: Shaky Start


>J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
>
>>  Well, for all the talk of a pre-crash situation,
>>today's WSJ has a story about how junk bonds
>>and weak stocks, etc. have all been booming
>>like mad since the beginning of the year.  Is this
>>Capital figuring that Bush will squash labor and
>>give them mucho tax and regulatory breaks or what?
>
>No, it's St Alan's blessing of Jan 3, and more is thought likely to 
>be coming tomorrow.
>
>Doug
>
>

Re: Re: Fwd: NEWS: Shaky Start

[Doug Henwood]

J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:

>  Well, for all the talk of a pre-crash situation,
>today's WSJ has a story about how junk bonds
>and weak stocks, etc. have all been booming
>like mad since the beginning of the year.  Is this
>Capital figuring that Bush will squash labor and
>give them mucho tax and regulatory breaks or what?

No, it's St Alan's blessing of Jan 3, and more is thought likely to 
be coming tomorrow.

Doug

Re: Fwd: NEWS: Shaky Start

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

 Well, for all the talk of a pre-crash situation,
today's WSJ has a story about how junk bonds
and weak stocks, etc. have all been booming 
like mad since the beginning of the year.  Is this
Capital figuring that Bush will squash labor and
give them mucho tax and regulatory breaks or what?
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 6:11 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7417] Fwd: NEWS: Shaky Start


>SLATE reports on a story from the
>>Economist, Jan. 27
>>The cover editorial compares the American economy to the pre-crash
>>Japanese economy of the late-1980s. American companies and
>>consumers, like their Japanese counterparts, accrued too much debt
>>during the boom, but America is better equipped politically to
>>handle an economic crisis. ...
>
>
>related to my work (as a minion of the Jesuits ;-) ),
>>  A piece uses management-speak to
>>lament the Roman Catholic Church's inability to modernize. Because
>>the church rests on highly centralized authority in Rome, it
>>resists change even though most lay Catholics support it.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
>
>

Re: RE: Re: Gloomy Sunday

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

 One key on the estate tax has been the
very successful effort to label it the "death
tax."   Sounds awful.  Who could possibly
support such a thing...  ???
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 3:29 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7406] RE: Re: Gloomy Sunday


>Yup.  Same w/opposition to the Estate & Gift
>Tax.  Most people will never be touched by it,
>yet a majority typically favors repeal.
>
>Evidently people put a high value on the opportunity
>to participate in an unfair lottery.  This could be
>the key to the downfall of socialism.
>
>mbs
>
>
>
>Max>The striking thing is the extent to which rote right-
>wing tax ideology has taken hold among the non-rich.
>
>I heard George McGovern in a speech relate a story about why a woman buying
>groceries with food stamps (didn't he write the bill on Food Stamps when
JFK
>was Prez?) told him she voted for Nixon. Her children might be millionaires
>one day and she didn't like his soak the rich tax proposals.
>Michael Pugliese
>
>

Re: Gloomy Sunday

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

 I agree with Max that tax mania is now on,
and with the large surpluses we have, there is
not a clear argument against some kind of cut.
I applaud Max's effort to put out some kind of
progressive alternative to the garbage we are
likely to get.  This is likely to end up being one of
the ugliest and messiest spectacles we have
seen in a long time, with all kinds of regressive
outcomes and scammy baloney.
  BTW, Max is going to be coming to JMU in
a month to tout his proposals, home of the largest
Young Republican club in the country.  OTOH, last
week some students here who were demoing against
Bush at the inauguration burned a flag on the main
quad of the campus to protest Bush's inauguration.
Unsurprisingly that has inaugurated a firestorm on this
mostly conservative campus in this mostly conservative
community, big surprise.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 10:45 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:7394] Gloomy Sunday


>The outlook for fiscal and monetary policy has
>never been worse.
>
>The main symptom is Greenspan Worship, the root
>problem is fealty to financial markets, a.k.a.
>Capital.  The other side of the coin is varieties
>of left stupidity.
>
>The clue on the first count is the response to
>Wacky Al by Members of Congress.  Instead of outrage,
>there was puzzlement and propitiation.
>
>The case for tax cuts was patently idiotic. This
>case is faithfully replicated in all its idiocy in
>the Washington Post.
>
>* Circumstances had changed, we were told, since
>Al's last appearance.  This is true, but the changes
>implied opposite conclusions.  One purported change
>was growth in the surplus, but in fact the change
>in surplus estimates was only half a trillion
>(relative to a $5T base), and the recent signs
>of slow-down would mean this change should be
>discounted.  The other change is the slow-down,
>but as noted this means a smaller surplus, not
>a larger one.  In the face of the argument that
>a smaller surplus calls for stimulus, there would
>be a case for a tax cut, but AG also asserted that
>a stimulus would not work because it would be too
>little and too late.  In summary, we can do a
>tax cut because the surplus is bigger, and we
>should do a tax cut because the economy is
>slowing down (and the surplus will be smaller).
>
>*  Al's attack on Gov ownership of financial assets
>precludes the centrist proposal of pre-funding Social
>Security.  This is not a loss if one felt, as I do,
>that such a pre-funding is unnecessary.  But if that's
>what you had to hang your hat on, the only alternative
>is politically untenable adjustments in benefits and
>taxes, or full privatization.
>
>* The idea of a problem in liquidating Treasury debt
>down to zero is no problem at all, since debt need not
>be zero -- or should it?  It's hard to tell from his
>advice.  Naturally, buying other assets while a residue
>of Treasury debt remains is tantamount to zero debt.
>
>* AG's opposition to using surplus to spend money might
>not surprize anyone here, but it's a gross breach of
>his role (as is his Soc Sec dis-advocacy and preference
>for lower marginal tax rates, except on payroll).
>
>* There remains AG's mishandling of employment, for which
>he is still getting a pass from all sides.
>
>
>It does not appear the Dems will stop Bush's package.
>They are dithering, talking about a slightly bigger
>grab-bag of options.  They will only affect this thing
>at the margins, by all appearances.  There is a mini-
>boomlet around the proposal Bob Cherry and I have been
>cooking up, but so far it's still a sideshow. The main
>rap is that it's too complicated, in comparison to an
>across the board rate cut, which has the illusion of
>being "for everybody."  We will persevere, in any case.
>
>I did a spot on Fox News Friday at 4 pm and got a
>nice little batch of negative e-mail, one was on my
>machine when I got back to the office 20 minutes later.
>The striking thing is the extent to which rote right-
>wing tax ideology has taken hold among the non-rich.
>I got a full dose of it from Fox's driver on the way
>to and from the studio -- I may have shook him a
>bit but not by much.  He would have done as well
>in a debate with me as Steve Moore did, not taking
>anything away from Steve.
>
>I also had an op-ed in USA Today Friday.  Interesting
>thing is they required it be along the lines of, tax
>cuts no, spending yes.  No talk of alternative tax
>cuts.  This is an example of negative pigeon-holing.
>The op-ed was what got me on Fox, and the pre-interview
>was along the same lines; once I got on I could talk
>about different tax cuts and it went well enough.
>
>The liberal advocates are in the same bag.  They all
>have their little wagons to push -- all in the name of
>spending priorities.  They don't have a chance. The tax
>cut is coming first, maybe before April.  But t

Re: Re: Gloomy Sunday

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

 Just for the record, I have a cousin who
joined the Marines and fought in Vietnam.  He
is a real gungho rightwing type.  Anyway, he 
claims to have been literally spat upon when he
returned to the US and regularly mentions this
with great bitterness, although I do not communicate
with him a whole lot and cannot independently
vouch for his claim.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Progressive Economists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 12:29 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7403] Re: Gloomy Sunday


>max>We talked a little while ago about the spitting on
>Viet Vets mythology.  I noted at the time I had never
>seen such a thing.  Well I did see it on J20, when
>the helicopters and military bands went by.  No
>spitting, but the same simple-minded 'you suck
>because you're military.'  So life follows myth.
>
>Jerry Lembcke has a book from Oxford Univ. Press on this. "The Spitting
>Image." Also, see a new book by H. Bruce Franklin on the war. (Heh, wonder
>how he feels about his edited collection from Doubleday circa '72, "The
>Essential Stalin, " now. Wonder how many copies it sold?)
>Michael Pugliese
>
>

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sacher-Masoch in the Age of Shock Therapy

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Michael,
 Actually this just looks again you not liking
any discussions of Eastern European politics
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 10:35 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7383] Re: Re: Re: Sacher-Masoch in the Age of Shock Therapy


>I think that the masochism might be a bit far afield for us.
>
>In contrast, I thought that the energy thread and the Milken thread were
>useful, although the latter may have outlived its usefulness.
>
>On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 07:16:12PM -0800, Michael Pugliese wrote:
>>Yoshie, when I go to that URL, >[Endnotes omitted; the full article is
>> available at
>> >.] I
>> get this.
>>
>>   Project Muse Login
>> Your IP Number does not appear to be subscribed to wp. Please login with
>> your username and password or contact customer service to subscribe.
>> Muse User Name:
>>   Password:
>>
>> Can you cut and paste the whole piece from World Politics, either for me
>> and/or the list? (Hope PEN-L doesn't have that copyright bugaboo like the
>> csf lists do.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Michael Pugliese
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: Recipient List Suppressed: ; 
>> Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 2:02 PM
>> Subject: [PEN-L:7374] Re: Sacher-Masoch in the Age of Shock Therapy
>>
>>
>> >>Masochism seems like an appropriate psychological accompaniment for
>> >>the transition from communism to capitalism in Russia and the
>> >>Ukraine. The citizens are being screwed so best that they like it
>> >>and continue under the whip of the oligarchs, and receive
>> >>shock-treatment by following the policies of western neo-liberal
>> >>advisers et al..
>> >>  Cheers, Ken  Hanly
>> >
>> >Judith Butler writes:
>> >
>> >*   And how do we account for _attachment_ to precisely the kind
>> >of state-linked individuality that reconsolidates the juridical law?
>> >To what extent has the disciplinary apparatus that attempts to
>> >produce and totalize identity become an abiding object of passionate
>> >attachment?...In particular, how are we to understand, not merely the
>> >disciplinary production of the subject, but the disciplinary
>> >cultivation of _an attachment to subjection_?   (Judith Butler, _The
>> >Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection_, Stanford, CA:
>> >Stanford UP, 1997, p. 102)   *
>> >
>> >Butler's conservative answer is that it is the very attachment to
>> >subjection that produces individuality in the first place & therefore
>> >that we should look to the "re-formation" of the subject through "the
>> >possibilities of resignification": "I am led to embrace the terms
>> >that injure me because they constitute me socially.  The
>> >self-colonizing trajectory of certain forms of identity politics are
>> >symptomatic of this paradoxical embrace of the injurious terms.  As a
>> >further paradox, then, only by occupying -- being occupied by -- that
>> >injurious term can I resist and oppose it, recasting the power that
>> >constitutes me as the power I oppose...This is not the same as saying
>> >that such an identity will remain always and forever rooted in its
>> >injury as long as it remains an identity, but it does imply that the
>> >possibilities of resignification will rework and unsettle the
>> >passionate attachment to subjection without which subject formation
>> >-- and re-formation -- cannot succeed" (104).  This is, in essence,
>> >the path toward a post-modern turn to secular religion (= a symbolic
>> >solution to an imaginary understanding of a real problem).
>> >
>> >However, there is no reason to accept her answer & to eternalize a
>> >historically specific cultural response to a historically specific
>> >political defeat (e.g., the collapse of the USSR).  There is no
>> >reason that we should be forever stuck with masochism, ressentiment,
>> >moralism, etc. (political mobilizations of which tend to express
>> >yearnings, at the periphery, for spiritual renewals of nations &,
>> >more disturbingly at the core, for the Progressive Empire).
>> >
>> >Butler gives a fitting subtitle to her book: "Theories in
>> >Subjection."  One of the most important -- if little recognized --
>> >duties of today's intellectuals on the Left may be to emancipate
>> >theories from demoralizing experiences of political defeats, as well
>> >as from mass-produced cynicism that "Marxism" reduced to the
>> >bureaucratic jargon produced in the minds of the masses under the
>> >then actually existing socialism in the Eastern bloc.
>> >
>> >*   World Politics 51.3 (1999) 323-358
>> >
>> >Liberal Elites, Socialist Masses, and Problems of Russian Democracy
>> >
>> >Judith S. Kullberg and William Zimmerman *
>> >
>> >Strong showings and outright victories by antireform and conservative
>> >parties in several elections in Russia--most notably the 1993 

Fw: CALL for PAPERS:Soc.Chaos Theory Psychology & LS

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 12:04 PM
Subject: CALL for PAPERS:Soc.Chaos Theory Psychology & LS


>
>CALL FOR PAPERS
>
>11th Annual International Conference
>The Society For Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences
>
>Madison, WI, USA
>August 3-6, 2001
>
>__
>An invitation is extended to all interested scholars to submit abstracts
>reporting work involving chaos theory, fractals, nonlinear dynamics,
>complexity, and related principles.  Submissions are solicited in research,
>theory, and application in any of the psychological and life sciences
>sub-disciplines.  Areas represented at recent conferences have included
>neuroscience, biology, medical research, economics, sociology,
anthropology,
>physics, political science, psychology, organizations and management,
>education, art, philosophy, and literature. The program will include single
>papers, symposia, and roundtable or other special sessions. Subject matter
>may be theoretical or applied, and may be empirically or methodologically
>oriented.
>
>THIS YEAR'S CONFERENCE THEME
>
>Simulating and Visualizing Complex Systems
>
>We especially encourage submissions aligned with this year's conference
>theme.  One stream of research that has been particularly active is that of
>agent-based (object-oriented) simulation, whereby humans (or groups) are
>characterized by intelligent agents.  These agents have the capability to
>learn, plan, search, perform tasks, and communicate, but are also
>constrained by bounded rationality.  Pertinent research issues include the
>modeling of human cognition, communication, symbolic manipulation (problem
>solving), and methodological issues such as validation and performance
>analysis.  Related work involves cellular automata to study complex
physical
>and social systems.  In addition to using the computer to simulate
>complexity, researchers have also shown great interest in using the
computer
>to visualize complexity.  Relevant research issues include the
visualization
>of fractals, using color and space to denote dynamical behavior, various
>pattern recognition tools such as recurrence plots, and the cognitive
>response of humans to such visualizations.
>
>Following our lead from last year, the conference will also have two to
>three guest speakers (soon to be named), and a brainstorming session on the
>current state and future of the society and nonlinear science in general.
>We also strongly encourage collections of individuals to propose symposia
>that combine individual presentations with group and roundtable discussion.
>
>BRIEF OVERVIEW OF CONFERENCE SCHEDULE
>
>August 2 (Thursday) Early arrival day.
>August 3 (Friday)   Registration, Workshops and plus Opening Ceremonies
>with Invited Speaker
>August 4 (Saturday) Conference Day 1, Banquet with Invited Speaker
>August 5 (Sunday)   Conference Day 2
>August 6 (Monday)   Business Meeting, Workshops
>August 7 (Tuesday)  Departure day
>
>IMPORTANT DATES TO REMEMBER
>
>May 4SUBMISSION DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACTS
>(Accepted abstract's authors will be contacted on or before May 18)
>July 3  Registration for all speakers is required. All lodging requests
must
>be received (It's hard to guarantee rooms after this date).  After this
>date, the hotel may not be able to give the conference rate.
>July 6  Drop dead date for speakers to register.  After this date your
>abstract may be dropped from the program.
>July 20 Last day for early registration.  At-door rates apply. Registration
>cancellations refunded only to 50%; memberships not refundable.
>Aug 3   The show begins!
>
>
>
>INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS
>
>Submissions should include the title of the presentation, the names and
>affiliations of all authors, and a SHORT abstract (200 -250 words).
>All abstracts MUST be submitted in publishable, electronic form, either as
>ASCII email enclosures or as WORD or WORDPERFECT attachments.  Please
>facilitate review of your abstract by:
>
>1 DO NOT include diagrams, graphics, or special fonts, as these cannot be
>printed in the program. If figures or math text are needed for proper
>evaluation of proposal, send abstract by FAX instead; see below.
>
>2 If you are using WORD or WORDPERFECT, TRY TO AVOID submissions with hard
>carriage returns at the end of lines in the body of the abstract (We will
>have to remove them manually, one at a time!).  Use returns only at
>paragraph breaks.
>
>3 DO INCLUDE your address, phone/fax number, and email address for
>notification regarding the status of your submission.
>
>4. PLEASE INCLUDE notation of any special audio or visual needs.  Standard
>overhead projectors will be available.  Unusual equipment is difficult and
>expensive to obtain, so review your needs carefully.
>
>5. PLEASE USE the sample, below, as a guide.
>
>6. PLE

(Fwd) Final Call for Papers-Society For Socialist Studie

[Paul Phillips]

Some on the list might be interested in contributing or attending.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba

--- Forwarded message follows ---
Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From:   "June Madeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:Final Call for Papers-Society For Socialist Studies Annual 
Conference
Date sent:  Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:55:24 -0500

Universite Laval Congress 2001,
27-30th May 2001, Quebec City
Call for Papers
The Programme Committee in Toronto has received a large number of session
proposals (see the list below). We invite you to contact the respective
coordinators if you want to present a paper or serve as a discussant.
Moreover, if you have a paper for presentation but cannot find a session
for it, please contact:
Programme Office, Society for Socialist Studies c/o Dr. Roxana Ng,
Department of Adult Education OISE/UT, 252 Bloor Street West Toronto,
Ontario M5S 1V6 Fax: 416-926-4749. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.oise.utoronto.ca/~sss/sessioncall.html


When submitting paper proposals, please use the following sequence:
Session title
Session coordinator
Your own name
Your insitutional/organisational affiliation, if applicable
Full mailing address
Fax
Phone
E-mail
Abstract of your paper (100 maximum words please)

We encourage you to submit by email. Please complete the information, as
outlined above, by 1 February 2001.  You should have received by now the
Humanities & Social Sciences Federation's information package
for the 2001 Congress. If you do not have it, contact our
national office or check the Federation's website at www.hssfc.ca.

The annual Congress can only succeed if all participants formally
register. The Society for Socialist Studies executive has approved a
proposal making registration for the Congress itself and for the Socialist
Studies sessions mandatory for all speakers. In cases of financial
difficulty, an application can be made to have these costs reimbursed by
the Society from the Stanley Ryerson Travel Fund; please contact the
national office in that case.

Proposals may be submitted to the following sessions:


GREEN SOCIALISM, ALTERNATIVE ECOLOGY, AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Coordinator:  Dennis Bartels
260 Adelaide St. East, Box 22
Toronto, ON  M5A 1N1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

What theoretical and practical challenges do socialist forces face in
wrestling with problems of ecological change, both local and global?  This
session will address issues and problems of trade unions and green work;
media and environmental issues; Cuba and alternative development models,
and their lessons for alternative approaches to ecology; and social
democracy and its relation to socialist ecology.  In addition to smaller
and medium-scale issues of socialism and ecology, this session will raise
the problem of socialist strategies in response to global climate change.
What are the dimensions of climate change, and how must socialist strategy
differ from market-led and simple regulatory responses to the social and
material causes of a changing climate?


BRINGING TOGETHER LEFT GREENS: WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR A POSTMODERN
ECOSOCIALISM?
(with Environmental Studies Assocation of Canada)
Coordinator:  Regina Cochrane
Department of Women's Studies
Glendon College, York University
2275 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario
Canada, M4N 3M6.
Fax: 416 486 6851;
Telephone (Res): 416 482 9617
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Given the limitations in Marx's nineteenth-century vision of industrial
society, ecosocialist theorists like Luke, Gare, and others have proposed
revising Marxism in an ecologically relevant direction by integrating into
it aspects of postmodern theory.  Socialist ecofeminist Merchant is
increas- ingly incorporating a postmodern perspective into her work as
well.  Yet left-green critics of postmodernism and postmodern
environmentalists tend to find such syntheses highly contradictory.  Is
postmodern ecosocialism a viable and useful project?  Or can the
environmental shortcomings of (orthodox) Marxism be better addressed by
looking to other Marxist (e.g. Frankfurt School, critical realism) or
socialist (e.g. Castoriadis, social anarchism) traditions or to
postmodernism itself?


RETHINKING NATIONALISM, SOVEREIGNTY, IMPERIALISM AND GLOBALIZATION
Coordinators:  Jocelyne Couture and Kai Nielsen
Dpartement de philosophie
Universit du Qubec  Montral
CP, Centre-Ville, Montral H3C 3P8
Telephone: 514 987 3000, Poste 4388
Telecopieur: 514 987 6721
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

What precisely is globalization?  In its present form, it might be
conceived as the global expansion of capitalism in the guise of
neo-liberalism, or alternatively as a continuation of classical
imperialism.  This session proposes an analysis of current manifestations
and expressions of globalization, as well as discussing the outlines of,
and possibilities for, a democratic and socialist globalization as an
alternative to "actually existing" capitalist globalization.

Come Join the Capitalist Class

[Max Sawicky]

" . . . A bachelor's degree in economics is excellent preparation for many
entry-level positions as researchers and administrative or management
trainee. In addition, the skills that economics students bring to the labor
market will help them find jobs as financial managers and financial analysts
in management consulting firms, actuaries, securities and financial service
sales workers, credit analysts, loan officers, and budget officers.
Economics majors can also find jobs as financial planners, stockbrokers,
urban planners, and in of investment banking. Economics careers in
government include those with the Federal Reserve System, the Department of
Commerce, and state and local administration. Students interested in world
issues can find jobs with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund,
and United Nations agencies. . . .

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: holy trinity/Yugoslavia in transition

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Yoshie,
 Well, I was just reacting to what had been reported
on this list earlier, I don't remember by whom at this
point.  That posting described support of a "Slovenian
gradual privatization."  If that is not what this official is
supporting, then I do not support his approach.  It does
sound like he is closer to what the WC wants.  Too bad
for Serbia, if that is indeed the case.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 8:15 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:7351] Re: holy trinity/Yugoslavia in transition


>>To sum up, yes I think Serbia could privatize (gradually and through
>>worker buyouts), maintain much of its social security
>>(scandanavian welfare state apparatus) but not by adopting shock
>>therapy.  Rather, it needs an orderly process of deregulating prices
>>and liberalizing trade and capital markets as the development of its
>>internal markets and productive capacity occurs, as did the
>>Slovenes.  And Yugoslavia in general, both Serbia and Cerne Gora
>>have a much longer way to go.  The IMF route, I believe will be a
>>disaster more like Ukraine than Poland.
>>
>>Paul Phillips
>
>I don't know why Paul & Barkley Rosser seem to say there is a 
>possibility of gradual & orderly privatization, when Mladjan Dinkic 
>(the economic advisor to Kostunica & now central bank governor) is 
>calling for _swift_ privatization.
>
>*   Financial Needs for Macroeconomic Reforms and the 
>Reconstruction of Post-Milosevic Serbia
>
>Executive summary
>
>...In order to secure an increased living standard of the population 
>on a permanent basis and justify great expectations of the citizens 
>after the change of authoritarian regime, the new government will 
>have to start immediately with the conduct of radical economic 
>reforms.  It presumes primarily a monetary reform, the initiation of 
>the fiscal system reform and the realization of the program of swift 
>privatization
>
>...Candidates for quick privatization are cement and tobacco 
>factories, Yugoslav Airlines, oil refinery in Novi Sad, a part of 
>chemical industry, distribution parts of the power utilities and the 
>oil industry
>
>Miroljub Labus, G17 PLUS Chairman
>
>Mladjan Dinkic G17 PLUS Executive Director
>
>Srboljub Antic, Project Director
>
>   *
>
>*   ...Numerous experiences show that privately owned enterprises 
>are the economically the most effective.  Consequently, the new 
>government will start the process of general privatisation, which 
>will be _temporally limited and obligatory_ for the entire public 
>sector and the largest part of the state sector
>
>   *
>
>And so on.  There is nothing in the G17 document "Program of Radical 
>Economic Reforms" that suggests there won't be a "shock therapy."
>
>[Note: "Group 17 is the organization that gathers economists and 
>experts in other social sciences aiming to promote and practically 
>implement the ideas of a modern market economy, open and democratic 
>society and the rule of law, through its programs, projects and the 
>whole public activity.  The G17 gathers 20 most distinguished 
>Yugoslav economists employed at universities, banks, consulting 
>agencies and international financial institutions (WB and IMF).  The 
>G17 has been urging swift and comprehensive economic reforms and 
>democratization in Serbia and Montenegro.  It is led by two chief 
>coordinators: Mladjan Dinkic of the University of Belgrade, the 
>author of the economic bestseller "Economics of Destruction" and 
>Veselin Vukotic, the chief architect of economic reforms in 
>Montenegro."  .]
>
>Yoshie
>
>

Economic Reporting Review/Dean Baker/January 29

[Robert Naiman]

Economic Reporting Review
By Dean Baker

You can sign up to receiver ERR via email every
week at
http://www.cepr.net/columns/subbaker.htm. You can
find the latest
ERR and archives back to last August at
http://www.tompaine.com/news/2000/10/02/index.html
and older archives at http://www.fair.org/err/.

***


OUTSTANDING STORIES OF THE WEEK

"Independent Plants a Factor In the Latest Energy
Crisis," by Richard A. Oppel, Jr., in the New York
Times, January 23, 2001, page A1.

This article examines the factors that have led to
the current energy crisis in California. It points
out that in a deregulated system, no one is
empowered to look ahead and ensure that sufficient
capacity exists to meet future energy needs.
Private suppliers will add capacity when and where
it increases their profits, which is not
necessarily where it is most needed.

"Las Vegas Bet on Growth But Doesn't Love Payoff,"
by Timothy Egan in the New York Times, January 26,
2001, page A1.

This article reports on the environmental problems
created by the largely uncontrolled pattern of
growth in Las Vegas.

"If Earnings Depend On Investing, Watch Out," by
Gretchen Morgenson in the New York Times, January
21, 2001, Section 3, page 1.

This article reports on the accounting practices
of many firms, which were counting income from
stock holdings in their earnings figures. While
this had the effect of increasing profits during
the period where stock market was rising rapidly,
it could drastically cut profits now that the
market appears to be sliding downward. For
example, it notes that Dell Computer had been
selling options on its own stock. As long as its
stock kept rising, this was a virtually costless
way to increase profits. Its stock has now fallen
close to 50 percent from its peak. If the price
stays at this level, the article estimates that
the exercise of these options will reduce its
profit by close to 60 percent.

"New Money for HMOs Isn't Going as Congress
Intended," by Robert Pear in the New York Times,
January 26, 2001, page A15.

This article reports on the fact that the
additional money that Congress approved for HMOs
that serve Medicare beneficiaries is largely being
used to increase payments to doctors and
hospitals, instead of increasing benefits, as
Congress had intended.

"New Corporate Perk: If the Stock Falls, Cancel
Purchase," by Floyd Norris in the New York Times,
January 26, 2001, page C1.

This article reports on a new practice at some
high tech companies which have seen large declines
in the value of their stock. They are allowing top
executives to cancel purchases of stock through
options, in cases where these purchases would end
up losing them money.

"Aid Abroad Is Business Back Home," by Michael
Dobbs in the Wwashington Post, January 26, 2001,
page A1.

This article examines a project for Poland by the
Agency for International Development. It shows how
much of the money designated for this project
was spent on consultants and for various
businesses in the United States, with little
obvious benefit to Poland.

THIS WEEK'S ECONOMICS REPORTING REVIEW:

ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION IN CALIFORNIA

"California Avoids More Blackouts by Buying Power
Directly," by Rene Sanchez and William Booth in
the Washington Post, January 20, 2001, page A3.

This article reports on the state government of
California's efforts to prevent more blackouts by
purchasing power directly from electricity
generators. At one point the article comments on
the cause of the current power shortage:
"California is mired in an energy crisis, many
analysts agree, because it only partially
deregulated its energy markets." An article
attributed to the same two reporters the previous
day contained nearly identical wording:
"California, most experts now agree, finds itself
in a power crisis because it only partially
deregulated its energy markets. It allowed
wholesale prices for power to rise, but it kept
price caps in place for the utility companies,
which deliver the power to customers." ("Blackouts
Hobble California for 2nd Day," by William Booth
and Rene Sanchez, Washington Post, January 19,
2001, page A1).

As was noted in last week's ERR (January 19,
2001), this statement is true, but it would also
be true if the word "only" were removed. In other
words, most experts would agree that California
faces an energy shortage because it partially
deregulated its energy markets. Had it maintained
the previous system of regulation, it could have
ensured that utilities were building sufficient
capacity to meet the growth in demand, as it had
always done in the past. Full deregulation would
eliminate the current shortage by allowing the
retail price of electricity to rise enough so that
some consumers could no longer afford to pay it.
When these consumers cut back their demand, the
supply would be then be sufficient. But few people
would consider this to be an equitable or even
viable solution, with millions of consumers being
priced out of the market.

"Imp

RE: Re: Paul P is right...

[Max Sawicky]

When U.S. analysts speak of "disaster" in Soc Sec,
what they are referring to is a system where tax
rates are a little above mid-range for Euro social
democracies.

mbs



 Actually, I have recently taken to pointing
to Germany whenever I am talking with someone who
starts hyperventilating about how the US must do
something about its "social security crisis"
(usually meaning some kind of privatization/
cutbacks).  After all, Germany's demographics
are now about what they will be in the US in 2030
when supposedly all hell will break loose unless
"something is done soon!!!"  Only now do the Germans
seem to feel that they maybe have to do something
and their system is far more generous than that in
the US.  Of course, it is true that they have higher
taxes in Germany than in the US, with that gap likely
to widen substantially more in the near future...
Barkley Rosser
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:30:26 -0800 Lisa & Ian Murray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> full article at:
>
> 
>
>
> Germany breaks taboo to defuse its pensions timebomb
>
> By Imre Karacs in Berlin
>
>
> 27 January 2001
>
> A much-trimmed blueprint for the overhaul of Germany's stretched state
pension
> system was passed by the lower house of parliament yesterday.
>
> Hailed by the government as "the greatest social reform since the war",
the Bill
> breaks a taboo by cutting benefits and encouraging workers to make up the
> difference through private pensions. The changes have become necessary
because
> individual as well as state contributions were heading for an explosion.
>
> Under the new system, state pensions will gradually fall to 67 per cent of
final
> salary from the current 70 per cent over the next 30 years. Though that
will
> still leave German senior citizens the envy of the world, in a country
that has
> taken index-linked pensions for granted, the small cut has provoked deep
> anxiety.
>
> According to a poll conducted yesterday, 77 per cent of Germans feared
that
> their pensions were unsafe.
>
> Unlike almost everywhere in the industrial world, Germans have had no need
for
> private or company pensions, so generously has the state treated them
until now.
> Few Germans have bothered to save forretirement, even though the state
pension
> is taxed.
>
> But the population is shrinking and ageing. Over the next decades, there
will be
> fewer workers to pay for an ever- larger number of the idle rich.
>
> The need for reform has been recognised for decades, but previous attempts
at
> reform were scuppered by powerful lobbies. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's
> government has also been forced to rein in its early ambition, after
vehement
> protests from trade unions.
>
> Now it is the opposition's turn to force through further amendments before
it
> allows the Bill's passage through the upper house, the Bundesrat. It faces
> further tinkering before becoming law after a vote expected on 16
February.
>
> But modest as the reform may be, German business is generally relieved
that the
> government is at last pruning a little bit of the bloated wage bill.
>
> Yesterday's debate was poisoned by a dispute over an opposition poster
depicting
> the Chancellor as a criminal guilty of "pension fraud". The leader of the
> centre-right Christian Democrats, Angela Merkel, stopped short of
apologising
> outright for the poster, which was scrapped on Wednesday, the day after it
was
> unveiled.
>
> "We didn't want to criminalise the Chancellor, but in effect that
happened," Ms
> Merkel said. "I regret that it could have been understood that way."
>
> Ms Merkel, who broadly favours liberal reforms, called the end result of
much
> haggling a "bureaucratic monster".
>

--
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Paul P is right...

[Rosser Jr, John Barkley]

 Actually, I have recently taken to pointing
to Germany whenever I am talking with someone who
starts hyperventilating about how the US must do
something about its "social security crisis" 
(usually meaning some kind of privatization/
cutbacks).  After all, Germany's demographics
are now about what they will be in the US in 2030
when supposedly all hell will break loose unless
"something is done soon!!!"  Only now do the Germans
seem to feel that they maybe have to do something
and their system is far more generous than that in
the US.  Of course, it is true that they have higher
taxes in Germany than in the US, with that gap likely
to widen substantially more in the near future...
Barkley Rosser
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:30:26 -0800 Lisa & Ian Murray 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> full article at:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany breaks taboo to defuse its pensions timebomb
> 
> By Imre Karacs in Berlin
> 
> 
> 27 January 2001
> 
> A much-trimmed blueprint for the overhaul of Germany's stretched state pension
> system was passed by the lower house of parliament yesterday.
> 
> Hailed by the government as "the greatest social reform since the war", the Bill
> breaks a taboo by cutting benefits and encouraging workers to make up the
> difference through private pensions. The changes have become necessary because
> individual as well as state contributions were heading for an explosion.
> 
> Under the new system, state pensions will gradually fall to 67 per cent of final
> salary from the current 70 per cent over the next 30 years. Though that will
> still leave German senior citizens the envy of the world, in a country that has
> taken index-linked pensions for granted, the small cut has provoked deep
> anxiety.
> 
> According to a poll conducted yesterday, 77 per cent of Germans feared that
> their pensions were unsafe.
> 
> Unlike almost everywhere in the industrial world, Germans have had no need for
> private or company pensions, so generously has the state treated them until now.
> Few Germans have bothered to save forretirement, even though the state pension
> is taxed.
> 
> But the population is shrinking and ageing. Over the next decades, there will be
> fewer workers to pay for an ever- larger number of the idle rich.
> 
> The need for reform has been recognised for decades, but previous attempts at
> reform were scuppered by powerful lobbies. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's
> government has also been forced to rein in its early ambition, after vehement
> protests from trade unions.
> 
> Now it is the opposition's turn to force through further amendments before it
> allows the Bill's passage through the upper house, the Bundesrat. It faces
> further tinkering before becoming law after a vote expected on 16 February.
> 
> But modest as the reform may be, German business is generally relieved that the
> government is at last pruning a little bit of the bloated wage bill.
> 
> Yesterday's debate was poisoned by a dispute over an opposition poster depicting
> the Chancellor as a criminal guilty of "pension fraud". The leader of the
> centre-right Christian Democrats, Angela Merkel, stopped short of apologising
> outright for the poster, which was scrapped on Wednesday, the day after it was
> unveiled.
> 
> "We didn't want to criminalise the Chancellor, but in effect that happened," Ms
> Merkel said. "I regret that it could have been understood that way."
> 
> Ms Merkel, who broadly favours liberal reforms, called the end result of much
> haggling a "bureaucratic monster".
> 

-- 
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: holy trinity/Yugoslavia in transition

[Rosser Jr, John Barkley]

Michael,
 It appears that others have said what
I would say.  I have been off all weekend and
am on another computer with a goofy system because
mine is down.
 I already noted that some on this list might
not support any privatization, and I already said
that I support the resocializations that have apparently
occurred.  However, it is highly unlikely that there will
not be some kind of privatization plan in the current 
context.  In that regard, a gradualist one, emphasizing
workers' ownership/workers' management to preserve the
best of the old system, with strict controls on foreign
direct investment (apparently what the Serbian economic
official supports, more or less) along Slovenian lines,
strikes me (and Paul Phillips too, apparently) as a fairly
reasonable way to go.
 And, hey, this discussion has so far been a lot more
civilized than some back in the days when a lot of shooting
was going on in the neighborhood.  If I am not mistaken, 
some of the more intense flame wars sitting in pen-l 
archives were connected to events in that region.  This
is all pretty nicey nice, and certainly relevant to the 
list.
Barkley Rosser
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:15:55 -0800 Michael Perelman 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Barkley, et. al.  I don't think that Yugoslavian politics is that relevant to
> our list.
> 
> In addition, I can't see how a progressive economists list could be advocating
> privatization as a development technique.
> 
> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
> 
> > Jim,
> >  In terms of political capital, I don't think Kostunica
> > is using it up by his stance on extradition of accused
> > war criminals (even though I think some of those guys
> > deserve what would be coming to them).  In fact this
> > shows that Kostunica is not somebody to be messed
> > with and that he has strong support in his own country.
> > He needs to be placated so he "doesn't go bad on us."
> > Barkley Rosser
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Friday, January 26, 2001 12:44 PM
> > Subject: [PEN-L:7312] Re: Re: Re: holy trinity/Yugoslavia in transition
> >
> > >Slobodan wrote:
> > >>   Certainly it made some difference, but probably
> > >>a lot less than you think or are suggesting here. Consider
> > >>Hungary and the Czech Republic.  Hungary had foreign
> > >>debts on the same scale as Poland approximately,
> > >>whereas the former Czechoslovakia had almost no
> > >>foreign debt, and certainly much less than Poland had
> > >>even after Walesa wangled the cut out of the US.  Hungary
> > >>has had one of the best macro performances of any of
> > >>the transition economies, although behind Poland.  However,
> > >>the Czech Republic, which started out doing very well in
> > >>the early and mid-1990s, fell down a rathole in 1997 and
> > >>has not gotten out since.  Mostly this was due to a botched
> > >>and sudden privatization.
> > >>   In short, I think it has more to do with internal policies
> > >>than the size of the foreign debt, although reducing foreign
> > >>debt certainly makes life easier.
> > >
> > >Obviously internal policies are important, even though having external debt
> > >fuels the slash & burn tendencies pushed by the IMF and its allies. (For
> > >small, i.e., non-US countries, both internal and external factors are
> > >important, with external forces growing in importance as the size of the
> > >country shrinks in size, all else equal.)  Hungary had gone through a lot
> > >of what's now called "reform" _before_ 1989 (being seen as a leader in the
> > >"market socialist" movement), so that it could adjust or "transition" in a
> > >more pleasant way. On the other hand, the strong hostility of the Czech
> > >people toward their pre-1989 government (justified by the corrupt nature of
> > >the government imposed in 1968) presented Klaus _et al_ -- and their allies
> > >at the IMF -- with a fertile field.
> > >
> > >>... BTW, the buzz out of Hungary for over a year now is
> > >>that "transition is over."  The only serious issue left is getting
> > >>into the EU, although a paper I just read says that none of
> > >>the transition economies have "converged" on ECB monetary
> > >>policy sufficiently yet to be let in.   So
> > >
> > >As I noted before, one speaker at the ASSA argued that a poor country that
> > >enters the EU's currency bloc (as with Portugal or Greece) is doing the
> > >equivalent of dollarization. And we know what happened to Argentina due to
> > >dollarization.
> > >
> > >>  As for ... Serbia, ... Kostunica might be
> > >>able to pull off a Walesa, or at least get some favorable
> > >>treatment from the West.  He has a lot of political capital, the
> > >>democratically elected "good guy" who has replaced the "bad
> > >>guy" Milosevic.  He seems to be pretty sharp and also no
> > >>pushover on a variety of issues.
> > >
> > >Being a Serbian nationalist and a constitutional sc

Rumsfeld falsifies Rational Choice

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

January 29, 2001  Single-Page Format
Rumsfeld to Pay Big Price to Avoid Conflicts
By STEVEN LEE MYERS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 — As he returns to the Pentagon for a second tour as
secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld is being required to divest himself of
an array of stocks, partnerships and other holdings at what one of his financial
advisers called "a significant loss."

[snip]

Re: Re: Re: Re: holy trinity/Yugoslavia in transition

[Rosser Jr, John Barkley]

Jim,
 I fully agree that the WC does not like
what I have proposed, nor do I think that they
will like at least parts of what this Serbian
economic official has claimed (they not all that
keen on Scandinavian social safety nets either,
even if most of us are rather partial to them).
 My point was that we should be supporting 
this guy against the WC and not merely wringing
our hands at his (and their) hopeless doom at
the hands of the WC.
Barkley Rosser
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:07:40 -0800 Jim Devine 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Barkely wrote:
> >Don't you think that Kostunica has more political
> >capital than many of the transition leaders and thus
> >might be in a better position to hold out for at least
> >parts of a reasonable program along theses lines
> >if he is so inclined?
> 
> maybe, but since he's a nationalist he's not Washington's "boy," so that he 
> doesn't have much. It depends on whether Washington can find a substitute 
> (Gingich? sp?). He's also head of the Yugoslav federation, not of Serbia, 
> so he might be declared irrelevant, no?
> 
> In a different missive, Barkley wrote:
> > In terms of the anti-inflation policy itself, the IMF
> >and the usual Washington Consensus Gang tends
> >to support fiscal spending cuts and tight monetary
> >policies.  I certainly agree with Jim Devine that such
> >a combination of policies makes it very hard to have
> >the kinds of "Scandinavian social safety net" policies
> >that I think a lot of us would like to see there, whatever
> >their precise forms.  But, my Post Keynesian tendencies
> >suggest that incomes policies are another way to go
> >that can get inflation under control while minimizing the
> >impact in terms of unemployment.
> 
> isn't the Washington Consensus (which would appropriately be abbreviated 
> the "WC") against incomes policies, too?
> 
> >Indeed, I am in print
> >stating that the corporatist nationwide collective bargaining
> >approach long used in Austria is an obvious model for
> >countries that were once part of the Austro-Hungarian
> >Empire.  Serbia was not that, but is certainly a near
> >neighbor.
> 
> isn't the WC against labor unions and collective bargaining, too, leaning 
> toward a different kind of corporatism?
> 
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> 

-- 
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Michael Perelman]

Again, the same sorts of accusations about who has done the most/best thinking.
Cheryl Payer, in her book on the World Bank, does a good job of the showing that
the U.S. thought that the success of Yugoslavia would undermine Stalin, and so
it attempted to promote worker self-management in Yugoslavia.

Justin Schwartz wrote:

> Brad, I have thought more about this stuff than you ever will, and know more
> about it that you can imagine. Tito was not "allowed" to develop by the US
> in 1948; the Yugosolavs were supposed to be handed over to Stalin under the
> terms of Yalta, but made clear that they would not go,a nd that Stalin would
> have to invade, which the Russians were in no shape to do at the time. The
> US wasn't unhappy to have cracks in the Bloc, although it didn't really
> believe it; indeed; it didn't believe in the Sino-Soviet split until the
> Nixon administration. And the analysis has to be contextual: in other
> circumstances, say ones where thre US was not embroiled in a war in
> Indochina and students were not tearing up the streets, the US might have
> been willing to risk facing down the Russians over Czecho in the hopes of
> splintering the Bloc further; but not whena nd where they were. The context
> and content of Mylnar report shows, and tthis is my my main point, that
> Brezhnev wasa sking the US's permission to destroy Dubcek, and he received
> it. Your explanation for this, then? --jks
>
> >
> >>Wrong again, Brad. Brezhnev was not about to try to face down the US
> >>in a nuclear confrontation like the Cuban Missile Crisis, which had
> >>led to Khrushchev being iced (by B himseld and some pals); he was
> >>basically asking LBJ's permission. Which LBJ, being happily involved
> >>in Vietnam, was willing to give; he saw no advantage in letting
> >>reform communsim develop...
> >
> >On the contrary. The U.S. saw lots of advantage in letting reform
> >communism develop: consider U.S. policy toward Marshall Tito in the
> >quarter-century after World War II.
> >
> >*Think* a little bit before you post, please.
> >
> >
> >Brad DeLong
> >
>
> _
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Michael Perelman]

Just as I feared! Here we are back in trying to debate the same old stuff with
the same old tone.  In an earlier note, Brad wrote something like, think
before you post.  We don't need to sort of dialogue here.

Brad DeLong wrote:

> >Some time ago, the Monthly Review published a list of the nuclear threats
> >that the United States made.  I sure hope that this doesn't degenerate
> >into one of those threads about how bad the Communists are.
>
> If those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, what
> can be said of those who deliberately try to forget history? That
> Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Kim Il Sung's
> Korea were far indeed from Utopia is one of the principal features of
> twentieth-century history, after all...
>
> Brad DeLong

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: From economics to philosophy

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

Apropos Ken's comments:




Published on Monday, January 29, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times
Mad Cow Scare Has Europeans Thinking Green
Organic farming has been elevated from niche status to a perceived oasis of
safety

by Carol J. Williams

LIEPE, Germany--For the first time since he began raising cattle in an
ecological idyll, Karl-Heinz Manzke looks set to turn a profit.
Suddenly, after a decade of mounting personal debt and public indifference
toward foods raised in harmony with Mother Nature, the beef and veal Manzke
raises in the rolling countryside along the Polish border are in demand by more
than just the politically correct and environmentally trendy.

Europe's "mad cow" scare has propelled organic farming from an obscure niche to
an oasis of perceived safety. Many consumers fear that mass-produced meat is
more vulnerable to a fatal, brain-destroying disease that scientists believe is
linked to a similar illness in humans.

With sales of eco-products up 60% throughout the European Union while
conventionally produced beef has lost 80% of its market, Manzke plans to add an
additional 150 heifers to his 450 cows as soon as he can acquire land from
nearby farms that are going under.

But even organic farmers such as Manzke doubt their ability to feed the masses,
or the wisdom of trying. They concede that too little is known about the cause
or spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE--commonly called "mad cow"
disease--or about how it jumps the species chain and infects humans for them to
be certain that ecologically correct operations are unaffected.

The psychological scars and economic damage following recent discoveries of
BSE-infected cattle in France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Denmark and Italy extend
far beyond the meat industry and Europe's farmers. The outbreaks of BSE have
shattered public confidence in many foods and in governments' ability to ensure
consumer safety.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has put this country's farmers on notice
that a thorough reform of agriculture is planned and will be conducted with more
concern for the consumer and the environment than for the interests of the
agro-industrial lobby.

Today, though, only about 2% of Europe's food is produced on organic farms, due
largely to an EU subsidy structure that disproportionately rewards mass
production. In the case of farms affected by BSE, those with the biggest herds
stand to gain the most in compensation if, as expected, the alliance orders the
slaughter and incineration of 2 million cows to remove the surplus now
depressing the market.

Germany's newly appointed minister for consumer protection, food and
agriculture, Renate Kuenast, has set a goal of increasing the share of organic
farming to 10% by 2010, along with expanding research into its safety and that
of various pesticides and chemical additives. Going her one better, the EU
commissioner for agriculture, Franz Fischler, says the share could reach 20%.

But with organic products costing at least 30% more than foods raised with
industrial methods because of the extra care and feeding required, no one is
certain how much more consumers will be willing to pay--or for how long. Even
conventional foods are likely to become more costly now that BSE testing of
older cows, which are thought to be more susceptible to the disease, will add to
the price of production. Funds will also have to be found from state and EU
budgets to compensate farmers whose herds must be destroyed.


Dairy Products Can't Be Proclaimed Safe

The beef crisis also has cast suspicion on other foods and pitted producers
against one another in a continent-wide blame game. Kuenast has acknowledged
that dairy products cannot be proclaimed BSE-free with so little scientific
evidence to go on. The quality of pork from Bavaria is under suspicion following
news that farmers in the southern German state have been treating pig feed with
antibiotics that are banned because of the dangers they pose to humans.

In Italy, police have confiscated stashes of illegally imported beef in several
cities, the first evidence that the scare has spawned a new trade for the
criminal underworld.

French relatives of those who have died from BSE's human form--Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease, or CJD--are suing British authorities for continuing to export suspect
animal feed for years after ground animal parts in the feed were linked to the
spread of BSE.

The atmosphere of panic and suspicion has spread beyond Europe. Countries as far
away as South Korea and Malaysia have outlawed beef imports from EU states, and
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is pondering a ban on blood donations from
anyone who has spent a total of 10 years or more in European countries hit by
BSE.

Health officials and consumer advocates expect food safety worries to ease with
time. But they say anger and distrust will persist for years because of lessons
not learned earlier.

Britain, where more than 80 people have died from CJD and 18

DaimlerChrysler to ax 26,000 workers

[Charles Brown]

DaimlerChrysler to ax 26,000 workers
Detroit's Mound Road plant among 6 to be closed. Jefferson North to lose 1,000 jobs.

By Daniel Howes and Mark Truby / The Detroit News

AUBURN HILLS -- DaimlerChrysler AG's troubled Chrysler Group said today that it 
will eliminate 26,000 jobs -- 20 percent of its workforce -- and shutter six plants 
over the next two years. 
   The targeted plants include Detroit's Mound Road engine plant, whose production 
will be transferred to the Mack Avenue plants in Detroit next year and then closed. 
One shift -- about 1,000 jobs -- will be eliminated at Detroit's Jefferson North 
plant, home to the Jeep Grand Cherokee. 
   The Auburn Hills-based Chrysler also said it will eliminate one shift at Windsor's 
Pillette Road large-van plant, halt a $1 billion renovation there and reduce assembly 
speed at the nearby Windsor minivan plant. Chrysler executives pushed for eliminating 
a third shift at the Windsor minivan plant, but Canadian Auto Workers bargainers 
signalled their intent to forcefully oppose such a move. 
   Chrysler will close engine and transmission plants in Toluca, Mexico, as well as 
its Cordoba assembly plant in Argentina. The Campo Largo assembly plant in Brazil will 
be idled and evaluated for closure, and production in the Lago Alberto plant in Mexico 
City will be shifted to Chrysler's Saltillo, Mexico, assembly plant. 
   Shifts also will be eliminated at the Bramalea car plant in Brampton, Ontario, the 
Belvidere, Ill., Neon plant, the aging Toledo II Jeep assembly plant and the Newark, 
Del., sport- utility vehicle plant. Generally speaking, officials said, one shift 
equals 1,000 jobs. 
   "Today this is our turning point," President Dieter Zetsche said today. "Today's 
actions will help remove the uncertainty many of our employees have been feeling. 
Going through this reduction of our workforce is the most serious part of our 
restructuring effort. But we can look up from this point." 
   The steps are part of Zetsche's broad restructuring of the troubled automaker, 
which posted a $512 million third-quarter loss last year and is expected to lose 
another $1.2 billion in the fourth quarter. Already, Chrysler has demanded 15-percent 
price reductions from suppliers over three years. 
   The cuts to Chrysler's 128,000-person workforce would eliminate 1,800 contract 
employees, 19,000 of the automaker's 94,000 hourly jobs and 5,000 of its 34,000 
salaried jobs. The job reductions would come through attrition, early retirements and, 
if necessary, forced layoffs. Officials estimate that half of the cuts likely would 
come voluntarily. 
   Chrysler officials say 28,260 employees in the United States and Canada are 
eligible to retire and estimate that half of the job cuts could come from voluntary 
programs. UAW members at affected operations in Michigan, for example, would receive 
supplemental unemployment benefits for 42 weeks -- essentially 95 percent of their 
take-home pay -- followed by weekly straight-time pay and benefits until their 
contract expires in September 2003. 
   The plant actions come despite so-called "plant-closing moratoriums" in Chrysler's 
four-year contract with the United Auto Workers and its three-year deal with the CAW. 
By idling a plant, Chrysler can close the operation and then pay the union workforce 
for the remaining months on the existing contract. 
   Union leaders officially opposed any moves by Chrysler to shutter plants, which 
effectively would appear to violate the hard-won plant-closing moratorium. But union 
leaders also appear to have understood the depth of Chrysler's troubles and were 
preparing themselves for deep cutbacks to restore the automaker to profitability. 
   The plant-closing moratorium in the UAW-DaimlerChrysler national contract obliges 
the automaker to discuss any desired exemption from the moratorium. Among the 
conditions that "it is understood ... may arise," according to page 178 of the 
contract, is a "significant economic decline." 
   "Everything you're hearing about today was in the framework of our existing 
contracts with our unions," said Gary Henson, Chrysler's top manufacturing executive. 
   Company executives worked throughout the weekend to craft the final details of the 
manufacturing restructuring, which will be a cornerstone of Zetsche's unfolding 
turnaround plan. The complete restructuring also is likely to include a substantial 
charge against earnings and vehicle-development pacts with partner Mitsubishi Motors 
Corp. 
   Chrysler's parent, German automaker DaimlerChrysler, is expected to outline the 
broad restructuring on Feb. 26 in Stuttgart, three days after the plan is presented to 
the company's governing supervisory board. 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Jim Devine]

>Brad wrote:
>>That Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Kim Il Sung's 
>>Korea were far indeed from Utopia is one of the principal features of 
>>twentieth-century history, after all...
>
>so they should be nuked? that seems a Pol Pot-type solution, which may 
>explain why the US supported Pol Pot...

After sending this, I realized that my response may have been unfair to 
Brad (who seems unlikely to advocate the use of nukes), though not to the 
U.S. power elite.

The U.S. favored "reform" of the Mao's China, etc., but they have always 
defined "reform" NOT in terms of improved human rights, democracy, etc. but 
in terms of geopolitics and an increased role for business (i.e., 
capitalism, though it's usually called "democracy") in the USSR-type 
countries. In recent years, since the fall of the USSR, the emphasis has 
shifted almost completely toward the second, though the right-wingers in 
Congress do make a lot of noise about the persecution of Christians, and to 
a lesser extent, Jews, in countries they don't like. "Human rights" 
(interpreted narrowly to exclude the right to food, etc.), of course, has 
been almost always been used as a weapon against countries the US power 
elite doesn't like (like Cuba) while allies are left alone. (The exception 
has been for countries where the US sees no loss in terms of their greater 
goals arising from the pushing of "human rights.")

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

Re: Re: CA & Greenspan

[Nathan Newman]

- Original Message -
From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


At 12:48 PM 01/29/2001 +, you wrote:
>California's politicians have decided to issue bonds to publicly repay the
>utilities' debt, with taxpayers gaining stock in the assets of the bailed
>out corporations.

-though it will probably work out poorly in practice in California (given
-the political balance), it's a good idea in theory: when corporations get
-government subsidies, they should have to give equity in return. Goodbye to
-corporate welfare?

I'll go out on a limb (without promising heaven) and note that the whole
utility debacle in California is a good test of the proposition that Dems
are in fact a better alternative to the GOP.  California is one of the only
states in the country right now where Dems control both houses of the
legislature and the Governor's office.  So if they do deliver a moderately
progressive solution - such as gettig equity in exchange for subsidies - it
does support us lesser-evil proponents.  And if they end up selling us out
for the corporate boys completely, Nader does begin to look more attractive.

So we will see - a nice real world experiment in political opportunity and
results.

-- Nathan Newman

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Justin Schwartz]

Brad, I have thought more about this stuff than you ever will, and know more 
about it that you can imagine. Tito was not "allowed" to develop by the US 
in 1948; the Yugosolavs were supposed to be handed over to Stalin under the 
terms of Yalta, but made clear that they would not go,a nd that Stalin would 
have to invade, which the Russians were in no shape to do at the time. The 
US wasn't unhappy to have cracks in the Bloc, although it didn't really 
believe it; indeed; it didn't believe in the Sino-Soviet split until the 
Nixon administration. And the analysis has to be contextual: in other 
circumstances, say ones where thre US was not embroiled in a war in 
Indochina and students were not tearing up the streets, the US might have 
been willing to risk facing down the Russians over Czecho in the hopes of 
splintering the Bloc further; but not whena nd where they were. The context 
and content of Mylnar report shows, and tthis is my my main point, that 
Brezhnev wasa sking the US's permission to destroy Dubcek, and he received 
it. Your explanation for this, then? --jks


>
>>Wrong again, Brad. Brezhnev was not about to try to face down the US
>>in a nuclear confrontation like the Cuban Missile Crisis, which had
>>led to Khrushchev being iced (by B himseld and some pals); he was
>>basically asking LBJ's permission. Which LBJ, being happily involved
>>in Vietnam, was willing to give; he saw no advantage in letting
>>reform communsim develop...
>
>On the contrary. The U.S. saw lots of advantage in letting reform
>communism develop: consider U.S. policy toward Marshall Tito in the
>quarter-century after World War II.
>
>*Think* a little bit before you post, please.
>
>
>Brad DeLong
>

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

Re: CA & Greenspan

[Jim Devine]

At 12:48 PM 01/29/2001 +, you wrote:
>California's politicians have decided to issue bonds to publicly repay the 
>utilities' debt, with taxpayers gaining stock in the assets of the bailed 
>out corporations.

though it will probably work out poorly in practice in California (given 
the political balance), it's a good idea in theory: when corporations get 
government subsidies, they should have to give equity in return. Goodbye to 
corporate welfare?

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

Fwd: faith based services

[Jim Devine]

>To: "Editors, Los Angeles TIMES" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: faith based services
>
>To the editors of the L.A. TIMES:
>
>I wonder about President Bush's advocacy of taxpayer-subsidized provision 
>of services (such as drug rehabilitation) by religious organizations. How 
>will he and his conservative Christian friends respond when the 
>Scientology Church, a legally-recognized religious organization, steps up 
>to volunteer?

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

Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Jim Devine]

At 07:00 AM 01/29/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>That Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Kim Il Sung's 
>Korea were far indeed from Utopia is one of the principal features of 
>twentieth-century history, after all...

so they should be nuked? that seems a Pol Pot-type solution, which may 
explain why the US supported Pol Pot...

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news

[Brad DeLong]

>Wrong again, Brad. Brezhnev was not about to try to face down the US 
>in a nuclear confrontation like the Cuban Missile Crisis, which had 
>led to Khrushchev being iced (by B himseld and some pals); he was 
>basically asking LBJ's permission. Which LBJ, being happily involved 
>in Vietnam, was willing to give; he saw no advantage in letting 
>reform communsim develop...

On the contrary. The U.S. saw lots of advantage in letting reform 
communism develop: consider U.S. policy toward Marshall Tito in the 
quarter-century after World War II.

*Think* a little bit before you post, please.


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Korean news

[Brad DeLong]

>Some time ago, the Monthly Review published a list of the nuclear threats
>that the United States made.  I sure hope that this doesn't degenerate
>into one of those threads about how bad the Communists are.

If those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, what 
can be said of those who deliberately try to forget history? That 
Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Kim Il Sung's 
Korea were far indeed from Utopia is one of the principal features of 
twentieth-century history, after all...

Brad DeLong

RE: Re: RE: Re: Gloomy Sunday

[Max Sawicky]

Not rilly.  The principal sources of growth in
the states have been in Medicaid, corrections,
and education.  None of these reflects Federal
devolution.  The principal devolution was in
welfare in 1996, and more generally in the
ebb in public investment related grants across
the board (partially reversed w/the more recent
highway boodle-bill).

It is true that receipts are pro-cyclical, but
the stability in state-local receipts relative
to GDP spans the business cycles.

mbs


there are two reasons why US state & local governments have been doing well
during the last 8 years or so: (1) the federal government has handed a lot
of responsibility to them, so they had to grow; while (2) the
business-cycle upswing allowed big increases in tax revenues, so they could
afford to grow. This was seen in California as a delayed process, because
the business cycle recovery was delayed here. But with zero growth
(Greenspan) or negative demand-side growth (my prediction for the next year
or so), the second part of the state governments' growth is going to go
away.

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

RE: Re: Gloomy Sunday

[Max Sawicky]

The ratio of receipts to GDP has held steady for
20 years.  State-local revenues are not as elastic
relative to GDP as Federal -- income taxes are a
much smaller component (maybe 25%, don't hold me
to that).  So the trend is not recent.  Extraordinary
income growth might prop up receipts relative to
something else, but not in relation to itself.

On the whole there is much more stability in these
kinds of basic aggregates than commonly supposed.
For instance, the erosion of Federal discretionary
spending relative to GDP did not begin in earnest
until after the reign of King George I.

mbs



Max, hasn't economic growth in what has saved the state fiscal situation?
What was slow down mean as far as state governments are concerned.  Of
course, hearing California state is about to give away the store.

Max Sawicky wrote:

> We might have expected a collapse of state gov for
> some time, in light of the tax revolts which began there
> in the late 1970's.

---
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

CA & Greenspan

[Seth Sandronsky]

Jan. 29, 2001

Hi Pen-l:

Late last week a consumer group in California held a press conference to in 
part read a leaked memo from Credit Suisse First Boston.  The memo states 
that the rolling electricity blackouts in the state should have the desired 
effect of "softening up" the legislators to support a public bailout of the 
utilities' debt.  The blackouts had their desired effect.  In the words of 
wits, financial capital doesn't speak it shouts.  California's politicians 
have decided to issue bonds to publicly repay the utilities' debt, with 
taxpayers gaining stock in the assets of the bailed out corporations.

Isn't government ownership of private assets what Federal Reserve Bank 
Chairman Alan Greenspan opposes?

Seth


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