Palestine (May 10, Columbus, OH)
Progressive Peace Coalition Presents PALESTINE FREEDOM, JUSTICE, EQUALITY SARA FLOUNDERS, CO-DIRECTOR INTERNATIONAL ACTION CENTER (IAC) Sara Flounders visited PALESTINE in November 2000 as a part of a delegation that delivered much-needed medicine to Palestinian hospitals and clinics. They were able to witness firsthand the aggression and repression against Palestinian areas by Israeli Defense Forces and settlers. The lecture will include video footage from the front lines of the Palestinian Resistance to Israeli repression. An open discussion with the audience will follow each presentation. Events in Columbus: May 10, 12 Noon - 2:00 PM Columbus State Community College, Nestor Hall, Seminar D May 10, 7:00 PM Ohio State University - Lazenby Hall room 21, 1827 Neil Ave. (corner of Neil Ave and S. Oval Dr.) All Events are free and open to the public. These events are co-sponsored by: ARAB AMERICANS OF CENTRAL OHIO COUNCIL ON AMERICAN/ISLAMIC RELATIONS THE MUSLIM STUDENT ASSOCIATION OF OSU THE MUSLIM STUDENT ASSOCIATION OF CSCC THE STUDENT INTERNATIONAL FORUM THE COLUMBUS CAMPAIGN FOR ARMS CONTROL For more information, please call 614-268-2637. The IAC delegates issued the following statement: Unless you are on the front lines in the West Bank and Gaza, or in the Palestinian areas in the 1948 borders of Israel, it is impossible to grasp the magnitude of the repression. What we saw was unimaginable brutality, but also a level of resistance by the entire Palestinian people who will not surrender, even in the face of overwhelming military power. The people in the United States must learn the truth about this struggle and about the role of the U.S. government, which finances Israeli terror at the tune of $15 million a day. Help us spread the word about the Palestinian reality today. As of April 5, 2001 Over 457 Palestinians have been killed within a six-month period. Seventy-six percent were shot with live ammunition to the head and upper body. Of the 457 people killed, 34% were under the age of 18. Tragically, 110 children have been killed. Forty-five Palestinian students were killed on their way home from school. Forty-one schools have been closed and unable to operate affecting over 20,000 students. The closure imposed on the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is the most severe since the beginning of the occupation in 1967. There has been damage to over 2700 buildings, 770 homes (180 completely demolished), 29 mosques, 12 churches, and 44 water wells. Over 25,000 olive and fruit trees have been uprooted, along with over 3,000 acres of land bulldozed. Losses to the Palestinian economy through the end of January 2001 have been estimated at over 2 billion dollars. More people today live in poverty than at any other time in the history of the occupation. Daily losses of income have been estimated at over $12 million a day. The International Action Center was founded by former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark. The purpose of the IAC is to provide and organize opposition to U.S. militarism and war, linking it with the struggle against racism and oppression within the United States.
Agricultural Revolution?
that small scale agriculture is not inherently inefficient, Efficient or inefficient at what or by what measure? Efficient at producing food, or efficient at providing surplus value? Or efficient in competing with other capitalist firms? Carrol The context out of which that remark came was that small-scale farming was not as inefficient as it had been portrayed by those who accept - like Brenner and other neoclassical economists - the economies of scale argument. But this is not a rejection of the neoclassical notion of efficiency, since the claim is that small- scale farms have been as efficient. It would be a different matter if one were to use other criteria of evaluation such as ecological diversity, family ownership, treatment of animals, waste disposal and so on. (Surplus is important but let's not make a fetish of it.) Reading Pomeranz gives one the impression that land productivity is as important a measure of efficiency as labor productivity; and to that extent he challenges the western model of development. Not that Eurocentric scholars have ignored land productivity, but have tended to argue that, if land productivity was increased at the cost of higher inputs of labor, then the overall efficiency of agricultural production may have been reduced - and they have a strong point, if it can be shown that, without increase in labor productivity, increases in land productivity will not be sustained in the long run. But I wonder, if one could argue, that without increases in land productivity you cannot have sustained increases in labor productivity.
(Fwd) land productivity
I would like to see the post you are responding to? And Deirdre is not by any chance Deirdre McCloskey is she? If so she is very brilliant but quite vicious. Deleted it. You probably could find it in the EH archives (March 2001). It is McCloskey. She never responded to this post. It came out of a short exchange with Greg Clark who was really having an exchange with Michael Perelman. As a woman she's not as vicious. Everyone is Dears now. From what Pugliese sent, Deirdre now notices that academic men are a lot more hierarchical, obsessed about their accomplishments. She's happier. It is tough being a man in this world.
Aztecs
Last night I watched the first part of a PBS television show on the Conquistadors (http://www.pbs.org/conquistadors/), which devoted one hour to Hernán Cortés, who did to the Aztec empire what Hitler did to the USSR, and the second to Francisco Pizarro, destroyer of the Incas. There is a certain morbid fascination to the career of such murderers. Writer-director-narrator Michael Brooks is shown on a country road 100 miles outside of Mexico City. He asks a nearby farmer, Is this the road that Cortés and his men marched on? For me, this is roughly equivalent to taking a camera crew to present-day Munich and tracing the foot-steps of Hitler. Perhaps I am being unkind to Hitler. If anything, he had more dedication to civilized values than the conquistadors, who were murderous kleptomaniacs. At least Hitler built the autobahn and launched Volkswagen. A modern day conquistador would have dynamited all roads and factories, except those that could facilitate the removal of blood-drenched booty. Of much more interest was the peoples they victimized, especially--for me--the Aztecs who I had not devoted much time to study in the past. Mostly my reading has revolved around the Incas, since I was trying to understand the background to some modern day issues in Mariategui's Marxism and the Shining Path in Peru. The great merit to Brooks' documentary is his careful attention to the glories of 16th century Mexico through interviews with Aztec scholars and graphic recreation of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, the realm of the emperor Motecuhzoma. (i.e. Montezuma), usually juxtaposed against the ruins of the old city in modern day Mexico City. With an Aztec pyramid set against a Macdonald's, one surely has to question such terms as barbarism and civilization as they are usually applied. Even Cortés was forced to admit how impressive the city was, starting with the palace of the ruler: Motecuhzoma had a palace in the town of such a kind, and so marvellous, that it seems to me almost impossible to describe its beauty and magnificence. I will say no more than there is nothing like it in Spain. Well, we can say more. The Aztec capital city was literally a great work of art that people lived in. There were flower gardens everywhere, including those that hung from the roofs of government buildings. The Aztecs loved birds as much as they loved flowers and public aviaries dominated the center of the city. After the conquistadors overthrew the Aztec monarch, they torched the gardens and the aviaries. After the show ended, I went to the indigenous studies bookshelf of my home library and picked up The Daily Life of the Aztecs by Jacques Soustelle, a book published by Stanford University Press in 1961 that I recommend highly. Based on a cursory reading last night and this morning. Soustelle appears to be informed by the Marxist method to some extent. He makes no bones about calling the Aztecs a ruling class and explains how their power rested on the sort of tributary extraction of surplus product from peasants that typified all such societies. Keep in mind that indigenous peoples in the New World were not exclusively communalist. If the North American Indians adhered to a strict egalitarian sharing of bison, seal, corn, etc., their Mayan, Incan and Aztec cousins to the South had already evolved toward a highly sophisticated class society with all the full-time specialized occupations: officials, tradesmen, warriors, artisans, peasants, etc. Although there has been an enormous effort in recent years to justify conquistador/colonist genocide on the basis that the Aztecs were just as class-dominated and violent, there are vast differences between the way that Motecuhzoma ruled and the way that the viceroy ruled. (I leave aside the question of human sacrifice here, except to say that pro-colonizing apologists never deal with the question in context. They neglect, for example, to point out that those sacrificed tended to be captive soldiers rather than innocent civilians. In the last week or so, during the aftermath of the revelations about ex-Senator Bob Kerrey's war crimes in Vietnam, we have discovered how normal it is for the United States to accept such sacrifices when they are in the name of protecting civilization. At least with the Aztecs, you understand that they believed the gods would punish them if they did not follow a ritual. US imperialism, with all its science and advanced thinking, makes no such excuses.) What we learn from Soustelle is that even the lowliest peasant in the Aztec empire had a right to retain the land he lived on for his entire life, a right that modern-day Mexicans do not even enjoy. Furthermore, unlike tributary societies in Europe and Asia, an Aztec commoner could rise out of his class and become honored and wealthy, especially through accomplishments on the battle-field. Finally, he could vote in the election of local chiefs, a right that indigenous peoples lost as a consequence of colonialism. Does
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2001: Nonfarm business productivity fell 0.1 percent in the first quarter, the measure's first decline since the first quarter of 1995, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Analysts say they had been expecting growth of about 1.0 percent for the first quarter, but a faster-than-expected deceleration in the output of manufactured goods for the first quarter took its toll on productivity. Retaining people on your payroll is sensible when you don't know what will happen next -- layoffs are expensive -- but I'm concerned this report might signal that another wave of layoffs is on the way, says the chief economist at Ecobest Consulting in New York. Unit labor costs -- a major inflation yardstick for business -- had increased at a 4.5 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter and are up a total of 3.1 percent for the last 12 months, BLS said (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). Productivity growth, the key reason the U.S. economy expanded rapidly for several years without triggering a sharp increase in inflation, stopped in the first 3 months of the year, the Labor Department reported yesterday. Productivity -- the amount of goods and services produced for each hour worked -- fell at a 0.1 percent annual rate in the January-March period. It was the first quarterly decline in 6 years. The weak report raised several new questions among economists, about whether the recent surge in labor productivity was partly the result of technology-related structural changes in the economy or was just a consequence of the rapid economic growth itself. If the latter were true, and it's much too soon to know, the economy would not be able to grow as fast for long without inflation as many economists and policymakers believed was possible. When production growth is strong, firms are able to pay their workers more without hurting their profits because the gain in efficiency offsets much of the increase in labor costs. Many analysts had expected yesterday's report to show not a decline but an increase at about a 1 percent annual rate. Those forecasts were wrong primarily because the increase in hours worked was much greater than expected. A statistician at the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the hours-worked figure was as large as it was because the hours worked by self-employed people, who account for only about 10 percent of the workforce, increased at a 15 percent annual rate (John M. Berry in The Washington Post, page E1). The productivity of American workers, which rose sharply as new technologies took hold and served as the great source of prosperity in the late 1990's, fell in the first quarter for the first time in 6 years. The decline of 0.1 percent, the Labor Department reported yesterday, reflected the sagging economy, particularly weakness in manufacturing. Output, in effect, rose more slowly than the number of hours worked, making labor less productive. The surprising weakness reopened the debate among economists over how much of the heralded productivity revival of recent years will endure (Louis Uchitelle, The New York Times, page C1). American workers' productivity fell in the first quarter for the first time in 6 years, dealing a setback to New Economy optimists (Greg Ip, in The Wall Street Journal, page A2). American workers' productivity, which has been widely credited with fueling the nation's record economic growth, declined in the first 3 months of 2001 for the first time since 1995, the Labor Department reports (Robert A. Rosenblatt, http://www.latimes.com/business/20010509/t39021.html). DUE OUT TOMORROW: U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes--April 2001 application/ms-tnef
Re: Aztecs
At 09:25 AM 05/10/2001 -0400, you wrote: Last night I watched the first part of a PBS television show on the Conquistadors (http://www.pbs.org/conquistadors/), which devoted one hour to Hernán Cortés, who did to the Aztec empire what Hitler did to the USSR, but at least the USSR won! maybe what Hitler did to the Jews would be a better analogy... not that any analogy works completely. ... At least Hitler built the autobahn and launched Volkswagen. A modern day conquistador would have dynamited all roads and factories, except those that could facilitate the removal of blood-drenched booty. sounds like what Bush the father did to Saddam..., except that actual looting is out of style with the modern bureaucratic army. ... At least with the Aztecs, you understand that they believed the gods would punish them if they did not follow a ritual. US imperialism, with all its science and advanced thinking, makes no such excuses.) The War against Vietnam also had his religious justifications, as did the whole Cold War Crusade. The Cold War also had its quasi-religious and Manichean ideology of the war of ideologies, with the Free World as the Forces of Light and the Evil Empire as the Forces of Darkness. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
The first postmodernist programming language
[From a talk by Larry Wall, the inventor of the Perl programming language--my bread-and-butter.] I would like to say one thing here about objectivity, however. While I despise the Modern Cult of Objectivity, I also despise the quasi-postmodern Cult of Subjectivity. I call it absolute cultural relativism. It's the notion that everything is as good as everything else, because goodness is only a matter of opinion. It's like claiming that the only thing you can know absolutely is that you can't know anything absolutely. I think this is really just another form of Modernism, a kind of existentialism really, though unfortunately it's come to be associated with postmodernism. But I think it sucks. The funny thing is, it's almost right. It's very close to what I do, in fact, believe. I'd go so far as to call myself a strong postmodernist. Strong postmodernism says that all truth is created. But this really isn't a problem for anyone who believes in a Creator. All truths are created relative, but some are more relative than others. A universal truth only has to be true about our particular universe, so to speak. It doesn't much matter whether the universe itself is true or false, just as long as it makes a good story. And I think our universe does make a good story. I happen to like the Author. I like Lois McMaster Bujold too, so I read her stories. Same for Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis. Turning that around, some people use Perl because they like me. Who am I to argue with them? You're all totally objective about Linus and Linux, right? Uh, huh. Three cheers for objectivity. I'm getting tired of talking about cults, and you're probably getting tired of listening to me talk about cults. However, I want to talk about the open source phenomenon now, and I'm afraid I'll have to drag the cults in occasionally. But fear not. I think the open source movement is, actually, a postmodern movement. Think about it. We've actually been doing open source for a couple of decades now. Why is it suddenly taking off now? Why not twenty years ago. Linux could have been written twenty years ago, albeit not by Linus. Of course there are lots of mundane reasons why Linux wasn't written twenty years ago, not the least of which is that we didn't really have the ubiquitous, cheap hardware to support it yet. Nor did we have the networking to support cooperative development. But since this is a philosophical talk, I'll ignore reality and talk about what I think was really going on. Here's where the cults come back in again. The Cult of Spareness decreed that we should all use the same operating system. Of course, everyone had their own idea of what that was, but Bill Gates actually had the most success in carrying out the decree. For which he is now on trial, where he may eventually have to consent to a consent decree. All in all, it's been a bad year to be named Bill. The wolves are circling, and waiting for further signs of weakness, and everyone's hedging their bets by attending LinuxWorld, and making sure the press know it. Full talk: http://www.perl.com/pub/1999/03/pm.html#jump7 Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Land Productivity
While P questions the western model of developmet, he still seeks to convince us that the Chinese model achieved the highest agricultural yields in the world due to their efficient land-saving practices. That they were as efficient, as rational, as developed, as powerful as the westerners. This is called polycentrism in world history. Never mind the poly, if you can show that either China, Japan, or India were as advanced as Europe, then you're ready to join the multicultural crowd and sing We are the World. What about the Africans? Well..Nubia, yes, that's right, it has a nice ring to it. But that's way back, isn't that Black Athena? That too should be included, and later there's the Songhay empire of West Africa, the largest state of modern Africa, including the Oyo Empire in Nigeria, Nupe, Igala, and Benin in the lower Niger valley, or the Hausa states of Northern Nigeria, and Kongo in central Africa. Other ethnic groups? Oh yes, there others like the Jahaanke of the Gambia-River Niger region; the Juula of northern Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, and Upper Niger River; the Wolof of Senegal; and the Awka and Aro of Iboland in Nigeria - they were also powerful and wealthy; they were the ethnic groups that facilitated and controlled the slave trade. We are all equal. A challenge to the western model this is not.
Re: Land Productivity
Ricardo: history. Never mind the poly, if you can show that either China, Japan, or India were as advanced as Europe, then you're ready to join the multicultural crowd and sing We are the World. What about the Africans? Well..Nubia, yes, that's right, it has a nice ring to it. But that's way back, isn't that Black Athena? That too should be included, and later there's the Songhay empire of West Africa, the largest state of modern Africa, including the Oyo Empire in Nigeria, Nupe, Igala, and Benin in the lower Niger valley, or the Hausa states of Northern Nigeria, and Kongo in central Africa. Other ethnic groups? Oh yes, there others like the Jahaanke of the Gambia-River Niger region; the Juula of northern Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, and Upper Niger River; the Wolof of Senegal; and the Awka and Aro of Iboland in Nigeria - they were also powerful and wealthy; they were the ethnic groups that facilitated and controlled the slave trade. We are all equal. Is this diatribe going into your article? Is this meant for Science and Society? If so, expect angry letters from black readers. Actually, no problem since I doubt any African-American reads the journal--let alone writes for it--even though there are articles commenting on them from time to time. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Land Productivity
Louis: Is this diatribe going into your article? Is this meant for Science and Society? If so, expect angry letters from black readers. Actually, no problem since I doubt any African-American reads the journal--let alone writes for it--even though there are articles commenting on them from time to time. I have an agreement to send it to another journal. I have to choose journals that allow discussion of big questions which most don't. Unfortunately Universities/Journals are still dominated by specialists. A lasting merit of classical thinkers is they encourage real literacy and education. John Kenneth Galbraith said he can't understand why academic specialists are taken so seriously or held up as examplars of knowledge.
Re: Land Productivity
I think the Lou's question had to do with the way you presented your thought. Bringing up the Black Athena is an emotional subject. I'm far from an expert in the field -- not even a novice, but I suspect that most professional journals would be reluctant to give a fair hearing to the Afrocentric perspective. I also suspect that some Afrocentric writers overstate their position, offering easy targets to those who oppose Afrocentrism. We had been discussing how easy it is to make gross errors regarding other societies in something as simple as an evaluation of how development either improves or harms the life of the poor. The further away you look either in time or in culture, the more difficult such evaluations are. On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:34:14PM -0300, Ricardo Duchesne wrote: Louis: Is this diatribe going into your article? Is this meant for Science and Society? If so, expect angry letters from black readers. Actually, no problem since I doubt any African-American reads the journal--let alone writes for it--even though there are articles commenting on them from time to time. I have an agreement to send it to another journal. I have to choose journals that allow discussion of big questions which most don't. Unfortunately Universities/Journals are still dominated by specialists. A lasting merit of classical thinkers is they encourage real literacy and education. John Kenneth Galbraith said he can't understand why academic specialists are taken so seriously or held up as examplars of knowledge. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
election news from india
since there was some interest in kerala and india in general, i thought this might be of interest: Good News for Communists in Indian State Elections http://news.lycos.com/headlines/World/article.asp?docid=RTINTERNATIONAL-INDIA-ELECTIONS-DCdate=20010510 --ravi
Rally for Steelworkers! (May 12)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:02:58 -0400 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mary Beth Tschantz) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Rally for Steelworkers! RALLY AGAINST AK STEEL'S UNFAIR LOCKOUT OF 620 STEELWORKER FAMILES--SATURDAY, MAY 12, 2001--12 NOON, LEFFERSON PARK-MIDDLETOWN, OHIO Hey Everyone, Just a reminder that we are meeting at the Ohio Union at 9:30am (departing at 9:45) this Saturday May 12th to caravan to the locked-out United Steelworkers of America (USWA) Local 169's extremely important rally in Middletown, Ohio. Middletown is AK Steel's corporate headquarters. After over 20 months of being locked out in Mansfield it is important to take this struggle to AK's own backyard. AK Steel corporate headquarters is the target of this rally because AK has abused its workers and the environment. Speakers include Leo Gerard, USWA International President and Dave McCall, USWA District 1 Director. If you need a ride please email me ([EMAIL PROTECTED])so we can make sure we don't run out of room, and if you are coming and you have extra room in your vehicle, please email me too! The drive will take about 2 hours, Middletown is inbetween Dayton and Cincinnati. Please come and show your support! Here are the directions if you don't want to caravan or are living outside Columbus... -Take 1-75 and exit at Rt 122 (Exit 32) -Travel west on Rt. 122 approximately 1 3/4 miles -Turn left onto Breiel Blvd. -Travel South on Breiel approximately 3/4 mile -Entrance to Lefferson Park is on the left. Call USWA Local 169 for more info (419)522-9375 Please bring canned foods to assist the National Association of Letter Carriers' annual food drive, which is also taking place on May 12th. __ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
Re: Black Athena
I think the Lou's question had to do with the way you presented your thought. Bringing up the Black Athena is an emotional subject. I'm far from an expert in the field -- not even a novice, but I suspect that most professional journals would be reluctant to give a fair hearing to the Afrocentric perspective. I also suspect that some Afrocentric writers overstate their position, offering easy targets to those who oppose Afrocentrism. I don't know that I was really arguing against Black Athena. I am only glad to hear the Greeks learned much from their neighbouring civilizations. I was instead suggesting that any polyism has to come to terms with the Other 99 percent cultures that must by necessity be left out in any uniformitarian argument (that not just Europe but other parts of Afro-Eurasia had comparable levels of development and potential for modernization).
Re: Re: Black Athena
The problem was not necessarily with what you are thinking, but how it comes across. I was just suggesting that you don't need to stir up unnecessary controversy. It just confuses matters. On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:59:00PM -0300, Ricardo Duchesne wrote: I think the Lou's question had to do with the way you presented your thought. Bringing up the Black Athena is an emotional subject. I'm far from an expert in the field -- not even a novice, but I suspect that most professional journals would be reluctant to give a fair hearing to the Afrocentric perspective. I also suspect that some Afrocentric writers overstate their position, offering easy targets to those who oppose Afrocentrism. I don't know that I was really arguing against Black Athena. I am only glad to hear the Greeks learned much from their neighbouring civilizations. I was instead suggesting that any polyism has to come to terms with the Other 99 percent cultures that must by necessity be left out in any uniformitarian argument (that not just Europe but other parts of Afro-Eurasia had comparable levels of development and potential for modernization). -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Airline deregulation
Mr. Proyect -- Your post brought back wonderful memories of a paper I wrote as a freshman in college entitled The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. As a right-wing ideologue who had read Mancur Olson and other public choice theorists, I wanted to understand how in the world it came to pass that for the first time since the passage of the New Deal regulatory legislation, a major industry was deregulated. (Several years later I wrote a paper on the repeal of the Corn Laws in England for similar reasons). In any event, rereading my paper causes me to ask the following questions, make the following comment, and provide the following tidbit: 1. Why, with the exception of United Airlines, did every major interstate airline testify against deregulation? And how come the legislation passed notwithstanding their opposition? 2. With respect to your criticisms of the present industry, nowhere do you point out that while the demand for air service has dramatically increased since deregulation, the supply or airports has not been increased to meet the demand (and airports are publicly controlled and owned entities in the United States). 2. The following were the members of the Ad Hoc Committee for Airline Regulation Reform: a. American Conservative Union b. American Consumer Action Project c. American Retail Federation d. Americans for Democratic Action e. Common Cause f. Cooperative League of the U.S.A. g. DHL Corporation h. Ford Marketing Institute i. Libertarian Alliance j. National Association of Counties k. National Association of State Aviation Officials l. National Consumer Congress m. National Retail Merchants Association n. National Retired Teachers o. National Student Lobby p. National Taxpayer's Union q. Public Interest Economics Center r. Ralph Nader's Congress Watch s. Sears Roebuck Co. t. Western Traffic Conference David Shemano
Re: RE: Airline deregulation
David, if he does not do it on his own, you should prompt Doug Henwood to answer your question regarding the increasing use of the airlines. Liberals and conservatives often come together in matters of deregulation -- mostly on the grounds that the free market can eliminate some kind of problem. Tim's recent post on California water is a case in point. Many liberals and environmentalists believe that pricing water can elminate waste. On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:22:33AM -0700, David Shemano wrote: Mr. Proyect -- Your post brought back wonderful memories of a paper I wrote as a freshman in college entitled The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. As a right-wing ideologue who had read Mancur Olson and other public choice theorists, I wanted to understand how in the world it came to pass that for the first time since the passage of the New Deal regulatory legislation, a major industry was deregulated. (Several years later I wrote a paper on the repeal of the Corn Laws in England for similar reasons). In any event, rereading my paper causes me to ask the following questions, make the following comment, and provide the following tidbit: 1. Why, with the exception of United Airlines, did every major interstate airline testify against deregulation? And how come the legislation passed notwithstanding their opposition? 2. With respect to your criticisms of the present industry, nowhere do you point out that while the demand for air service has dramatically increased since deregulation, the supply or airports has not been increased to meet the demand (and airports are publicly controlled and owned entities in the United States). 2. The following were the members of the Ad Hoc Committee for Airline Regulation Reform: a. American Conservative Union b. American Consumer Action Project c. American Retail Federation d. Americans for Democratic Action e. Common Cause f. Cooperative League of the U.S.A. g. DHL Corporation h. Ford Marketing Institute i. Libertarian Alliance j. National Association of Counties k. National Association of State Aviation Officials l. National Consumer Congress m. National Retail Merchants Association n. National Retired Teachers o. National Student Lobby p. National Taxpayer's Union q. Public Interest Economics Center r. Ralph Nader's Congress Watch s. Sears Roebuck Co. t. Western Traffic Conference David Shemano -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Airline deregulation
David Shemano: 1. Why, with the exception of United Airlines, did every major interstate airline testify against deregulation? And how come the legislation passed notwithstanding their opposition? Because they didn't recognize their own long-term class interests as well as bourgeois intellectuals such as Alfred Kahn did. This is the role of the intelligentsia, to raise such ideas. It is the role of the bourgeois state apparatus to then act upon it. FDR functioned in the same manner in the 1930s when he pushed for regulation. The last of the New Dealers, Ted Kennedy, was responding to the same class interests when he fought for deregulation. 2. With respect to your criticisms of the present industry, nowhere do you point out that while the demand for air service has dramatically increased since deregulation, the supply or airports has not been increased to meet the demand (and airports are publicly controlled and owned entities in the United States). Even if this were feasible, it is not what we need. We need an expansion of high-speed rail. We also need to cut down on business travel. These fucking idiots sitting all around me on the airplanes every trip I take tapping away at their laptops are just an annoyance anyhow. Teleconferencing and high-speed trains, that's the ticket. 2. The following were the members of the Ad Hoc Committee for Airline Regulation Reform: a. American Conservative Union b. American Consumer Action Project c. American Retail Federation d. Americans for Democratic Action e. Common Cause f. Cooperative League of the U.S.A. g. DHL Corporation h. Ford Marketing Institute i. Libertarian Alliance j. National Association of Counties k. National Association of State Aviation Officials l. National Consumer Congress m. National Retail Merchants Association n. National Retired Teachers o. National Student Lobby p. National Taxpayer's Union q. Public Interest Economics Center r. Ralph Nader's Congress Watch s. Sears Roebuck Co. t. Western Traffic Conference No Marxist organizations, I see. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
3 Killed in Bolivia Protest
http://www.dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?group=webcastsort=date_descrate=non epage=123 http://www.globalexchange.org/wbimf/Shultz.html 3 Killed in Bolivia Protest by peter myhre 5:58pm Sun Apr 9 '00 3 people were reported killed in Bolivia in separate clashes after police, armed with machine guns, rubber bullets and tear gas were deployed in several cities to quell a week of riots over rising water rates, unemployment and other economic problems 3 Killed in Bolivia Protest (full story and one comment) http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/04/09/bolivia.unrest/index.html
Re: Land Productivity
http://www.cup.org/ Mao's War Against Nature Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China Shapiro, Judith In clear and compelling prose, Judith Shapiro relates the great, untold story of the devastating impact of Chinese politics on China's environment during the Mao years. Maoist China provides an example of extreme human interference in the natural world in an era in which human relationships were also unusually distorted. Under Mao, the traditional Chinese ideal of harmony between heaven and humans was abrogated in favor of Mao's insistence that Man Must Conquer Nature. Mao and the Chinese Communist Party's war to bend the physical world to human will often had disastrous consequences both for human beings and the natural environment. Mao's War Against Nature argues that the abuse of people and the abuse of nature are often linked. Shapiro's account, told in part through the voices of average Chinese citizens and officials who lived through and participated in some of the destructive campaigns, is both eye-opening and heartbreaking. Judith Shapiro teaches environmental politics at American University in Washington, DC. She is co-author, with Liang Heng, of several well known books on China, including Son of the Revolution (Random House, 1984) and After the Nightmare (Knopf, 1986). She was one of the first Americans to work in China after the normalization of U.S.-China relations in 1979. SERIES NAME: Studies in Environment and History - Original Message - From: Ricardo Duchesne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 7:58 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11338] Land Productivity While P questions the western model of developmet, he still seeks to convince us that the Chinese model achieved the highest agricultural yields in the world due to their efficient land-saving practices. That they were as efficient, as rational, as developed, as powerful as the westerners. This is called polycentrism in world history. Never mind the poly, if you can show that either China, Japan, or India were as advanced as Europe, then you're ready to join the multicultural crowd and sing We are the World. What about the Africans? Well..Nubia, yes, that's right, it has a nice ring to it. But that's way back, isn't that Black Athena? That too should be included, and later there's the Songhay empire of West Africa, the largest state of modern Africa, including the Oyo Empire in Nigeria, Nupe, Igala, and Benin in the lower Niger valley, or the Hausa states of Northern Nigeria, and Kongo in central Africa. Other ethnic groups? Oh yes, there others like the Jahaanke of the Gambia-River Niger region; the Juula of northern Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, and Upper Niger River; the Wolof of Senegal; and the Awka and Aro of Iboland in Nigeria - they were also powerful and wealthy; they were the ethnic groups that facilitated and controlled the slave trade. We are all equal. A challenge to the western model this is not.
Re: Re: Land Productivity
http://www.cup.org/ Mao's War Against Nature Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China While P questions the western model of developmet, he still seeks to convince us that the Chinese model achieved the highest agricultural yields in the world due to their efficient land-saving practices. The Chinese model that Ricardo has been discussing for the past several weeks has been that of the 17th and 18th century. I do not believe that Mao was in power back then. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: RE: Airline deregulation
Michael Perelman wrote: David, if he does not do it on his own, you should prompt Doug Henwood to answer your question regarding the increasing use of the airlines. I haven't looked at the numbers in years, but when I did in the early 90s, there was virtually no difference in the number of passenger miles flown before and after dereg. Ditto fares per seat mile - though, because of quality declines (e.g., non-stops becoming one-stops, crummier meals, flying from New York to Chicago via Atlanta, tighter advance purchase restrictions, etc.), the airfare component of the CPI has increased at about twice the rate of general inflation. Doug
RE: Re: RE: Airline deregulation
In reply to Louis Proyect: - 1. Why, with the exception of United Airlines, did every major interstate airline testify against deregulation? And how come the legislation passed notwithstanding their opposition? Because they didn't recognize their own long-term class interests as well as bourgeois intellectuals such as Alfred Kahn did. This is the role of the intelligentsia, to raise such ideas. It is the role of the bourgeois state apparatus to then act upon it. FDR functioned in the same manner in the 1930s when he pushed for regulation. The last of the New Dealers, Ted Kennedy, was responding to the same class interests when he fought for deregulation. This is a very interesting theory you have. Whatever the government does, by definition, is in the long-term class interests of industry/business/bourgeois/guys who wear tophats/play golf, even if the industry strenuously opposes the government action. No wonder Marxist analysis is never wrong. 2. With respect to your criticisms of the present industry, nowhere do you point out that while the demand for air service has dramatically increased since deregulation, the supply or airports has not been increased to meet the demand (and airports are publicly controlled and owned entities in the United States). Even if this were feasible, it is not what we need. We need an expansion of high-speed rail. We also need to cut down on business travel. These fucking idiots sitting all around me on the airplanes every trip I take tapping away at their laptops are just an annoyance anyhow. Teleconferencing and high-speed trains, that's the ticket. -- Is this a Marxist analysis? Isn't teleconferencing just further evidence of the alienation caused by capitalism, because it interposes a technological intermediary that replaces direct interpersonal relationships. (I just made that up, pretty good, huh?). David Shemano
Re: RE: Re: RE: Airline deregulation
David Shemano: This is a very interesting theory you have. Whatever the government does, by definition, is in the long-term class interests of industry/business/bourgeois/guys who wear tophats/play golf, even if the industry strenuously opposes the government action. No wonder Marxist analysis is never wrong. Thank you. Is this a Marxist analysis? Isn't teleconferencing just further evidence of the alienation caused by capitalism, because it interposes a technological intermediary that replaces direct interpersonal relationships. (I just made that up, pretty good, huh?). I advocate even more alienation for the types of people who go on business trips. It should be mandatory that Stockhausen be played in the background when teleconferences are in session, while neon lights blink on and off. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: RE: Re: RE: Airline deregulation
David Shemano wrote: This is a very interesting theory you have. Whatever the government does, by definition, is in the long-term class interests of industry/business/bourgeois/guys who wear tophats/play golf, even if the industry strenuously opposes the government action. No wonder Marxist analysis is never wrong. The bourgeoisie as a whole could want one thing, and specific industrial or regional interests another. Happens all the time, doesn't it? The executive branch is supposed to act in the best interests of capital as a whole. Do you read the Politics Policy page of the Wall Street Journal, which has almost daily coverage of the role of big money in U.S. politics? Almost everything I read on that page confirms a Marxian understanding of how the state works. Doug
Re: Re: Land Productivity
Michael, I don't know what your point is. I hope that you are not starting a good Mao/bad Mao debate. I recall that when mainstream Western agricultural types first visited China after the Nixon visit, they were astounded by the way the Chinese were able to feed so many people on such poor land. On the other hand, China, like the U.S., displayed little awareness of some environmental problems. They used too many pesticides and dammed too many rivers. They also cut down too much wood. On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:33:34AM -0700, Michael Pugliese wrote: http://www.cup.org/ Mao's War Against Nature Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China Shapiro, Judith In clear and compelling prose, Judith Shapiro relates the great, untold story of the devastating impact of Chinese politics on China's environment during the Mao years. Maoist China provides an example of extreme human interference in the natural world in an era in which human relationships were also unusually distorted. Under Mao, the traditional Chinese ideal of harmony between heaven and humans was abrogated in favor of Mao's insistence that Man Must Conquer Nature. Mao and the Chinese Communist Party's war to bend the physical world to human will often had disastrous consequences both for human beings and the natural environment. Mao's War Against Nature argues that the abuse of people and the abuse of nature are often linked. Shapiro's account, told in part through the voices of average Chinese citizens and officials who lived through and participated in some of the destructive campaigns, is both eye-opening and heartbreaking. Judith Shapiro teaches environmental politics at American University in Washington, DC. She is co-author, with Liang Heng, of several well known books on China, including Son of the Revolution (Random House, 1984) and After the Nightmare (Knopf, 1986). She was one of the first Americans to work in China after the normalization of U.S.-China relations in 1979. SERIES NAME: Studies in Environment and History - Original Message - From: Ricardo Duchesne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 7:58 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11338] Land Productivity While P questions the western model of developmet, he still seeks to convince us that the Chinese model achieved the highest agricultural yields in the world due to their efficient land-saving practices. That they were as efficient, as rational, as developed, as powerful as the westerners. This is called polycentrism in world history. Never mind the poly, if you can show that either China, Japan, or India were as advanced as Europe, then you're ready to join the multicultural crowd and sing We are the World. What about the Africans? Well..Nubia, yes, that's right, it has a nice ring to it. But that's way back, isn't that Black Athena? That too should be included, and later there's the Songhay empire of West Africa, the largest state of modern Africa, including the Oyo Empire in Nigeria, Nupe, Igala, and Benin in the lower Niger valley, or the Hausa states of Northern Nigeria, and Kongo in central Africa. Other ethnic groups? Oh yes, there others like the Jahaanke of the Gambia-River Niger region; the Juula of northern Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, and Upper Niger River; the Wolof of Senegal; and the Awka and Aro of Iboland in Nigeria - they were also powerful and wealthy; they were the ethnic groups that facilitated and controlled the slave trade. We are all equal. A challenge to the western model this is not. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2001: RELEASED TODAY: The U.S. Import Price Index fell 0.5 percent in April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The monthly decrease was the third in a row and was attributable to falling prices for both petroleum and nonpetroleum imports. The Export Price Index was unchanged in April, after dipping 0.1 percent in March. New claims for state unemployment insurance dipped last week but still remained at a high level, suggesting employers' demand for workers continues to be weak. The Labor Department reported today that initial applications for jobless benefits dropped 41,000 to a seasonally adjusted 384,000 for the work week ending May 5. The last time jobless claims stood at 384,000 was July 4, 1998. Claims for the week ending May 5 were down from the week before, when a revised 425,000 claims were posted -- keeping claims at their highest level since March 23, 1996, when they stood at 428,000. But in the latest report, the more stable 4-week moving average of jobless claims, which smoothes out week-to-week fluctuations, was 402,500, a decrease of 3,000 from the previous week's revised average of 405,500 (Associated Press, http://www.latimes.com/wires/20010510/ap_jobless010510.htm). Many of the nation's retailers reported an improvement in sales for April, but Wall Street analysts don't see this as a reassuring sign that consumer spending is on the rebound. Rather, consumers are continuing to struggle with rising energy prices as well as a deepening economic malaise that are making them less confident about spending freely, analysts said (Associated Press, http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9254-2001May10.html). Sunny weather in April heated up purchases of spring apparel, lawn and garden equipment and sporting goods, leading to better-than-expected sales for many U.S. retailers, including industry leader Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wet, cold weather in March dampened consumers' appetite for spring clothing and other warm-weather items, resulting in a dismal sales month, but more seasonal spring weather returned to many parts of the U.S. in April (Reuters, http://wwwO.mercurycenter.com/business/bizwire/docs/11799721.htm). Leading forecasters still expect the U.S. economy to grow 2 percent his year, but have trimmed their predictions for growth next year to 3.1 percent from 3.5 percent 3 months ago, according to the National Association for Business Economics. The 27 forecasters taking part in the NABE panel believe there is a 35 percent chance of the economy slipping into recession this year, and only 25 percent next year, which is up modestly from the February survey, the report said. The survey was taken the last two weeks of April. The panelists attribute the economic slowdown to a classic inventory correction combined with the impact of last year's Federal Reserve interest-rate increases. They raised slightly their forecast for the unemployment rate this year -- to 4.5 percent from 4.4 percent earlier -- and to 4.7 for next year, compared to the 4.5 percent they had in February (Daily Labor Report, page A12). Business economists still say they believe that the United States will probably avoid recession this year, a quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economists found. Those surveyed said the Consumer Price Index would probably rise 3 percent in 2001, up from a 2.6 percent forecast in the previous survey, mainly because of higher energy costs, and 2.5 percent in 2002, unchanged from the last survey. Prices rose 3.4 percent last year (Bloomberg News, The New York Times, page C2). The Federal Pay Comparability Act sought to bring federal pay within 5 percent of private sector salaries over a 9-year period (1994-2002), writes Stephen Barr, in the Federal Diary (Washington Post, page B2). But the clock has essentially run out. The Bureau of Labor Statistics did not receive sufficient funding to produce the up-to-date wage surveys needed to calculate local pay adjustments. The bureau's efforts to gather the data from other surveys never took hold. Now, OMB and the Office of Personnel Management are stuck with mostly obsolete data for making pay comparability estimates. As a result, OMB designates an average percentage raise each year in the president's budget and earmarks a small part of the total as locality pay. A survey to be released today by the Employee Benefit Research Institute and others finds that fewer Americans are saving for retirement, fewer are confident that they will have sufficient funds to live comfortably in retirement, and fewer have tried to calculate how much money they need to save for later life. When asked in January and February of this year about their confidence in having enough money to live comfortably in retirement, 63 percent of those surveyed said they were very or somewhat confident, down from 72
Cherry Pick
Advert for my bud Bob Cherry's latest book -- mbs = WHO GETS THE GOOD JOBS? COMBATING RACE AND GENDER DISPARITIES What do liberals, moderates, and conservatives agree on: the importance of Robert Cherry's Who Gets the Good Jobs? Both affirmative action supporters and critics agree that the book advances our understanding of the issues that divide and those that unite all who seek a more equitable society. They applaud Cherry's efforts to balance the benefits of the free market with the role of government intervention. Building on his more than twenty years of research and political activism, Cherry synthesis theoretical, historical, and cultural material to shed new light and reach new understandings as to why discriminatory barriers faced by women, African Americans, and immigrants were able to persist even when they conflicted with profitability measures. He demonstrates how one can use these insights to judge how far the country has come since the 1960s civil rights legislation was enacted, and how far it has to go to completely eliminate race and gender disparities. Most importantly, he provides political guideposts so that we can stay on the correct path and not be led astray by righteous indignation or comfortable complacency. If one could summarize the book in three words, they would be balanced, honest, and insightful. The book reads like a novel. The ending is not what you would expect. Cherry threads together the truths of neo-classical economics and alternative perspectives to weave a colorful picture of the labor market. Robin Bartlett, Denison University Cherry's book challenges both the left and right to rethink our approaches to reducing racial and gender disparities. Cherry attempts to outline a middle ground, one that recognizes the role of government without demonizing market forces. Although his views are not always in harmony with my own, I applaud his attempt to reinvigorate the discussion. Cecilia Conrad, Pomona University Chapter 1 Deciding Who Gets The Good Jobs: The Nature of Labor Market Discrimination Chapter 2 The Profit Motive: How It Can Benefit the Powerless Chapter 3 It's Not Personal: When Hiring the Best Worker Isn't Profitable Chapter 4 Race Before Class: Jim Crow Employment Practices Chapter 5 Gender Before Class: Patriarchy, Capitalism, and Family Chapter 6 The Immigration Controversy: Who Wins and Who Loses Chapter 7 The Rising of Working Women: Race, Class, and Gender Matters Chapter 8 Jobs for Black Men: Missing in Action Chapter 9 Employment and Ownership Disparities: What Should the Government Do? Chapter 10 New Harmony, Not Religious Wars: How to Promote Diversity at Elite Universities Chapter 11 Setting Policy Priorities: What Works Best Politically
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Airline deregulation
Doug Henwood wrote: --- This is a very interesting theory you have. Whatever the government does, by definition, is in the long-term class interests of industry/business/bourgeois/guys who wear tophats/play golf, even if the industry strenuously opposes the government action. No wonder Marxist analysis is never wrong. The bourgeoisie as a whole could want one thing, and specific industrial or regional interests another. Happens all the time, doesn't it? The executive branch is supposed to act in the best interests of capital as a whole. Do you read the Politics Policy page of the Wall Street Journal, which has almost daily coverage of the role of big money in U.S. politics? Almost everything I read on that page confirms a Marxian understanding of how the state works. - I understood Mr. Proyect to be saying that while capitalists, as a whole, may have a subjective interest, their objective interest, as a whole, may be different. A kind of false consciousness of capitalists. That is a different point than your point, I think, which is that different capitalists have different interests. While steel companies want high steel prices, all other capitalists who use steel want low steel prices. Of course big money influences politics. Marxians share that insight with everybody else. However, to the extent that Marxists insist that the state represents capitalist interests, which in turn is manifested by big money contributions to politicians, how in the world did airline deregulation occur? The major airlines, a concentrated interest, almost all opposed deregulation and presumably made major contributions to politicians. (Opponents in Congress included John Danforth (R-MO), the Senator from TWA, and Elliott Levitas (D-GA), the Congressman from Delta.) Who supported deregulation? The capitalist intelligentsia and Ralph Nader? Again, if big money controls, how did airline deregulation occur? David Shemano
Re: Re: RE: Airline deregulation
David Shemano wrote: 1. Why, with the exception of United Airlines, did every major interstate airline testify against deregulation? And how come the legislation passed notwithstanding their opposition? I would guess that they opposed the legislation in order to make sure that the kind of deregulation that prevailed fit with their perceived profit needs. Of course, there were folks from other industries who lobbying for other kinds of deregulation that served _their_ needs, so there's nothing that says that the airlines' interests would automatically prevail. (This was a stagflationary period and advocates of deregulation such as Alfred Kahn touted their program as an anti-inflationary one. More generally, U.S. capitalism wasn't working very well -- i.e., the profit rate was depressed -- and a bunch of capitalist interest groups united in order to restructure the system to boost profitability. This movement really took power with Reagan.) The actual legislation that prevails depends on the interaction of the vectors of interests (backed by money) of the various industrial blocs and alliances.[*] (Actual citizens are woefully unrepresented in Washington, DC and often end up aligned with one industrial bloc or another.) In many ways, the established airlines -- that had been created by the Federal government cartel (the CAB) in an earlier era -- had a lot to lose from the kind of deregulation that was instituted, as new companies such as People Express entered. And lose they did: many of the old airlines are gone (TWA, Pan Am). Of course, most of the upstarts -- like People Express -- are also gone. United seems to have correctly predicted that they could survive the hurly-burly. They had the advantages of economies of scale, the financial resources, the political connections, etc. Despite the pretensions that deregulation would replace the old government-sponsored cartel with universally-beneficial competition, instead the final results seems to be a combination of local monopolies (at hubs and low-volume routes) and oligopoly (on high-volume routes). Workers and most consumers have been the losers, along with some shareholders (though if they were smart they would have diversified, so the losses were minor). In response to David's questions above, Louis Proyect writes: Because they didn't recognize their own long-term class interests as well as bourgeois intellectuals such as Alfred Kahn did. This is the role of the intelligentsia, to raise such ideas. It is the role of the bourgeois state apparatus to then act upon it. FDR functioned in the same manner in the 1930s when he pushed for regulation. The last of the New Dealers, Ted Kennedy, was responding to the same class interests when he fought for deregulation. David ripostes: This is a very interesting theory you have. Whatever the government does, by definition, is in the long-term class interests of industry/business/bourgeois/guys who wear tophats/play golf, even if the industry strenuously opposes the government action. No wonder Marxist analysis is never wrong. I can't speak for Louis, but the idea that whatever the government does, by definition, is in the long-term class interests of the bourgeoisie is a very simplistic version of the Marxian theory of the state. It's absolutely true, to my mind at least, that the state under capitalism works to serve the class interests of the capitalist class under normal conditions. These interests center around the preservation of class privileges, of capitalist property. (Sweezy's chapter on the state in his THEORY OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT is very good.) However, beyond that, capitalist class interests become vague, since the future is uncertain: no-one knew if Alfred Kahn's scheme would serve the long-term interests of capital at the time. We still don't know, but strictly speaking the nature of the long-term class interests of the capitalist class can only be determined after the fact (and the long-term implications of that scheme aren't all in yet). This opens the state to two kinds of deviations from what's good for capital. First, in the short run, in many cases, the short-term interests of particular power blocs within capital can dominate, going against what most people would agree are the long-term interests of capital. For example, a lot of George Dumbya's programs seem to go against what's good for capital. Continuing the slighting of public health by the Clinton administration, for example, risks the rise of plagues that hurt capitalists along with workers and could even shake the social order that allows the capitalists to exploit workers (though frankly such is likely to promote barbarism more than it does socialism). BTW, this picture of the general interest of capital vs. the particular interests of capitals is reflected (in a mystified form) in the mainstream liberal vision of the public interest vs. special
AAAAWWGGGG!!!
Today I discovered that the Jesuit saint that my college is named after, Robert Bellarmine, was the man who axed Galileo for heresy... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Fwd: Bush's proposed tax cuts
FYI: here's a letter I sent to the L.A. TIMES. As usual with such efforts, I toned down the politics in order to get it published. Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 13:58:57 -0700 To: Editors, Los Angeles TIMES [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bush's proposed tax cuts To the editors of the Los Angeles TIMES: Following the lead of Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury comic strip, recent letters to the TIMES have denounced President Bush's proposed tax cut, arguing that tax cuts in Texas led to financial problems there. I don't know about Texas, but we cannot generalize from that state's experience to the nation as a whole. Unlike Texas, the U.S. government can run significant budget deficits -- borrow money rather than paying for programs via taxes -- for years without suffering negative effects. Further, such deficits can create markets for business, possibly moderating any recession. As long as the U.S. economy is fundamentally healthy, creditors will be willing to lend to the federal government. The only problem occurs when the rise in government debt -- the result of any deficits it runs -- is faster than the growth of the economy as a whole. That was the result of the Reagan-era deficits (which were made worse by the high interest rates resulting from tight monetary policy then), which encouraged current anti-deficit fervor. But the problem is not the debt itself: that's mostly the asset of U.S. citizens. (If you don't believe me, send me all your savings bonds and T-bills!) Rather, the difficulty is with the interest payments that must be made on the outstanding debt, which make it hard to balance the budget, to cut taxes, or to expand programs. Remember that the government debt was extremely high during the 1950s and 1960s, a period which many now think of as a golden age of economic growth. And note that most people thought that running up that debt was a good idea at the time, since it helped the U.S. win World War II. Whether the government debt is a bad thing or not depends on how the borrowed money is spent: is it invested in ways that not only aid people but help long-term growth (for example, in education or public health) or is it wasted on fluff or dubious military schemes such as the National Missile Defense? It is true that a growing government debt to the rest of the world can represent a problem, since some of the economy's productions goes to pay the interest rather than to U.S. residents. But these days, the rise of the U.S. debt to foreign-based lenders -- due to the large deficit on the current account -- is due to profligate spending and borrowing by private individuals and corporations. The U.S. federal government is currently running a surplus and retiring part of its debt, moderating the rise of the U.S. debt to the world. While a Bush tax might reverse this moderation, it would not be the source of the problem. Instead of criticizing Bush's tax cut for causing an imaginary federal bankruptcy, we should focus on who benefits from the cuts. Why should the income and wealth gaps between the rich and poor (which have been widening for decades) be encouraged to expand further by giving the former a big cut? James Devine Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Airline deregulation
Why would you think that the airlines would necessarily be in lock step with big money in general. David, you keep referring to how marxists think. Marx himself distinguished between capital in general and specific capitals. Airline deregulation was a wedge. The airlines were non-competitive, unless competing by having stewardesses expose more skin counts as competition. The government protected them. Eliminating such protection appealed to consumers [Nader, eg.], business [who paid for travel], ideologues With deregulation, some routes became cheaper, San Francisco to LA. Some became much more expensive, Chico to San Francisco. On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:53:09PM -0700, David Shemano wrote: Again, if big money controls, how did airline deregulation occur? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Land Productivity
I had not been following this lengthy thread on Pomeranz. Michael Pugliese, Better Mao Than Never... - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:40 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11356] Re: Re: Land Productivity Michael, I don't know what your point is. I hope that you are not starting a good Mao/bad Mao debate. I recall that when mainstream Western agricultural types first visited China after the Nixon visit, they were astounded by the way the Chinese were able to feed so many people on such poor land. On the other hand, China, like the U.S., displayed little awareness of some environmental problems. They used too many pesticides and dammed too many rivers. They also cut down too much wood. On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:33:34AM -0700, Michael Pugliese wrote: http://www.cup.org/ Mao's War Against Nature Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China Shapiro, Judith In clear and compelling prose, Judith Shapiro relates the great, untold story of the devastating impact of Chinese politics on China's environment during the Mao years. Maoist China provides an example of extreme human interference in the natural world in an era in which human relationships were also unusually distorted. Under Mao, the traditional Chinese ideal of harmony between heaven and humans was abrogated in favor of Mao's insistence that Man Must Conquer Nature. Mao and the Chinese Communist Party's war to bend the physical world to human will often had disastrous consequences both for human beings and the natural environment. Mao's War Against Nature argues that the abuse of people and the abuse of nature are often linked. Shapiro's account, told in part through the voices of average Chinese citizens and officials who lived through and participated in some of the destructive campaigns, is both eye-opening and heartbreaking. Judith Shapiro teaches environmental politics at American University in Washington, DC. She is co-author, with Liang Heng, of several well known books on China, including Son of the Revolution (Random House, 1984) and After the Nightmare (Knopf, 1986). She was one of the first Americans to work in China after the normalization of U.S.-China relations in 1979. SERIES NAME: Studies in Environment and History - Original Message - From: Ricardo Duchesne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 7:58 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11338] Land Productivity While P questions the western model of developmet, he still seeks to convince us that the Chinese model achieved the highest agricultural yields in the world due to their efficient land-saving practices. That they were as efficient, as rational, as developed, as powerful as the westerners. This is called polycentrism in world history. Never mind the poly, if you can show that either China, Japan, or India were as advanced as Europe, then you're ready to join the multicultural crowd and sing We are the World. What about the Africans? Well..Nubia, yes, that's right, it has a nice ring to it. But that's way back, isn't that Black Athena? That too should be included, and later there's the Songhay empire of West Africa, the largest state of modern Africa, including the Oyo Empire in Nigeria, Nupe, Igala, and Benin in the lower Niger valley, or the Hausa states of Northern Nigeria, and Kongo in central Africa. Other ethnic groups? Oh yes, there others like the Jahaanke of the Gambia-River Niger region; the Juula of northern Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, and Upper Niger River; the Wolof of Senegal; and the Awka and Aro of Iboland in Nigeria - they were also powerful and wealthy; they were the ethnic groups that facilitated and controlled the slave trade. We are all equal. A challenge to the western model this is not. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Airline deregulation
Michael Perelman wrote: Why would you think that the airlines would necessarily be in lock step with big money in general. David, you keep referring to how marxists think. Marx himself distinguished between capital in general and specific capitals. Airline deregulation was a wedge. The airlines were non-competitive, unless competing by having stewardesses expose more skin counts as competition. The government protected them. Eliminating such protection appealed to consumers [Nader, eg.], business [who paid for travel], ideologues With deregulation, some routes became cheaper, San Francisco to LA. Some became much more expensive, Chico to San Francisco. -- I didn't say big money controls, Doug Henwood did. Go bother him. I think airline deregulation was a great idea. I think deregulating everything is a good idea -- I am an ideologue. But I look at the history of the 20th Century, and I see the power and scope of the state increasing everywhere. And, as a reader of Mancur Olson and other public choice theorists, I see the growth of the power and scope of the state as inherent in the state -- the logic of collective action -- so I am a pessimist. Therefore, I need to understand airline deregulation, because it doesn't fit the theory on its face -- it gives me hope. A regulatory agency -- the CAB -- actually argued, successfully, that it should be eliminated. A regulated and concentrated industry fought vociferously for years to prevent deregulation, and lost. The idea of deregulation was pushed by people without big money -- economists, ideologues, consumer groups, etc. (ok -- add in Southwest Airlines). This was, as Mr. Proyect implies, apparently a victory of ideas over money and concentrated interest, which makes no sense either under a Marxian analysis, or public choice theory. David Shemano
Re: RE: Re: Airline deregulation
This was, as Mr. Proyect implies, apparently a victory of ideas over money and concentrated interest, which makes no sense either under a Marxian analysis, or public choice theory. David Shemano === Are their any left Popperians in our game show audience today? :-) Ian
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Airline deregulation
David Shemano wrote: Of course big money influences politics. Marxians share that insight with everybody else. However, to the extent that Marxists insist that the state represents capitalist interests, which in turn is manifested by big money contributions to politicians, how in the world did airline deregulation occur? The major airlines, a concentrated interest, almost all opposed deregulation and presumably made major contributions to politicians. (Opponents in Congress included John Danforth (R-MO), the Senator from TWA, and Elliott Levitas (D-GA), the Congressman from Delta.) Who supported deregulation? The capitalist intelligentsia and Ralph Nader? Again, if big money controls, how did airline deregulation occur? Support for dereg was common in the 1970s, both to promote competitiveness (before the word was fashionable) and to bring down inflation. It was an important part of the right-wing agenda that was taking hold of U.S. elites in the 1970s. Brookings and AEI were supporting it, as were Ralph Nader and William Simon. Greg Tarpinian of the Labor Research Association used to say that Teddy Kennedy promoted air and trucking dereg because he came from a merchant capital family - bootleggers - and merchants always want to minimize transportation costs. Doug
Re: RE: Re: Airline deregulation
This was, as Mr. Proyect implies, apparently a victory of ideas over money and concentrated interest, which makes no sense either under a Marxian analysis, or public choice theory. David Shemano You have misinterpreted me. I tried to explain that deregulation of the airline industry expressed, as one of my source books put it, the myth of laissez faire. The free market is only an idea. Real capitalism moves forward by smashing competition. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: RE: Re: Airline deregulation
=== Are their any left Popperians in our game show audience today? :-) Ian == Dag; grammatically addled again..time for a nap Ian
Re: RE: Re: Airline deregulation
I didn't say big money controls, Doug Henwood did. Go bother him. Eh? Of course big money influences politics. Marxians share that insight with everybody else. I think deregulating everything is a good idea -- I am an ideologue. But I look at the history of the 20th Century, and I see the power and scope of the state increasing everywhere. And, as a reader of Mancur Olson and other public choice theorists, I see the growth of the power and scope of the state as inherent in the state -- the logic of collective action -- so I am a pessimist. Therefore, I need to understand airline deregulation, because it doesn't fit the theory on its face -- it gives me hope. Hope of what, exactly? Dereg is supposed to bring lower prices and more competition. But neither of these has happened. I suppose this goes with being an ideologue, but why is this kind of competition good if even the things that boosters say are good about it don't come about? Marx's theory of the state is notoriously incomplete. I don't know if you'd get anywhere with it, especially in this case, if it weren't supplemented with some kind of Gramscian notion of hegemony. I haven't studied the lit of the period, but I'd be surprised if the reps of the airline industry didn't understood full well the _malign_ invisible hand, and rightly feared it. The utopian idea of ruthless competition, while noble in pedigree, surely hasn't always enjoyed the cachet that it currently does. Christian
RE: Re: RE: Re: Airline deregulation
In reply to Christian Gregory --- I think deregulating everything is a good idea -- I am an ideologue. But I look at the history of the 20th Century, and I see the power and scope of the state increasing everywhere. And, as a reader of Mancur Olson and other public choice theorists, I see the growth of the power and scope of the state as inherent in the state -- the logic of collective action -- so I am a pessimist. Therefore, I need to understand airline deregulation, because it doesn't fit the theory on its face -- it gives me hope. Hope of what, exactly? Dereg is supposed to bring lower prices and more competition. But neither of these has happened. I suppose this goes with being an ideologue, but why is this kind of competition good if even the things that boosters say are good about it don't come about? Hope of what? The withering away of the state, of course. Don't you hope for that? Did deregulation accomplish its goals? Depends on how you define the goals and success, I suppose. See, for instance, http://www.cato.org//pubs/regulation/regv21n2/airline2-98.pdf -- Marx's theory of the state is notoriously incomplete. I don't know if you'd get anywhere with it, especially in this case, if it weren't supplemented with some kind of Gramscian notion of hegemony. I haven't studied the lit of the period, but I'd be surprised if the reps of the airline industry didn't understood full well the _malign_ invisible hand, and rightly feared it. The utopian idea of ruthless competition, while noble in pedigree, surely hasn't always enjoyed the cachet that it currently does. -- I should like to be able to say that TWA is not afraid of deregulation, of market entry. I cannot. Charles C. Tillinghast Jr. of TWA, April 2, 1977. David Shemano
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Airline deregulation
Deregulation surely does not minimize transportation costs for smaller communities and to distant communities. For them deregulation is often a disaster. Before deregulation many smaller cities had to be served as the price airlines had to pay for lucrative routes. Now these cities have to beg airlines to serve them and even when they are served fares are high, and there is no competition at all. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 5:51 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11367] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Airline deregulation David Shemano wrote: Of course big money influences politics. Marxians share that insight with everybody else. However, to the extent that Marxists insist that the state represents capitalist interests, which in turn is manifested by big money contributions to politicians, how in the world did airline deregulation occur? The major airlines, a concentrated interest, almost all opposed deregulation and presumably made major contributions to politicians. (Opponents in Congress included John Danforth (R-MO), the Senator from TWA, and Elliott Levitas (D-GA), the Congressman from Delta.) Who supported deregulation? The capitalist intelligentsia and Ralph Nader? Again, if big money controls, how did airline deregulation occur? Support for dereg was common in the 1970s, both to promote competitiveness (before the word was fashionable) and to bring down inflation. It was an important part of the right-wing agenda that was taking hold of U.S. elites in the 1970s. Brookings and AEI were supporting it, as were Ralph Nader and William Simon. Greg Tarpinian of the Labor Research Association used to say that Teddy Kennedy promoted air and trucking dereg because he came from a merchant capital family - bootleggers - and merchants always want to minimize transportation costs. Doug
Re: Airline deregulation
Why you can fly from Chico to San Francisco for a little less than $200. More than 1$ per mile in a tiny plane. On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 12:15:02AM -0500, Ken Hanly wrote: Deregulation surely does not minimize transportation costs for smaller communities and to distant communities. For them deregulation is often a disaster. Before deregulation many smaller cities had to be served as the price airlines had to pay for lucrative routes. Now these cities have to beg airlines to serve them and even when they are served fares are high, and there is no competition at all. --- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Berezhovsky backs liberalism
The relationship between the economic base and the superstructure, between money and politics, is as transparent in Russia as anywhere in the world. Follow the money, could well be a marxist principle. Boris Berezhovsky, in prudent self-imposed exile, says he is 100% prepared to finance a new political party to oppose Putin, his former creature. Berezhovsky ... has sought in recent months to reinvent himself as a democratic activist ... Previously known more as a Kremlin insider than a defender of human rights, Mr. Berezovsky has opened a $25 million foundation that is bankrolling everything from an electronic archive of Stalin's victims to the museum that honors the late dissident Andrei Sakharov. Last month, he offered his television network as a refuge for protesting journalists who quit NTV rather than submit to a takeover by a state-controlled energy company. (International Herald Tribune IHT) BB: 'Putin is really destroying what we created in the last ten years.' The new party will be dedicated to 'liberalism'. Chris Burford London
